Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

epa

Heroes

Even at age 94, Jimmy Carter's still an eco-warrior. Trump should pay attention.

Thanks to President Jimmy Carter, the small, rural town of Plains, Georgia, just reached quite the benchmark: It now gets 50% of its energy from solar power.

Sure, it's a very small town — "We have about 215 households, 700 or so people, in Plains," resident Jill Stuckey told the Associated Press — but it's still an impressive feat.

Photo by Saul Loeb - Pool/Getty Images.

Carter leased 10 acres of his own land in his hometown to build a solar farm, a project that was completed in February.

— (@)

"In the solar industry, a lot of the folks that I know think of him as kind of the father of the solar industry," said Stuckey, who is a friend of Carter's. "And to have these panels in Plains today that will create more than half the energy that we utilize here in Plains is just really wonderful for us."

On top of his gift in Plains, last month the Carter family also provided 324 solar panels to the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta.

Carter's commitment to clean energy began a long, long time ago.

On June 20, 1979, Carter's administration installed 32 solar panels on the roof of the White House to harvest renewable energy at the president's residence, according to Scientific American.

— (@)

It wasn't just a symbolic move, either. As Carter declared in a speech that day:

"A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people."

In a message to Congress the same day of his speech, Carter laid out his plans to overhaul America's energy systems. By the year 2020, he envisioned, at least 20% of the energy used in the U.S. would come from renewable sources.

Spoiler alert: We definitely didn't reach that goal. Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, played a big role in sending us backward on environmental policy throughout the 1980s.

Carter's hopes of a sustainable 21st-century America took another hit in the 2016 election.

President Trump, as you may have noticed, isn't exactly known for hugging trees.

Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images.

So far, Trump has handed over the Environmental Protection Agency to Scott Pruitt, who's turned "the EPA into a supine lap dog" for the oil and gas industry, as David Horse eloquently put it in the L.A. Times. Trump, Bloomberg reported on July 13, also wants to invest in coal-fire power plants using money that's currently allocated to the United Nations to help countries hit hardest by climate change.

— (@)

In June, to the dismay of millions around the world, Trump pledged to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement — a global effort to curb the effects of global warming. Now, America is one of just three countries (the others being Syria and Nicaragua) that aren't signed on to reach target emissions goals.

In terms of energy policy, it seems like Trump is a far better fit to lead in, say ... the early 1970s.

The good news is, America's energy future won't be decided by a single presidency.

One administration can push us forward or set us back in significant ways, to be sure. But it's on us to keep up the fight — regardless of who's in the Oval Office.

After all, you don't need to be a president to make a difference, as Carter would tell you.

Photo by Steve Schaefer/AFP/Getty Images.

"I think symbolically — like those panels on the White House [in 1979] — this little unit in Plains will be very beneficial," Carter told the AP. "It shows what a small town can do, what one farmer can do."

Watch President Carter's interview below:

Heroes

Thank you, Chicagoans, for rescuing the EPA's website.

Last month, the Trump administration took down the EPA's climate change website.

That sucks. The website was full of useful science information as well as years of data. The administration said the takedown was part of a "review," although considering scientists thought the page was fine, it appears the takedown could have been politically motivated.

But guess who just saved the day? Hi, Chicago!

GIF via Eric Hines/Vimeo.

On May 7, the city of Chicago put up a full copy of the pages on its own website — and they're encouraging other cities to do the same.

"The Trump administration can attempt to erase decades of work from scientists and federal employees on the reality of climate change, but burying your head in the sand doesn't erase the problem," Mayor Rahm Emanuel said in a press release.

The current administration might be hiding from the reality of climate change, but it's encouraging to see our cities step in to take action.

While the massive federal government is led by an administration that rejects climate science, smaller and more politically nimble cities have stepped up. According to the Sierra Club, 27 U.S. cities have adopted 100% clean energy plans.

Cities matter — they're home to more than half of the world's population and produce 75% of our carbon emissions. Good thing thousands of them all around the world are taking action. For example:

Miami Beach, Florida, is deploying pumps and seawalls to fight flooding caused by sea level rise.
New York City is making new building projects adhere to strict energy-use standards.
San Francisco is aiming for zero waste by 2020, which, among other things, would reduce methane emissions from landfills.
The tiny English village of Ashton Hayes is rallying together to reduce its carbon footprint.
Parishalved its reliance on coal energy for heating and wants to install 870 miles of bike paths by 2020, which will help people leave their cars at home. Speaking of cars...
Oslo, Norway, is taking it a step further by banning private vehicles in its city center altogether.
Shenzhen, China, is experimenting with carbon markets to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

As Benjamin Barber recently wrote for The Guardian, the answer to climate change might be to set the nation aside and put cities like Chicago in charge.

Heroes

These old photos reveal why we needed (and still need) the EPA.

It’s hard for people who weren’t around in 1960s and '70s to remember what the world was like before the EPA.

There was a reason President Richard Nixon’s proposal to establish a federal agency to protect the environment enjoyed bipartisan support.

A mountain of oil drums near an Exxon refinery in Louisiana. All photos via Defiant, via the EPA and National Archives and Records Administration.

Before the Environmental Protection Agency, many industries used U.S. waterways as toxic waste dumps. It was so bad that the Great Lakes and the surrounding rivers frequently caught fire.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 forced industry to control the pollution it dumped into America’s water. But President Donald Trump's budget proposal — which would cut one-fifth of the agency's staff, eliminate entire programs, and trim $2 billion from its budget — could curtail this act.

In 1971, one of the first things the EPA did was hire a team of photojournalists to document the ongoing environmental devastation in America.

The project took six years, involved 100 photojournalists, and produced more than 80,000 images.

The Cuyahoga River Fire of 1952.

They called it "Documerica," and in the past few years the National Archives has digitized some 15,000 images from the project. You can see them at its website or on Flickr. Some are simple pictures of life in the ’70s, but others depict a harrowing world.

A factory burning discarded batteries and belching poison into the air outside Houston.

Along the New Jersey Turnpike.

A landfill outside New York City.

It's a world where industry has carte blanche to poison the environment and the people in the name of profit. A world where our rivers and lakes catch fire. A world of garbage, toxic waste, and ash.

The George Washington Bridge, barely visible through the smog.

A poisoned lake near Ogden, Utah.

When Trump says he wants to make America great again and refers to a fanciful time when the United States was somehow better, this is what he’s talking about. This is what America looks like without the EPA.

This is why we fight.

This story was first published at Defiant is reprinted here with permission.

Neil deGrasse Tyson for president?

That's what some people were shouting for during a recent appearance by the astrophysicist and pop-culture icon. Would he ever run? Tyson said, as he has before: "No. No. Uh, nooooo."

But that wasn't all he had to say on politics.

[rebelmouse-image 19526588 dam="1" original_size="750x535" caption="Surely no question gets just an easy "no" from Tyson. Photo by Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images." expand=1]Surely no question gets just an easy "no" from Tyson. Photo by Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images.

While picking up the Lincoln Leadership Prize on March 10, he dropped five to-the-heart points for his fellow American citizens:

1. Why aren't there more scientists in government? Because people vote for charisma over knowledge.

Getting different types of people in office would mean "we have to really rethink what we are as a democracy," he said. "Voting for someone because of what they know — what a concept!"

He makes it seem so mind-bogglingly simple. Photo by Thos Robinson/Getty Images for Popular Science.

2. Don't blame politicians. Blame voters.

"You voted for these people! ... If you have issues, your issues are not with the politician. Your issues are with your fellow voters," he said.

At first, it seems Tyson is repeating what so many do: Voters can just vote out leaders they don't like. But there's more to it, he explained, because just thinking this way — that merely changing one person at the top will make everything be fine — "implies that we're all just here, the electorate, and don't really matter."

Does Tyson have a fix for this kind of dysfunctional electorate? Oh, yes.

3. Fix the electorate by arming them with science!

"I will go to the electorate and say, 'Here is what science is and how and why it works, and here's how you can become empowered thinking that way,'" he explained.

It's the best kind of evil plan, isn't it?! There's no time for a presidency when you're already working to make a better government by arming voters with objective facts for their personal philosophies so they can be choosier about their leaders.

Knowledge really is power!

4. What about the EPA being headed by a climate-change denier? He says: Watch for actions, not just words.

The Trump-appointed Environmental Protection Agency head, Scott Pruitt, denies humans are causing climate change and has even sued the EPA multiple times. While you might expect a science whiz like Tyson to fire up arguments against a denier, he leaned on logic and voter responsibility.

"We live in a free country; you should think what you want," he said, and that includes Pruitt. But what the country can and must do is push back against misinformation when it turns to legislative and regulatory action.

5. Defending the truth means defending democracy.

"When people are fighting over what is actually true when we know what is true? I don't know what country that is," he said. "But what I do know is that it's the beginning of an end of an informed democracy when that happens."

Scientists often have a flair for the drama of impending doom, but these words genuinely strike loudly right now. How many of our friends' political discussions lately just seem like two siblings fighting over who's to blame for a party that left the house trashed? That's definitely not an informed democracy making any sort of progress, is it? Meanwhile, the objective fact is that something must be done about the mess.

So, take note, people of the electorate! Neil deGrasse Tyson is here to guide you.

He wouldn't be our president, but he's already giving us what we need to hear to make our own changes.

Heroes

EPA official resigns, explains why cutting his department will cost us all in the future.

The head of the EPA’s environmental justice program has handed in his resignation letter.

Mustafa Ali at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., in 2016. Photo from the Wilson Center/Environmental Change and Security Program.

Mustafa Ali — who helped found the office in 1992 under George H. W. Bush — resigned as the head of the environmental justice program in a letter dated March 7, 2017.

The justice program was created to ensure all people had equal access to a clean and healthy environment, regardless of race, national origin, or income. However, a recent budget proposal from the Trump administration would cut the EPA’s funding by a quarter overall and get rid of the justice program altogether.

“I never saw in the past a concerted effort to roll back the positive steps that many, many people have worked on … I can’t be a part of anything that would hurt those [disadvantaged] communities. I just couldn’t sign off on those types of things,” the Washington Post quoted Ali as saying.

But before he left, Ali penned a letter to the EPA’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, imploring Pruitt to think before slashing funds. The full text of Ali's letter was tweeted by Emily Atkin, a staff writer at The New Republic.

Here are four key points from Ali in that letter:

1. “Communities of color, low-income communities and indigenous populations are still struggling to receive equal protections before the law.”

Those communities are more likely to be affected by air pollution, crumbling water or sewage infrastructure, hazardous waste, and lead in the water.

That last one rings especially true, given that Flint, Michigan, still doesn't have clean water (and now they must now pay for that water again, even though it’s still unsafe to drink without a filter).

Flint water protester in 2016. Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images.

2. “I wonder if our new leadership has had the opportunity to converse with those who need our help most.”

Communities speak for themselves, Ali says and notes that some of the best results have come from working collaboratively with local communities through grants and programs. Administrators just have to listen. But cutting out the small grant and collaborative problem-solving programs that formed the backbone of this relationship could silence these people’s voices.

“I strongly encourage you and your team to continue promoting agency efforts to validate these communities’ concerns, and value their lives,” Ali wrote.

3. “Any cuts to this program will increase the public health impacts and decrease the economic opportunities.”

Flint residents holding up contaminated water during a news conference. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

“One of the points that you shared with staff in your recent town hall was that you were looking for opportunities to balance the environment and the economy,” wrote Ali. “There are countless examples of how the local communities vision for revitalization have grown into productive collaborative partnerships.”

He also pointed out that the program makes good economic sense. In 2016, Brownfields revitalization (cleaning up formerly contaminated sites) leveraged more than $16 for every dollar the EPA spent and created eight-and-a-half new jobs for every hundred million spent.

4. “The upcoming choices you make will have significant impacts on the public health and environment of our country.”

He ended his letter with a reminder: “Administrator Pruitt, you have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring people together, to ensure that all communities have safe places to live, learn, work, play and pray,” he wrote. “I wish you well as you move forward on protecting the public health and environment of our nation, as you help make the American Dream a reality for all.”

And he's right. Environmental protections affect everyone who lives in our country, but the proposed budget cuts could defang anti-pollution measures, blindfold our watchdogs, and stifle clean-up measures. Restoration along the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, the San Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound could be slashed or completely eliminated.

Without strong protections, it's hard to see how Pruitt could live up to the legacy Ali is leaving behind.

Ali is moving to a job as senior vice president at the Hip Hop Caucus, a nonprofit that gets younger Americans involved in grass roots activism.

Heroes

Trump's EPA nominee isn't sure about climate change. He should see this Antarctica photo.

Oh, great!

Photo via NASA Earth Observatory

Just another Manhattan-sized chunk of Antarctica breaking off and scooting fancy free into the ocean.

Photo via NASA Earth Observatory.

The Pine Island glacier, where the break took place, also experienced large ice losses in 2014 and 2015. This cleavage is smaller, but still alarming to scientists, who fear the trend is accelerating.

"Such ‘rapid fire’ calving does appear to be unusual for this glacier," Ohio State University glaciologist Ian Howat said in a NASA press release.

This is really not a great time for solid ice on Earth.

The Antarctic iceberg's decision to peace out from the Pine Island glacier comes amid reports of frequent "heat waves" at the poles and record low amounts of sea ice.

Just three years ago, this — the largest-ever glacial cleaving caught on film — happened in Greenland:

GIF from "Chasing Ice"/Submarine Deluxe.

It's a good thing the new U.S. administration's incoming EPA chief is a responsible steward of the Earth, at one with nature, devoted to...

Photo by Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images.

... oh. Right. He's 100% not.

As Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt devoted much of his energy to suing the EPA — the very department he's been put forward to lead. Prior to his nomination, he bragged about being "a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda."

He's also not so sure about this whole climate change thing being legit, which, you know...

GIF from "Chasing Ice"/Submarine Deluxe.

...is troubling. To say the least.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on Pruitt's nomination soon.

And there are some signs he might be in trouble.

Maine's Susan Collins is a "no" and John McCain is out of the house. That means just one more senator needs to flip if Pruitt is going to be rejected. A few have shown willingness to buck Trump on other priorities: Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, who voted against Betsy DeVos, Kentucky's Rand Paul, who has opposed several of the administration's proposed state department hires, and South Carolina's Lindsay Graham, who's been critical of Trump on national security issues.

If you live in one of those states, do give your senators a call. Now.

Save our ice!

The glacier, in happier, non-cleaved times. Photo via NASA Earth Observatory.

(And, you know, our coastal cities and civilization, while we're at it).

Update — 2/17/17, 1:21p.m. ET: Welp. Pruitt went through. Good try, everyone. You should still call your senators, though, and tell them to stand up to any attempt to roll back climate rules and legislation. Earth's glaciers are counting on you!

From Your Site Articles

NASA asked the public to choose its all-time best photos of Earth. Here are 17 of them. - Upworthy ›

Heroes

How Trump inherited Obama's weird legal climate battle against 21 young people.

Kids are suing President Donald Trump. Yes, really.

Photo by Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images.

The heart of the lawsuit, Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al., is whether the federal government has a duty to react to climate change. It names a wide swath of the federal government as defendants, including the government as a whole, the Environmental Protection Agency, and, yes, the president.

It's a complicated story, so to help make sense of it, here are five quick things you should know about this lawsuit.

1. Yeah, it's actually kids.

There are 21 of them. They range from preteen to early 20s, but they collectively have some pretty serious activist and volunteer chops.

Victoria Barrett of White Plains, New York, for example, got involved after joining the Alliance for Climate Education.

"I learned a lot about how ... low income communities in New York City are disproportionately impacted by all natural disasters that we feel here, because low income housing is typically built in coastal areas," Barrett told WYNC. She cited her school closing after Hurricane Sandy and worsening pollen seasons in her complaint.

She's joined by other young activists and volunteers, such as Avery McRae and Xiuhtezcatl Roske-Martinez. Their collective case was brought to the court by an environmental group, Our Children's Trust.

2. The gist of the lawsuit is whether climate change violates their constitutional rights.

Or, rather, whether the government's inaction on climate change does. Three key takeaways:

Climate change could harm their life, liberty, and property, and it could damage certain natural or cultural resources.
The Constitution says the government is obligated to protect these things and provide due process before taking them away or allowing them to be taken away.
By knowing about the damage climate change could do, by not taking action, and by actually encouraging fossil fuel usage, the government has not been doing its job.

3. This case wasn't originally aimed at Trump. In fact, he's inheriting it from Obama.

Photo by Doug Mills - Pool/Getty Images.

This might sound similar to a story a year or two ago about kids suing Obama. That's because it actually is that story, just with a new twist.

The lawsuit was originally filed on Aug. 12, 2015, with Obama's name on the defendant list, but when Trump assumed office, he inherited that position. Our Children's Trust made the announcement on Feb. 9, 2017.

4. It's probably going to take a long time to figure this one out.

Kids suing the federal government is unusual, but that doesn't mean it's not being taken seriously. In April and November 2016, two judges, Thomas Coffin and Ann Aiken, denied motions from the government and industry lawyers to dismiss the cases, which means it has been given the go-ahead, more or less.

Though Coffins pushed for the trial start quickly, it'll likely be a complicated legal battle and take years to settle. Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, expects the case could end up at the Supreme Court, according to a Slate article.

5. Trump's environmental politics might make it easier for the kids in court.

Photo by Dominick Reuter/AFP/Getty Images.

In comparison to Obama's administration, Trump has been friendlier to fossil fuels and deregulation. He's also previously called climate change a Chinese hoax. If part of the kids' case hinges on whether the government has been taking sufficient action against climate change, Trump's recent actions may be handing them more ammunition.

That said, the case faces plenty of legal hurdles. The Atlantic noted that Michael Gerrard, also from Columbia's Sabin Center, said he didn't think the case would pass the Supreme Court. And if they win, it's not clear what the long-term results would be.

But even if the plaintiffs lose, they still might walk away grinning.

The novelty and potentially broad-reaching implications of a kids' climate lawsuit are likely to help energize environmental activists or put pressure on the federal government.

After all, it's not every day that kids take on the federal government.

Correction 2/15/2017: Alec Loorz was incorrectly listed as one of the defendants in the case. Other minor updates to the story were also made.