Climate change is bad for everyone. But this is where it’s expected to be worst in the US.

USA Today

Climate change is bad for everyone. But this is where it’s expected to be worst in the US.

Dinah Voyles Pulver, USA TODAY – May 7, 2023

If you’re thinking about a long-term real estate investment or shopping for a place to settle down for 20 or 30 years, you might be wondering which cities or states could fare better than others in a changing climate.

“There are no winners in a world where climate change gets worse,” said Alex Kamins, director of regional economics at Moody’s Analytics and author of a recent study on climate risks in the United States.

Climate change is ramping up the long-term risk almost everywhere, said Kamins and others. Temperatures are increasing. Oceans are warming, and rising. And scientists say the heat and higher sea levels help make some natural disasters more extreme.

The impacts vary widely over time and space, so it’s difficult to make a definitive ranking that says “buy here, not there,” but a growing body of evidence helps highlight some general trends.

USA TODAY looked at data from First Street and Moody’s Analytics – two organizations examining future climate risk – to see what areas of the country are most at risk from these climate impacts over the next 30 years.

Insurers and mortgage companies are asking the same kinds of questions, Kamins said. Banks are being asked to “stress test their portfolios in preparation for the impact of climate change.”

While locations with the greatest risks seem obvious – think Florida – others might surprise you.

Here’s your guide to what, when and where you can expect climate change impacts to be the worst in the U.S.

Each region sees risks

Climate change will have uneven impacts on the U.S. in coming decades. Some areas may experience more heat, more flooding, more extreme storms, or more intense wildfires – or all of the above.

The U.S. won’t see any locations underwater or wiped off the map over the next 30 years, Kamins said, but access to fresh water and insurance premiums will become bigger challenges.

“Every year it becomes increasingly crystal clear, just the amount of risk that we face, whether it’s increasingly severe natural disasters or droughts and heat risk,” he said. “In some cases it’s creating renewed momentum or brand new momentum for governments and businesses that hadn’t been thinking seriously about the impact of climate change before.”

Everyone loses out if others are impacted, because we all rely on goods and services from other states and countries,  said climate scientist Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s a domino effect.”

East Coast: Wind, flooding and sea level rise stack the deck against many counties and states, especially Florida and the Carolinas, Kamins said. Bustling economies and distance to the beach still attract people in droves, but at some point the tide literally will turn against communities along beaches and coastal rivers.

Southwest: Heat and fire bring increasing risks, particularly in Arizona, he said, even without factoring in the perils of a dwindling water supply.

Interior: Intense heat may affect these states the most in runaway warming scenarios, Mann said. Sudden downpours with unprecedented rain also are occurring more often, even though these states aren’t in hurricane-prone coastal areas. One study he co-authored showed some of the greatest risk of heat stress could be in urban areas in the Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes.

Idaho to Minnesota: A swath of states across the northern U.S. look better than most, with less-pronounced risks, Kamins said. Recent statistics on an influx of newcomers to Idaho and its burgeoning tech hub in Boise show people may be figuring that out. He expects Montana may be the next frontier within 10-20 years.

What are the causes of climate change? How can it be stopped?

What are the effects of climate change? Disasters, weather and agriculture impacts.

States that may face more climate change risk sooner

Texas – Its sheer size and geography means Texas has a lot of risk. First Street’s data shows some of its counties are at great risk of wildfire, some face higher potential losses from tropical cyclone winds and some have greater flood risks. The Lone Star State leads the nation in billion-dollar disasters, according to information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It averages 5.3 such events a year, double the number it experienced in the previous 20, even adjusted for inflation.

Florida – 8,346 miles of shoreline, surrounded on three sides by water. Need we say more? Rising sea levels and extreme rainfall fueled by warming oceans, with the potential for more intense hurricanes while more people crowd into densely populated areas, increase the risks. Florida has the most top spots on First Street’s list of counties that could see the biggest increases in the number of days with the very warmest temperatures they experience today.

New Jersey – The Garden State has counties among the top of First Street’s lists for potential increases in average annual wind losses, extreme fire risk and properties at risk of flooding. New Jersey suffered three hurricanes or their remnants in 2021-22, including Hurricane Ida, Hurricane Henri and the final vestiges of Hurricane Ian. Forecasts for higher winds from more tropical cyclones and hurricanes aren’t good news.

California – Over the past three years, the state has seen its largest wildfire season in history, its worst drought in 1,200 years and a string of record-setting atmospheric rivers. Golden State residents need no reminder of the risks they face, but First Street’s data shows some California counties high on its lists for most extreme fire risk and some cities with the greatest percentage of residential properties at risk of flooding.

Which states did Moody’s Analytics find face the greatest physical risks?

When it comes to weather-related events, hurricanes are literally the heavy hitters when accounting for acute physical risk. Climate change already is cranking up the rain in some tropical storms and hurricanes and could be slowing them down over land but that research is still underway, scientists say. Floods and wildfires also figured into Kamins’ assessment of physical risks. Here’s his list:

  • Florida
  • Louisiana
  • South Carolina
  • North Carolina
  • Delaware
  • Rhode Island
  • New Jersey
  • Virginia
  • Massachusetts
  • Connecticut

Other locations suffer from change happening over time rather than in single headline-grabbing events. Think the creep of rising sea levels or warmer nights and higher average temperatures.

San Francisco faces above average risk across these categories and more, and is the nation’s most exposed large city, Kamins said.

Brown pelicans fly in front of the San Francisco skyline on August 17, 2018 in San Francisco, California.
Brown pelicans fly in front of the San Francisco skyline on August 17, 2018 in San Francisco, California.

It’s one of those urban areas where residents aren’t used to temperature extremes and many homes don’t have air conditioning, he said. In a world where temperatures rise 5-10 degrees, unlike Floridians, San Francisco residents are ill-equipped for dealing with heat and it could be economically damaging.

Other cities with more gradually increasing risk on the Moody’s Analytics list are:

Southeastern metropolitan areas are particularly risky because they’re experiencing rising sea levels and higher temperatures, in addition to a parade of cyclones that could be growing more intense, according to Kamins’ study. The top 10:

  • Jacksonville, NC
  • New Bern, NC
  • Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Wilmington, NC
  • Greenville, NC
  • Charleston, SC
  • Punta Gorda, FL
  • Deltona, FL
  • San Juan, PR
  • Palm Bay, FL
  • Goldsboro, NC
Billion dollar disaster data helps point to states already paying the price as the climate changes.

If there’s any doubt about risks from future climate change, look no further than NOAA’s list of the weather and climate disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damages.

At least 37 states suffered twice the number of billion dollar disasters this century than during the previous 20-years.

Tornado activity appears to be expanding in the Mid-South, with more frequent outbreaks, and a USA TODAY investigation showed extreme rainfall events are occurring more often along the Mississippi River Valley. Scientists say both trends may be linked to the warming Gulf of Mexico.

USA TODAY Investigation How a summer of extreme weather reveals a stunning shift in the way rain falls in America.

But it’s not just weather events causing the disaster toll to rise, NOAA said. More extreme weather events take a greater toll when population and development increase in vulnerable areas.

“Where you live is important, but how you live is just as important,” said Stephen Strader, a meteorologist and associate professor at Villanova University. “There are things we can do to better prepare our current developments for climate change.”

Billion dollar disaster events per year since 2001 (More than 3):

  • Texas – 5.3
  • Illinois – 3.9
  • Georgia – 3.7
  • Oklahoma – 3.6
  • Missouri – 3.5
  • North Carolina – 3.4
  • Alabama – 3.3
  • Tennessee – 3.3
  • Virginia – 3.2
  • Kansas – 3.1
  • Mississippi – 3.1

More than 300% increase in billion dollar disaster events per year since 2000:

  • Arizona – 500%
  • Wyoming – 450%
  • Utah – 400%
  • New Mexico – 367%
  • Nevada – 335%
  • Nebraska – 320%
  • Colorado – 300%
  • Wisconsin – 300%

When considering future scenarios, it’s important to note much remains within the world’s control, Mann said.

With substantial action to hold warming below 3 degrees F, “we can limit the worsening of extreme weather events,” although sea level increases would already be locked in, he said. A lack of action would mean “impacts in the interior of our continent could be every bit as bad.”

How taking action could help On Earth Day, scientists tell us what 2050 could be like. Their answers might surprise you.

Florida and Louisiana are borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to cope with hurricane insurance claims

Quartz

Florida and Louisiana are borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to cope with hurricane insurance claims

Aurora Almendral – May 4, 2023

In an emergency financial maneuver, the state-chartered insurance associations of Florida and Louisiana have been forced to borrow a combined $1.3 billion to cover insurance claims caused by worsening hurricanes.

The nonprofit insurance associations were already a backstop measure, stepping in after 2022’s Hurricane Ian drove insurance companies in the Gulf Coast into failure, causing the cancellation of tens of thousands of homeowners’ policies and leaving millions in unpaid claims.

But those unpaid claims were so high that the associations have had to turn to emergency borrowing of hundreds of millions of dollars at significant interest rates. “We’re currently in the midst of an insurance crisis,” Jim Donelon, Louisiana’s insurance commissioner, said in a news briefing. The crisis is “largely…a result of hurricane activity in our state the last couple of years.”

A home destroyed by Hurricane Delta in Louisiana.
A home destroyed by Hurricane Delta in Louisiana.
Climate change is making insurance more expensive along the US Gulf Coast

As interest rates have risen over the past year, borrowing has become more expensive. Louisiana has taken on debt of $600 million to cover hurricane insurance claims, for instance, and will pay at least $275 million in interest between now and 2038 (pdf).

The increased burden of debt, including the high borrowing costs, will be shouldered by Florida and Louisiana residents in the form of higher premiums for homeowners’ insurance as well as higher costs for auto and theft insurance.

A study published in April confirmed that climate change is making hurricanes stronger, and will cause more catastrophic storms to hit the US East and Gulf Coasts in the coming decades.

“This is an extraordinary event for us,” John Wells, executive director of the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association, the state-chartered association, said of the emergency borrowing. “What everybody has to come to terms with is how much it takes to cover catastrophic losses.”

Climate change is causing property insurance markets to collapse

Insurance companies are built on their ability to predict loss. But worsening disasters are injecting more uncertainty into calculations, and insurers in the most climate-affected areas are struggling to cope with it.

Reinsurance companies, which help insurers deal with catastrophes, have been fleeing high-risk areas, particularly those prone to wildfires or flooding.

“Just as the US economy was overexposed to mortgage risk in 2008, the economy today is overexposed to climate risk,” Eric Andersen, president of Aon PLC, one of the world’s largest insurance brokers, said during a Senate hearing in March.

California’s wildfires are also driving an insurance crisis, causing higher premiums and lower coverage limits—if property owners can get coverage at all—as insurers withdraw from the market.

In the Gulf Coast, analysts are warning that more insurers could become insolvent before hurricane season starts again on June 1.

Large portion of Florida under red flag warning. What’s that mean?

The Florida Times – Union

Large portion of Florida under red flag warning. What’s that mean?

Cheryl McCloud, Florida Times-Union – May 3, 2023

red flag warning is in effect for much of Florida today.

The warning is in effect for Northeast and Central Florida from noon to 7 p.m. In some locations, the warning is in effect until 8 p.m., according to the National Weather Service.

Low humidity, breezy winds and critically dry conditions prompted the warning.

Winds of 15 mph are expected to be out of the west today, with gusts up to 25 mph. Relative humidity is forecast to be 20 percent to 30 percent.

Giant mats lurk off Florida: Giant mats of sargassum are off Florida coast and have beached in spurts but will peak soon

What to know about sargassum: Sargassum seaweed being seen in Florida. Here’s where it’s going and when it will be worst

What is a red flag warning?
Much of Florida is under a red flag warning May 3, 2023.
Much of Florida is under a red flag warning May 3, 2023.

A red flag warning means warm temperatures, very low humidity, and stronger winds are expected to combine to produce an increased risk of fire danger, according to the National Weather Service.

Conditions also can cause reignition of any smoldering fires started by recent lightning strikes.

What are the dangers with a red flag warning?

Wildfires can grow quickly under these conditions.

What Florida counties are under a burn ban?
Conditions in Florida prompted a red flag warning for much of the state May 3, 2023. Burn bans in effect.
Conditions in Florida prompted a red flag warning for much of the state May 3, 2023. Burn bans in effect.

The Florida Forest Service reports the following counties are under a burn ban as of May 1:

  • Citrus
  • Collier
  • Desoto
  • Glades
  • Hendry
  • Hernando
  • Highlands
  • Lee
  • Pasco
  • Polk

Burning of yard debris is prohibited year-round under county ordinance in these locations:

  • Duval
  • Hillsborough
  • Pinellas
  • Sarasota
How dry is it in Florida?
Florida rainfall around the state from Jan. 1 through March 31, 2023.
Florida rainfall around the state from Jan. 1 through March 31, 2023.

As La Niña  continues to make itself felt, for the southeastern U.S., that includes a dry and warm winter and a potentially active wildfire season for Florida, according to the Florida Forest Service.

A combination of above-average temperatures and below-average precipitation was in the forecast throughout all North Florida through March.

There may be good news on the horizon: The drought coverage and intensity may have peaked across Florida in recent past weeks, according to the Climate Prediction Center. 

What should you do when under a red flag warning?
  • If you are allowed to burn in your area, all burn barrels must be covered with a weighted metal cover, with holes no larger than 3/4 of an inch.
  • Do not throw cigarettes or matches out of a moving vehicle. They may ignite dry grass on the side of the road and become a wildfire.
  • Extinguish all outdoor fires properly. Drown fires with plenty of water and stir to make sure everything is cold to the touch. Dunk charcoal in water until cold. Do not throw live charcoal on the ground and leave it.
  • Never leave a fire unattended. Sparks or embers can blow into leaves or grass, ignite a fire, and quickly spread.
Where are active wildfires in Florida?

There are 42 active fires covering more than 5,000 acres currently across the state. The Florida Forest Service maintains a map showing the location, size and percentage contained of current wildfires.

Cancer-causing toxins are in shampoos, body lotions, and cleaning products. Here’s what experts want you to know

Fortune

Cancer-causing toxins are in shampoos, body lotions, and cleaning products. Here’s what experts want you to know

Robin Dodson, Ruthann Rudel, Megan R. Schwarzman, The Conversation – May 2, 2023

Getty Images

The big idea

Consumer products released more than 5,000 tons of chemicals in 2020 inside California homes and workplaces that are known to cause cancer, adversely affect sexual function and fertility in adults or harm developing fetuses, according to our newly published study.

We found that many household products like shampoos, body lotions, cleaners and mothballs release toxic volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, into indoor air. In addition, we identified toxic VOCs that are prevalent in products heavily used by workers on the job, such as cleaning fluids, adhesives, paint removers and nail polish. However, gaps in laws that govern ingredient disclosure mean that neither consumers nor workers generally know what is in the products they use.

For this study we analyzed data from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which tracks VOCs released from consumer products in an effort to reduce smog. The agency periodically surveys companies that sell products in California, collecting information on concentrations of VOCs used in everything from hair spray to windshield wiper fluid.

We cross-referenced the most recent data with a list of chemicals identified as carcinogens or reproductive/developmental toxicants under California’s right-to-know law, Proposition 65. This measure, enacted in 1986, requires businesses to notify Californians about significant exposure to chemicals that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harms.

We found 33 toxic VOCs present in consumer products. Over 100 consumer products covered by the CARB contain VOCs listed under Prop 65.

Of these, we identified 30 product types and 11 chemicals that we see as high priorities for either reformulation with safer alternatives or regulatory action because of the chemicals’ high toxicity and widespread use.

Why it matters

Our study identifies consumer products containing carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxicants that are widely used at home and in the workplace. Consumers have limited information about these products’ ingredients.

We also found that people are likely co-exposed to many hazardous chemicals together as mixtures through use of many different products, which often contain many chemicals of health concern. For example, janitors might use a combination of general cleaners, degreasers, detergents and other maintenance products. This could expose them to more than 20 different Prop 65-listed VOCs.

Similarly, people experience aggregate exposures to the same chemical from multiple sources. Methanol, which is listed under Prop 65 for developmental toxicity, was found in 58 product categories. Diethanolamine, a chemical frequently used in products like shampoos that are creamy or foamy, appeared in 40 different product categories. Canada and the European Union prohibit its use in cosmetics because it can react with other ingredients to form chemicals that may cause cancer.

Some chemicals, such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone and ethylene gylcol, are listed under Prop 65 because they are reproductive or developmental toxicants. Yet they appeared widely in goods such as personal care products, cleansers and art supplies that are routinely used by children or people who are pregnant.

Our findings could help state and federal agencies strengthen chemical regulations. We identified five chemicals – cumene, 1,3-dichloropropene, diethanolamine, ethylene oxide and styrene – as high-priority targets for risk evaluation and management under the Toxic Substances Control Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

What still isn’t known

Our analysis of the CARB data on volatile toxicants does not paint a complete picture. Many toxic chemicals, such as lead, PFAS and bisphenol A (BPA), don’t have to be reported to the Air Resources Board because they are not volatile, meaning that they don’t readily turn from liquid to gas at room temperature.

In addition, we were not able to identify specific products of concern because the agency aggregates data over whole categories of products.

What other research is being done

Studies have shown that women generally use more cosmetic, personal care and cleaning products than men, so they are likely to be more highly exposed to harmful chemicals in these categories. Further, women working in settings like nail salons may be exposed from products used both personally and professionally.

Research by members of our team has also shown that product use varies by race and ethnicity, partly due to racialized beauty standards. Policy interventions could be tailored to prioritize these potentially more-highly exposed groups.

Ultimately, a right-to-know law like Prop 65 can only go so far in addressing toxics in products. We’ve found in other research that some manufacturers do choose to reformulate their products to avoid Prop 65 chemicals, rather than having to warn customers about toxic ingredients.

But Prop 65 does not ban or restrict any chemicals, and there is no requirement for manufacturers to choose safer substitutes. We believe our new analysis points to the need for national action that ensures consumers and workers alike have safer products.

Dr. Kristin Knox at the Silent Spring Institute contributed to this article.

Robin Dodson, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Boston UniversityMegan R. Schwarzman, Associate Project Scientist and Continuing Lecturer in Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, and Ruthann Rudel, Visiting Scholar, Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, Northeastern University, Northeastern University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Florida’s insurance crisis: 2 special sessions, little help | Commentary

Orlando Sentinel

Florida’s insurance crisis: 2 special sessions, little help | Commentary

Scott Maxwell, Orlando Sentinel – May 2, 2023

For years, Florida lawmakers ignored a looming insurance crisis.

Then, with rates skyrocketing and companies fleeing the state, they scrambled to call not one, but two special sessions, vowing to help.

Well, my wife and I saw what the Legislature’s version of help looks like a few months ago when our insurance bill jumped from $4,000 to $7,000.

Any more “help “like that and we’ll be eating cat food.

In reality, we’ll be just fine. But a growing number of Floridians are facing bills they can barely afford as prices skyrocket throughout the state.

The Insurance Information Institute predicted increases of 40% throughout Florida this year. Some companies have requested 60% hikes. And scores of Floridians are still being dropped by their carriers while the state-run Citizens Property Insurance keeps bloating.

This is an undeniable, mounting mess.

So once again, GOP legislators – who have spent the better part of the past two years waging culture wars – have cobbled together another insurance bill.

But if you’re counting on this lowering your rates, bad news: It will not.

That’s not my take. It’s the take of former GOP Sen. Jeff Brandes – one of the few lawmakers who repeatedly warned his colleagues to take action years ago and was largely ignored.

“Nothing in this bill lowers rates,” Brandes, who now runs the Florida Policy Project, said this week. “Nothing in this bill encourages more companies to come.”

Brandes and I have differing views on some aspects of reform – particularly as it relates to the transparency measures and regulations that subsidized insurance companies should face.

But we agree on three key things:

1. Despite years of yapping about fraud claims driving up costs and rates, Florida lawmakers have never cracked down on bad actors in any meaningful fashion.

2. The solutions they’re talking about now aren’t going to do much, if anything, to bring down rates.

3. Any meaningful solution – in a state like ours that’s basically a bullseye for hurricanes and increasingly at risk of flooding – is going to involve a boatload of public money.

Brandes and I may have varied thoughts on how that money should be spent. But the reality is that this problem – where the state-run insurance company is now covering millions of Floridians at increasingly high rates – requires a major investment and serious policy reform.

And that’s not good news for a Legislature that specializes in divisive bumper-sticker priorities – dragging Disney, fuming about drag queens and decrying wokeism.

When it comes to hard, serious policy work, they are either unwilling or incapable of getting the job done. At least when it comes to insurance.

A clear example of that is fraud. For years, lawmakers have blamed fraudulent claims for driving up insurance costs and driving companies out of the state. But they haven’t done squat from an enforcement standpoint.

“If you want talent in the Office of Insurance Regulation – which should be one of the most talented in the state – you have to pay for it,” Brandes said.

That seems obvious. If your city had a rash of burglaries, you’d beef up your burglary patrol. But Florida politicians have whined about fraud without ever dedicating serious resources to exposing, punishing and stopping it.

If they can set up a statewide election-crime police force to deal with fever-dream problems, you’d think they’d beef up their insurance team to deal with an actual financial nightmare.

But to really bring down prices, we need more competition among providers. Or we need to invest more in Citizens – and basically accept that a giant, costly state-run insurance company is the only way we’re going to be able to cover everyone in a state that’s both storm-ravaged and low-wage.

Few people really want that second option. Certainly not Brandes. But many of us aren’t super keen either on just handing over tax dollars to an industry with a track record of hosing its policy holders.

Just a few weeks ago, the Washington Post published a maddening investigative report that found Florida insurance companies were financially victimizing hurricane survivors by gutting their claims and payments – sometimes by as much as 90% of what the companies’ own adjusters said the homeowners were due. The piece featured an adjuster who said one insurance company took his report – which estimated $200,000 in valid claims for one home – and whittled it down to just $27,000 without his knowledge or consent.

Brandes prefers offering companies incentives to write Florida policies. That may be worth exploring – with a lot of checks and balances added in.

But here’s the bottom line: Either scenario – majorly subsidizing private industries or growing/transforming Citizens into something like a Florida version of Medicare for homeowners – is painful. They’re both costly, politically unpopular and involve a lot of hard work.

Unfortunately, most Florida politicians don’t want to do hard work or make unpopular moves. So they just keep screaming about critical race theory and transgender athletes. And while they scream, your rates keep rising.

I think we’re heading toward a pain point – where even the Floridians who used to laugh at the culture wars are going to stop laughing once they realize they can barely afford to stay in their homes. That may be when they start finally putting people in office who are more interested in solving problems than creating them.

Manchin’s ‘playing with fire’ — and some Democrats are tired of the drama

Politico

Manchin’s ‘playing with fire’ — and some Democrats are tired of the drama

Josh Siegel – May 1, 2023

Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/AP Photo

Sen. Joe Manchin is losing patience with his fellow Democrats over their signature climate law — and the feeling is mutual.

The West Virginia Democrat has spent weeks escalating his attacks on President Joe Biden’s implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping bill that Manchin helped write in a deal that stunned Washington last summer. Last week, he threatened to join Republicans in voting to repeal the law, as the House GOP is demanding in its legislation for raising the nation’s debt limit.

Manchin’s comment caught his caucus colleagues off guard, even if such a repeal would be a long shot in Congress. It came just as Biden was launching a reelection campaign that rests heavily on that legislation’s climate and health care provisions.

“That surprises me that he wants to repeal it. I think it’s one of his greatest accomplishments,” said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a close colleague of Manchin’s on the Energy Committee, in an interview.

The IRA is far less of a political bright spot for Manchin, whose potential reelection hopes are clouded by growing disapproval ratings in his home state, partly driven by his support for the law. Manchin has yet to announce whether he’s running, but a formidable challenger entered the West Virginia Senate race last week — GOP Gov. Jim Justice.

Manchin’s fellow Democrats understand that his reelection could determine whether they retain their slim 51-seat Senate majority in 2024. But they are also growing weary of his attacks against their marquee climate law — even if they’ve come to expect it and know there’s little they can do to change his mind. And his votes against Democratic policies and Biden nominees have already complicated his party’s agenda in the 51-49 Senate.

Some Democrats fear that Manchin’s criticisms will do real damage by confusing the public about one of the law’s most debated-provisions: its $7,500 tax credits for electric vehicles. He has accused the Treasury Department of violating the law by flouting strict provisions he wrote designed to force electric vehicles to be made in the U.S. with American-made parts.

“When you’re Joe Manchin it never hurts to be seen butting heads with the administration, but I think this is genuine umbrage over the fact Congressional intent seems pretty clear, even if the statutory construction left room for Treasury to maneuver,” said Liam Donovan, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell who previously worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “And given that he would not have been on board for the bill at all had this been the understanding, it reads as a personal betrayal.”

Democrats counter that the administration has been doing its best to balance the IRA’s competing goals of lowering the cost of electric vehicles while promoting U.S. manufacturing and jobs.

“Fifty of us agree that [boosting electric vehicle deployment] is a priority,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said in an interview. “The law is what it is. If he doesn’t like implementation he can run for president.”

Manchin in recent weeks has also joined Republicans in supporting resolutions they’ve brought up for a vote disapproving of the administration’s energy and environmental policies, most recently on Wednesday when he was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans in overturning an EPA regulation on emissions from heavy-duty trucks.

Manchin also co-sponsored Sen. Rick Scott‘s (R-Fla.) resolution to undo Biden’s suspension of solar power tariffs, which could come up for a vote this week after passing the House on a bipartisan basis Friday.

And Manchin, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, has also expressed his ire with the administration by torpedoing a series of Biden’s nominees, including Richard Glick to chair the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Laura Daniel-Davis, Biden’s pick for assistant Interior secretary for land and minerals management, and Gigi Sohn as a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

The White House has supported fossil fuel projects that Manchin has backed — angering environmentalists — including the Willow oil and Alaska LNG projects, as well as the Mountain Valley Pipeline that would deliver natural gas produced in West Virginia.

Manchin did not comment for this article, but his spokesperson Sam Runyon said his objections were because the administration had strayed from the intent of the bill.

“President Biden, then-Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer were in full agreement with Sen. Manchin that the IRA was an energy security bill and the legislative language is crystal clear,” she said. “The Administration continues to blatantly violate the law in an effort to replace Congressional intent with their own radical climate agenda that simply didn’t, and wouldn’t have, passed.”

Some Republicans have expressed sympathy for Manchin’s position.

“Is it playing with fire? Sure. Does Joe care? I don’t think so,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Manchin’s frequent legislative partner when she chaired the Energy Committee. “Good for him for calling the administration out.”

Murkowski noted that the climate law had been seemingly dead for most of last year until Manchin’s support allowed Democrats to pass it on a party-line vote. The law includes $369 billion in incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles, as well as health measures such as a cap on insulin costs for Medicare recipients.

“They made a deal with him,” Murkowski said. “And it was a hard deal and they wanted his vote, and they got it — at some political cost to him and he would admit that. And now [the Biden administration is] trying to rewrite the bill, or interpret in the way they wished they had been able to get it passed. That’s their problem.”

Manchin has repeatedly denounced Biden’s electric vehicle policies in recent weeks, including by announcing he would support Republican efforts in Congress to overturn EPA auto pollution rules designed to speed up EV adoption. He accused the administration of “lying to Americans with false claims about how their manipulation of the market to boost EVs will help American energy security.”

He repeated that theme in remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce April 18, saying, “I never wanted to give the electric vehicles 75-cents’ credit let alone $7,500.”

“Y’all broke the law,” Manchin later told Biden’s Energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, at a hearing April 20, accusing the administration of “liberalizing” its rollout of the tax subsidy to stimulate sales of electric vehicles — and warning that that approach could send money and jobs to China.

Republicans are eager to pounce on Democratic dissension over how the administration is executing the climate law. GOP lawmakers, who unanimously opposed the law, argue that it spends too much money and say its twin goals — quickly weaning the U.S. economy off fossil fuels while reducing reliance on China for clean energy technologies — are incoherent.

“Maybe he’s looked at it [the IRA] more deeply and realized it’s not what he thought it was,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Manchin’s GOP counterpart from West Virginia, said in an interview. “I can’t believe he would be that naïve. But who knows?”

But other Democrats say the administration is carrying out the law that Congress passed.

“Almost all of us who voted for this legislation and contributed to it wanted to supercharge EV sales,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) in an interview. “Clearly Sen. Manchin did not. He thought he was maybe sabotaging the EV industry. And it’s driving him nuts that it’s not working out that way.”

Negotiations over the EV tax credit were fraught from the start.

After Manchin rejected Democrats’ climate and social spending agenda last July when it was packaged as Build Back Better — Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer quietly resumed negotiations. The electric vehicle tax credits were among the last items they haggled over.

During the preceding months, Manchin repeatedly criticized Democrats’ interest in subsidizing electric vehicle sales, calling the idea “ludicrous.”

Manchin, whose state is home to a non-unionized Toyota manufacturing facility, also derided Democrats’ original proposal to offer an extra incentive for electric vehicles made by union workers. He called the proposal “not American.” The version that became law dropped it.

Manchin, Schumer and their staffs finally forged a compromise on electric vehicles in secret talks, unveiling the renamed Inflation Reduction Act on July 27. It offered a credit of up to $7,500 for electric vehicles, but only for those meeting a thicket of stringent requirements on what countries their battery minerals and components come from. Those requirements have since sparked a major trade feud with European governments whose companies are blocked from the incentives.

“He [Manchin] does not support the credit at all. And really when he wrote it, he hoped nobody could use it. And so he’s disappointed there are a few vehicles that can use it,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from auto-industry-heavy Michigan.

Heinrich said a clash with Manchin over implementation was “inevitable” given the different ways Manchin and the White House characterized the end product, which Manchin sees as an energy security measure designed to shore up energy production of all types. Biden is using the law to push a rapid transition away from fossil fuels in the name of combating climate change.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, downplayed the idea of a rift within the Democratic Party.

“The majority of [the IRA] we are all together on,” Jayapal said. “I do think he [Manchin] believes we should have a renewable energy transition. We probably have different ideas for what the transition looks like and how we get there. “

But the law didn’t leave the Biden administration much wiggle room in developing regulations to fit its complex domestic content restrictions, energy experts say. Manchin contends the administration is abusing the leeway it got. He’s especially taken umbrage at the Treasury’s initial three-month delay in issuing rules, which until mid-April allowed electric vehicles to qualify for the tax credit without meeting any domestic sourcing requirements.

When Treasury finally announced the guidance in March, it offered some olive branches to automakers worried about the rules being overly restrictive, but still left the majority of EVs on the market ineligible for the credit.

Even so, Manchin cried foul, calling the Treasury rules too loose in allowing foreign suppliers to share in the tax credit bounty.

He took particular aim at the Biden administration’s classification of certain foils, powders and other components used in the batteries. By classifying the powders as “critical minerals,” rather than “battery components,” Treasury avoided placing even more severe restrictions on vehicles eligible for the tax credit.

Manchin has also criticized Treasury for allowing leased vehicles to qualify for full tax breaks as “commercial” vehicles, a workaround that skirts some restrictions in the law.

And a crucial piece of guidance is still missing: clarity on which companies’ vehicles could be barred from receiving the credit because of their connections to China. The Treasury Department says it expects to release that provision later this year.

“Manchin very clearly wanted to put deglobalization ahead of decarbonization,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a research group. “He wants this stuff made here and if it slows down the transition so be it. Treasury is leaning toward trying to transition faster.”

Most Democrats, though, disagree that Biden has ignored congressional intent. They point to projections showing the IRA has already been a boon to the country’s clean energy jobs: It has prompted at least $243 billion in investments in battery plants, electric vehicles factories and other green energy projects since Biden signed the law in August.

Since Biden became president, there have been at least $95 billion in private-sector investments announced across the U.S. clean vehicle and battery supply chain, according to the Department of Energy, including $45 billion since the IRA passed.

Heinrich said he knows it may be “politically expedient” for Manchin to argue the IRA is not taking shape as he intended.

“But the reality is this legislation is working, and this administration is trying to manage both what we need to do long term, which is make all of this stuff here, but also build the runway to get there,” Heinrich said.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this report incorrectly quoted Kevin Book.

Billions of gallons of water from Lake Powell are being dumped into the Grand Canyon

ABC News

Billions of gallons of water from Lake Powell are being dumped into the Grand Canyon

Julia Jacobo – April 27, 2023

Billions of gallons of water are being taken from Lake Powell and dumped into waterways along the Grand Canyon, according to federal environmental agencies.

For 72 hours, water will be released from the Glen Canyon Dam at a rate of 39,500 cubic feet per second, which the National Park Service characterized as a “much larger than normal.”

PHOTO: Glen Canyon Dam holds back Colorado River water to create Lake Powell on April 15, 2023 in Lake Page, Arizona. (RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
PHOTO: Glen Canyon Dam holds back Colorado River water to create Lake Powell on April 15, 2023 in Lake Page, Arizona. (RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

The release aims to restore sandbars, beaches and campsites used by visitors to the Grand Canyon, according to the NPS. The water will enter the Paria River and move sediment onto beaches and sandbars in Marble Canton and eastern Grand Canyon to restore the Colorado River corridor in eastern Grand Canyon National Park.

In addition to serving as recreational areas for tourists, the sandbars also supply sand needed to protect archaeological sites.

MORE: Here’s what will happen if Colorado River system doesn’t recover from ‘historic drought’

Releases from Glen Canyon Dam at Lake Powell to supply water to Lake Mead typically happen in the fall.

Current sediment loads, as well as “favorable hydrology conditions” resulting from a wet winter with ample rainfall and snowpack, are conducive to the high-flow experiment, which is being conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The release will mimic the natural flow pattern of the Colorado River, which would typically occur each spring during the runoff of snowmelt.

PHOTO: Glen Canyon Dam holds back Colorado River water to create Lake Powell on April 15, 2023 in Lake Page, Ariz. (RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)
PHOTO: Glen Canyon Dam holds back Colorado River water to create Lake Powell on April 15, 2023 in Lake Page, Ariz. (RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images)

The experiment will not affect the total annual amount of water released from Lake Powell to Lake Mead for the 2023 water allotment, officials said.

The high flows that follow the initial release could affect the difficulty of some of the rapids within the canyons, according to the NPS.

MORE: How beavers could help the Colorado River survive future droughts

River users are advised to exercise caution along the Colorado River through Glen and Grand Canyons through Sunday.

“There are inherent risks associated with recreational activities along the Colorado River corridor through Grand Canyon at all times,” the NPS statement said.

PHOTO: A group of rafters push off from the banks at Lees Ferry for a 25-day rafting trip down the Grand Canyon on January 1, 2023 in Marble Canyon, Arizona. (RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images, FILE)
PHOTO: A group of rafters push off from the banks at Lees Ferry for a 25-day rafting trip down the Grand Canyon on January 1, 2023 in Marble Canyon, Arizona. (RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images, FILE)

The water releases will eventually snake through the canyons to Lake Mead.

Garden planning from the book cellar

Resiliance – Food and Water

Garden planning from the book cellar

By Eliza Daley, orig. pub. by: By my solitary hearth – April 24, 2023

garden
Photo by Annie Spratt on Upsplash

It’s spring, so obviously it’s time to get the garden in production. For those who don’t know where to start or who just want more tips I have some recommendations on books that I use every year in planning and implementing food production. I know I just talked about my book-free kitchen, however, this is one very important caveat — I definitely use books for the intersection of kitchen and garden. These books are less about cooking than growing, processing and storing the harvest, and all three affect food safety. So reference books are necessary.

I am reading a new one — The Backyard Homestead Book of Kitchen Know-How by Andrea Chesman (2015, Storey Publishing). Chesman lives on an acre in Vermont, so this book is highly relevant to me. However, with her decades of practical experience — in addition to her homestead life, she’s written many books and teaches classes on storing the harvest — there are tips for anyone anywhere who grows typical garden produce. I have already found useful suggestions and I have almost as much experience as she does, so I feel like this is a good book to recommend to anyone with a veg plot. One caution: her methods do tend to lean toward agricultural extension agency practices, lots of plastic and electricity. She acknowledges that not everybody is going to have the capacity to run two refrigerators and a chest freezer, but she also doesn’t talk as much about lower-energy preservation methods. However, she includes the most detailed instructions on drying food that I’ve ever encountered. Mostly without electricity. And since she does this in Vermont — in normal, New England summer humidity — I think I may have found my solution to that problem.

She also spends a bit at the beginning of the book talking about what you should grow. For example, if you don’t like stuffing squash in summer heat, don’t plant round varieties. And if your family is less than Victorian in number, then don’t plant more than a few bushes of all the summer squashes put together. But she doesn’t talk as much about gardening as she does about produce, so there isn’t good information on yields and varieties. I have other books for that.

Keeping the Harvest by Nancy Chioffi and Gretchen Mead (1991, Storey Publishing) is a slim but indispensable reference for basic recipes and techniques. It also contains a chart I have been using for decades: the yields of frozen veg per unit of harvest (bushels, heads, pounds, etc). This table is gold! Nothing is more annoying than running out of pint containers in the middle of processing veg, especially the chiles. With this chart, I know that I need at least 18 pint containers washed and ready when I tackle the 25 pound box of Big Jim peppers in August. They also give yields per unit of planting area (row feet, square feet, bushes, trees, etc). So if you are unsure about how many potatoes you should plant for a given yield or how much space will be necessary for that yield or even how much ‘yield’ you will be able to eat, then buy this book.

Another extremely useful reference book is Rosalind Creasy’s The Complete Book of Edible Landscaping (1982, Sierra Club Books). This is a permaculture book from before permaculture. I learned how to grow abundant food in small spaces from this one book. More a gardening manual than food processing book, Edible Landscaping contains general guides to growing and using just about every kind of fruit, veg and herb that might be grown in temperate climates. (And a few from more tropical conditions.) Creasy gives hardiness, growing season length, light and moisture needs, soil types and whatever else you need to grow a plant. She describes the different growing needs of different varieties of a given species also. For example, you may not live in a climate with the 1000 chill hours needed by Wolf River apples (my favorites), but there are plenty of apple varieties that can be grown in regions with warmer winters.

These two books are my main garden production planning references. I have many other books, but these are the ones that come out every year. I definitely recommend getting them if you are new to producing and storing your own food, or even if you just want to learn more about these skills that everyone will be needing in the not so distant future. However, I would also advise you to get at least one recently published reference on canning and preserving. This is one type of cookbook that I do use. Nobody should improvise on this stuff!

My two go-to garden planning books have plenty of recipes, however there have been many changes in the intervening decades on food safety recommendations. For just one example, it’s been determined that tomatoes are not high enough in acid to kill harmful microbes, so pressure-canning is safer than the water-bath canning I used to use on canned tomato sauce. Most of the recipes are fine and obviously I’m still alive after using them for many years, but that might just be because I’ve been lucky. (That, and botulism doesn’t stand a chance in my sterile kitchen…) But still, preserving low-acid veg is flirting with food poisoning even in the best conditions. So use up-to-date information on how to avoid that nightmare. I use Saving the Seasons by Mary Clemens Meyer and Susanna Meyer (2010, Herald Press), and I have the most recent copy of the USDA’s Complete Guide to Home Canning and Preserving (2008). I have a few other books on jams, chutneys and other high-acid things, but I always cross-reference cooking times and temperatures with the books I trust implicitly. And sometimes I even go look things up on extension agency websites, which presumably have the most recent information available.

So those books go very far toward planning a garden, including what use you’ll make of the produce. But to round out garden planning, especially for those who are looking to create a landscape that needs little maintenance and very few inputs, I have two other book recommendations. These are not quick reads, and maybe I should have suggested starting them last November, but they are invaluable in garden planning. The first is the classic ecology book by Donald Worster, Nature’s Economy (1977, Sierra Club Books). From how ecological balance is physically achieved to the history and ethics of the conservation movement, Worster’s book is a complete education. I only include one other book because it is written specifically for the garden: Ecology for Gardeners by Steven B. Carroll and Severn D. Salt (2004, Timber Press). If there is a fault in Worster’s book, it’s that he doesn’t talk as much as I’d like about the kinds of plants we grow intentionally. Carroll and Salt make up for that — and include lots of images! I don’t know about you, but I will never be able to sort out the good caterpillars from the evil spawn of hell without a good visual guide.

Hope these references help! They’ve inspired me to try new things and see the garden in new ways each year. And speaking of… it’s time to cut up the potatoes so they’ll be cured before planting time. So… I’m off to the cellar now.

Eliza Daley

Eliza Daley is a fiction. She is the part of me that is confident and wise, knowledgable and skilled. She is the voice that wants to be heard in this old woman who more often prefers her solitary and silent hearth. She has all my experience — as mother, musician, geologist and logician; book-seller, business-woman, and home-maker; baker, gardener, and chief bottle-washer; historian, anthropologist, philosopher, and over it all, writer. But she has not lived, is not encumbered with all the mess and emotion, and therefore she has a wonderfully fresh perspective on my life. I rather like knowing her. I do think you will as well.

Dangers from future technologies? It’s the current ones that are killing us

Resilience – Environment

Dangers from future technologies? It’s the current ones that are killing us

By Kurt Cobb, originally published by Resource Insights 

April 23, 2023

vision of the future
Image: “A futuristic vision: the advance of technology leads to rapid transport, sophisticated tastes among the masses, mechanization, and extravagant building projects. Coloured etching by William Heath” (1829). Via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_futuristic_vision_Wellcome_V0041098.jpg

Certainly, there a plenty of horror stories about possible disasters awaiting us from emerging technologies. I’ve written about two of them: 1) the possibility of small cheap, AI-guided drones used to commit mass slaughter (or targeted assassinations) and 2) lethal synthetic viruses for warfare or released by an apocalyptic cult trying to bring the apocalypse forward on the calendar. More recently, some have predicted that advances in artificial intelligence will ultimately lead to the destruction of humanity.

As bad as these sound, it’s possible that doomscrolling our way through the breathless coverage of dangerous new technologies is distracting us from what is already happening in right front of us: Existing technologies are already pushing humans quickly down the path to extinction (along with many plants and animals). Pretending that dangers to the survival of the human species come ONLY from the future is a perilous diversion.

In fact, the combination of climate change; the increasingly toxic pollution of the soil, water and air; depletion of arable soil, water, energy and critical metals; galloping development of wild and farm lands; and second order effects such as habitat and biodiversity loss, acidification of the oceans and dramatic loss of Greenland’s ice that may lead to a breakdown in the Gulf Stream ocean current that keeps much of Europe temperate—all this has gathered so much momentum that, frankly, we don’t need any help from the future to kill ourselves as a species. (Oh, I almost forgot; we could obliterate ourselves with a nuclear winter without any new nuclear technology or warheads needed.)

It turns out that we may be doing such a good job of threatening our species already that the emerging technologies we fear most will never get a chance to fully emerge. In the not-too-distant future, we humans may already be gone or our societies so degraded that launching a second apocalypse with the help of new technologies will be a practical impossibility. We won’t have the functioning infrastructure to do it!

And, that is basically the key to the lethality of most emerging technologies: connectivity. If communities become so isolated that inhabitants cannot travel to distant places harboring designer virus outbreaks, humanity will paradoxically be saved from extinction because of the loss of technology and any attendant mobility. Contemplate that for moment!

As for artificial intelligence, well, it needs a vast infrastructure of connected information sources to be effective. When I asked friends recently why we can’t literally just pull the plug on AI if it becomes dangerous, they had many explanations. But, perhaps the most telling one was that we have become so networked across the globe and AI will be so distributed, that we’d effectively have to pull the plug on ourselves—and we are not willing to do that even if not pulling the plug ultimately leads to our destruction.

Of course, the public has been told again and again that emerging technologies will bring abundance for all, solve climate change, get rid of pollution, cure most diseases, produce so much energy we’ll never have to think about the cost, and actually help regenerate the soil and the forests while increasing biodiversity.

I don’t know what they’ve been waiting for, but the tech overlords who’ve sold us this story had better get busy right now. There isn’t much time left for them to build out their “solutions.”

Kurt Cobb

Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed blog called Resource Insights. He is currently a fellow of the Arthur Morgan Institute for Community Solutions.

Saying NO to a farm-free future

Resilience – Society

Saying NO to a farm-free future

By Chris Smaje, originally published by Small Farm Future

April 20, 2023

The time has come to announce my new book, Saying NO to a Farm-Free Future: The Case for an Ecological Food System and Against Manufactured Foods. It’ll be published in the UK on 29 June and the US on 20 July, with ebook and audio versions also available. So there’s no excuse… I’m delighted that Sarah Langford, the author of Rooted, is writing a foreword for it.

The folks at Chelsea Green have come up with this attractive but unfancy cover, which matches my feelings about the book.

I wrote the book in a two-month blur as a job of work that I felt somebody had to do to combat the head of steam building around the case for a farm-free future associated with George Monbiot’s book Regenesis and the Reboot Food initiative. And if that somebody was me, so be it.

My original motivation was mainly just to critique the fanciful ecomodernism of Reboot Food, which I believe is apt to bedazzle people of goodwill but with limited knowledge of food and farming into thinking that a technological solution is at hand that will enable them to continue living high-energy, urban consumerist lifestyles while going easy on the climate and the natural world. Really, it isn’t. The danger is that farm-free bromides will, as usual with ecomodernism, instil a ‘great, they’ve fixed it!’ complacency at just the time when we need to jettison the techno-fix mentality and radically reimagine our social and political assumptions.

So the book takes a somewhat polemical approach in critiquing the arguments for manufactured food. But actually I found that this provided a pretty good foil for making an alternative case for agrarian localism, what I call in my book ‘a predominantly distributed rural population, energy restraint, diverse mixed farming for local needs, wildlands, human-centred science, popular smallholder democracy and keystone ecology’. So the book has that more positive framing too, much of which will be familiar to regular readers of this blog or of my previous book, although I like to think I’ve pushed a few things forwards. Still, it’s a short book, so a more detailed exposition awaits.

What I don’t and won’t do is offer some alternative technical or social one-size-fits-all solution. Solutionism of this kind is itself part of the problem. I daresay that will lead to some incomprehension in the book’s reception along the lines that if I can’t provide an alternative ‘answer’, then I can’t have anything worthwhile to say. Naturally, I don’t subscribe to that line of reasoning. Researchers, opinion-mongers and writers of books just don’t have ‘the answer’, whereas you – whoever ‘you’ are – probably do have part of an answer locally. But you have to work at it. Maybe my book will help. In that sense, what I offer is a bit like the answer of farming itself. Instead of the magic beans and golden geese of the Reboot Food narrative, all I can realistically offer is a bare seedbed awaiting productive work. The scene then has to be peopled by others, ordinary working people, doing the work.

Or maybe you could think of the book as an exercise in rewilding, because the nature of wildness is that you can’t really tell what’s going to happen next.

Anyway, I’ll be interested to see what kind of reception the book gets. Possibly, it’s presumptuous of me to expect it’ll get much of a reception at all, but my tweet from a few days back announcing the book has had around 34,000 views – so by my humble standards I think there may be an appetite out there for this.

I’m not going to steal my own thunder from the book pre-publication, but I thought I’d offer loyal readers of this blog a few tidbits by way of a sneak preview.

So, after some introductory material the book asks whether the energetics and economic geography implied in the manufactured food narrative are feasible (as I just said, I can’t give too much away just now about the book’s contents, but I’ll offer a clue: the answer is a two-letter word beginning with ‘n’). Then I consider whether the case against the wildlife and climate impacts of familiar plant-and-livestock based agriculture articulated in manufactured food narratives is plausible (answer: it’s complicated – let’s call it a two-letter word beginning with ‘n’ again, but with a side of three-letter word beginning with ‘y’). Next, I move on to examine whether a farm-free future for humanity is likely to involve what ecomodernist pioneer Stewart Brand called ‘urban promise’ – urbanization as a positive and prosperity-enriching experience. On that one, we’re back to a straightforward answer – the two-letter ‘n’ word again. Or at least we are if we have any commitment to justice. Finally, I make an alternative case for agrarian localism as the best means of securing human and natural wellbeing and climate stability, involving long-term human relationships with the land that, like all long-term relationships, require regular and ongoing work.

So there you have it. If you’d like to read the full version (or alternatively hear me reading it) I’d suggest pre-ordering a copy now! But I daresay I’ll write more about its themes on this blog once the book is out, albeit most likely with a bit less expounding than I devoted to my previous one.

Chris Smaje

Chris Smaje has coworked a small farm in Somerset, southwest England, for the last 17 years. Previously, he was a university-based social scientist, working in the Department of Sociology at the University of Surrey and the Department of Anthropology at Goldsmiths College on aspects of social policy, social identities and the environment. Since switching focus to the practice and politics of agroecology, he’s written for various publications, such as The Land , Dark Mountain , Permaculture magazine and Statistics Views, as well as academic journals such as Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems and the Journal of Consumer Culture . Smaje writes the blog Small Farm Future, is a featured author at www.resilience.org and a current director of the Ecological Land Co-op. Chris’ latest book is: A Small Farm Future: Making the Case for a Society Built Around Local Economies, Self-Provisioning, Agricultural Diversity, and a Shared Earth.