Friday, February 10, 2023

‘The kids need help’: how young people want adults to tackle gun violence



Abené Clayton in Los Angeles
Wed, February 8, 2023 

Guns are now the No 1 killer of children and teens under 18 in the US, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that was analyzed by University of Michigan researchers.


While 2020 marked the first year that more children and teens of all races and ethnicities across the US were killed by guns than in car accidents, homicide has been the No 1 cause of death among Black teenage boys and young adults over 15 for at least a decade, according to CDC data, and the second leading cause of death among Hispanic teenage boys and men ages 15 to 34. The trend was underscored by the recent high-profile killings of an 18-year-old at a gas station in Oakland, California, and two boys, ages 14 and 15, at a high school in Des Moines, Iowa.

Despite bearing much of the weight of the nation’s gun violence, young people have little formal power to do anything about it, since decisions about how governments legislate guns and how communities and schools respond to shootings is primarily left to lawmakers, voters and law enforcement officials.

Related: ‘Took a long time to get here’: the women stopping gun violence in their communities

Still, violence prevention and getting resources to communities is a top-of-mind issue for US teens and young adults. In an open letter the youth voting advocacy group NextGen America sent Joe Biden ahead of this week’s State of the Union address, the young people implored him and Congress to address lax state gun laws and racial disparities among homicide victims and gunshot wound survivors. A majority of Gen Z is more worried about guns than the climate crisis, according to a recent survey by Project Unloaded, while 70% of young voters said that US gun control laws should be stricter, according to a 2018 Harvard Institute of Politics poll.

“Politicians should be more involved in the community,” said Greg Novelo, a 20-year-old resident of Richmond, California, a small city north of San Francisco. “There’s no progress to show that they’re helping the community … they need activities, programs, parks you can go to that are safe.”

The Guardian spoke with Novelo and several other young Latino and Black Californians about what they want to see older generations do to prevent gun violence and to help youth navigate the aftermath of shootings.

Conversations about school safety must include neighborhood violence

Mass shootings on school campuses, while rare, dominate conversations about student safety. This means that most of the solutions put forth - like arming teachers, hiring more campus police and monitoring student communications - rarely address the shootings that happen near schools and on the blocks that students traverse to get there.

“When they have these conversations it’s more about gun violence at school and police using guns, not what goes on around the neighborhood,” said Liz Nsilu, a 17-year-old student at King/Drew Magnet school in Los Angeles. The school is just outside Watts, a majority Black and Latino neighborhood where residents have long struggled to keep shootings down and support those affected.

“I would like to hear someone ask how we feel living in the neighborhoods that we live in or having our school where it is now. I think teachers and the principal [should have] a school-wide conversation,” said Ilicia Mendez, another 17-year-old King/Drew student.

Nsilu and Mendez have a space to talk about shootings and gender-based violence that affect them through the Women’s Leadership Project (WLP), a group that works in South Los Angeles schools to mentor and support students.

Local violence prevention and youth development groups like WLP seek out students who are regularly exposed to violence to help them work through their feelings on off- campus shootings. And teachers across the US are working to make conversations about gun violence a part of classroom curricula. Still, these programs are sparse.

“The schools sometimes do their part,” said Tereek Hill, a 21-year-old Richmond resident.

When he was in high school, a student was shot and killed and administrators organized a campus-wide moment of silence and allowed students to leave class to decompress in the student health center, Hill recalled.

He didn’t feel safe at school because he knew that community violence can spill on to school grounds, especially since some students carried guns because they felt unsafe walking in their neighborhood. “If my friend just got killed, I’d think I’m next,” Hill said.

He wishes that schools could find a balance between keeping students safe and not criminalizing those who carry because they rightly feel unsafe in their communities. Strategies like backpack searches and arresting students aren’t the answer, he said: “We don’t want to go backward.”

Intergenerational connections help - if they come without judgment

The connections between older and younger generations can be a central component of gun violence prevention. Whether it’s a teacher, school counselor or a professional violence intervention worker, the students the Guardian spoke with said they looked to the adults in their lives and communities to lobby officials and help young people navigate the complex emotions that come with being exposed to gun violence.

But youth also want to see adults be more inclusive in their engagement with young people, including those who are already carrying guns, have been incarcerated or are in need of immediate intervention that can stop them from being shot or shooting someone else.

“They are at the most risk, so why exclude them? You can change them,” Beverly Obed, a 15-year-old King/Drew student, said of the need for programs that reach her most at-risk peers. “Excluding them might lead them further down the drain, stuck in [a bad] situation because they can’t get out because they’ve been excluded when they tried to reach out.”

Novelo, 20, of Richmond, has first-hand experience of this exclusion and the consequences of having nowhere to turn.

“I grew up hearing gunshots every day,” he said. “As a little kid, I needed more people to talk to and listen without [fear of] getting in trouble.”

Novelo began carrying a gun for protection as a young teen. When he would speak with school staff or other adults, he said, the fact that he carried and would skip school overshadowed the fear and daily trauma he was facing and needed help addressing.

“School counselors would offer support or resources, but when you talk to them they find fault [with me] and say, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t have done this or that,’” Novelo said. “It made me feel like I needed to keep everything to myself and bottle it up, and it messes with your head a little. There’s so much emotion and sometimes it’s tough to handle, and when you don’t have someone to talk to you end up doing [negative] things.”

He dropped out of high school during his junior year and months later, at age 18, he was shot eight times while hanging out with friends in San Pablo, a city just outside of Richmond. While in the hospital, he connected with Ryse Center, a Richmond-based violence prevention and youth development non-profit. Now, he said, he is getting the judgment-free mental health support he needed early in his adolescence.

“Older people should think about what programs would have helped them back then … and what they went through to help the community,” Novelo said.

Law enforcement isn’t always the solution


For many students in South Los Angeles and the Bay Area, police are a questionable solution to the problem of gun violence. They described seeing police use force in their communities, which are disproportionately harmed by gun violence, rather than helping people find solutions to young people being involved in gangs and gun violence.

When a shooting happens near or on a campus, administrators and lawmakers often defer to police to keep students and staff secure and safe. But this reliance on police has also led to a disproportionate number of Black and students being arrested on campus, thus fueling the school-to-prison pipeline, parents and students have said.

“That upsets me the most: the police using their force on us, taking advantage of their position because of what’s going on in our communities with gang violence,” said Mendez, of King/Drew.

The on-campus dynamic coupled with the history of police shootings of unarmed Black and Latino people make it difficult for the students to imagine what role law enforcement would play in local violence interventions like healing circles and community meetings among people who have lost a loved one to violence or survived being shot.

Related: A shooting killed their student. Now two California teachers are educating kids about gun violence

“It wouldn’t be effective for police to be in a healing circle because a lot of people in Los Angeles have trauma, from being shot by the police, chased by the police,” Nsilu added.

This lack of trust means that creating solutions to prevent and respond to gun violence is a job best left to the community members who deal with the fallout of shootings, Hill said.

“I’m not comfortable with [police] at all. The only help I see from them is escorting people during a funeral,” he said of how he’s seen police engage with those who have been affected by gun violence. “The community around us is responsible, the community should hold each other accountable.”

Youth need more resources to heal from gun violence


Jason Madison’s first confrontation with gun violence happened early in life. When he was nine, Madison’s mother and toddler nephew were shot in a drive-by in their hometown of Richmond. Both survived the shooting, which Madison witnessed; his mother was hit in the thigh and his then-two year old nephew was shot in the foot and was briefly in critical condition.

Madison, now 22, wasn’t physically injured in the shooting, but says he was left to deal with mental trauma and unanswered questions alone.

“Seeing someone get shot even though they didn’t die is still trauma,” he said. “I dealt with it alone and I wish I had support … I needed somebody to talk to and relate to and help me through the pain and trauma I went through.”

Through Ryse Center, Madison has been working through his trauma through poetry and counseling sessions. And while he is grateful to have these resources now, he wishes that it hadn’t taken most of his life to get them. He also wants more organizations like Ryse to expand their reach to capture those who have been harmed by gun violence, directly and indirectly.

“As soon as my mom and nephew got shot, I feel like somebody - the ambulance people or police - should have put us in some type of counseling,” Madison said. “The kids need help. We go through a lot. We go through so much in our life. We need more resources.”




‘Monster profits’ for energy giants reveal a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence

Oliver Milman in New York
THE GUARDIAN
Thu, February 9, 2023 

Photograph: PA Lawrence, LLC./Alamy

While 2022 inflicted hardship upon many people around the world due to soaring inflation, climate-driven disasters and war, the year was lucrative on an unprecedented scale for the fossil fuel industry, with the five largest western oil and gas companies alone making a combined $200bn in profits.

In a parade of annual results released over the past week the “big five” – Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP and TotalEnergies – all revealed that last year was the most profitable in their respective histories, as the rising cost of oil and gas, driven in part by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, helped turbocharge revenues.

Related: Shell and BP face tough job of keeping customers and investors happy as profits roll in

Exxon, the Texas-based oil giant, led the way with a record $55.7bn in annual profit, taking home about $6.3m every hour last year. California’s Chevron had a record $36.5bn profit, while Shell announced the best results of its 115-year history, a $39.9bn surplus, and BP, another London-based firm, notched a $27.7bn profit. The French company TotalEnergies also had a record, at $36.2bn.

When the 2022 results for all publicly traded oil and gas companies are tallied the total profits are expected to exceed $400bn, “a number we’ve never seen before, and one that was built off the backs of working families who were victimized by oil and gas executives’ greed”, according to Claire Moser, deputy executive director of the US activist group Climate Power.Interactive

The stratospheric profits were criticized as “outrageous” by Joe Biden during his State of the Union address on Tuesday. Biden said that “we’re still going to need oil and gas for a while” but the US president attacked companies for enriching shareholders through share buybacks rather than helping alleviate rising gasoline costs for drivers.

The big five oil and gas companies have already confirmed that most of the bumper profits will be going to stock buybacks and dividends. The $200bn in combined profits equates to about five times the US’s annual foreign aid budget, or about double what the world gave to Ukraine last year in military and humanitarian assistance. If the oil executives had decided to use this money to go to space, they could have left the Earth’s atmosphere 3,225 times on Elon Musk’s SpaceX rocket, at $62m a trip.Interactive

António Guterres, the secretary-general of the UN, was scornful of the industry in a speech on Monday, in which he expressed incredulity at the “monster profits” of fossil fuel companies at a time when the world needs to be rapidly slashing its planet-heating emissions to avoid climate breakdown.

“If you cannot set a credible course for net-zero [emissions], with 2025 and 2030 targets covering all your operations, you should not be in business,” Guterres said. “Your core product is our core problem. We need a renewables revolution, not a self-destructive fossil fuel resurgence.”

Even though the rollout of renewable energy such as solar and wind is gathering momentum around the world, countries are still forging ahead with numerous “carbon bomb” projects that would push the world beyond agreed “safe” temperature limits. Last year, more than $1tn were invested in fossil fuel infrastructure and extraction worldwide.

The sale of oil and gas remains so enticing that BP this week announced it is scaling back its climate ambitions, retaining its fossil fuel assets for longer than it previously expected. “We need continuing near-term investment into today’s energy system – which depends on oil and gas – to meet today’s demands and to make sure the transition is an orderly one,” said Bernard Looney, BP’s chief executive. “At the end of the day, we’re responding to what society wants.”

Looney has previously called BP a “cash machine” due to its prodigious financial returns, while the company’s finance chief, Murray Auchincloss, last year admitted that “it is possible that we are getting more cash than we know what to do with”.

Related: Carbon offsets are flawed but we are now in a climate emergency

This stance drew a sharp rebuke from campaigners who point out that the largest fossil fuel companies are still investing relatively little into clean energy, endangering the goals of the Paris climate agreement.

“If the bulk of your investments remain tied to fossil fuels, and you even plan to increase those investments, you cannot maintain to be Paris-aligned, because you will not achieve large-scale emissions reductions by 2030,” said Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This, an activist shareholder group.

“The picture is clear now, no oil major has plans to drive down emissions this decade. Now it’s up to the shareholders. Together with major investors, we continue to compel BP to put its full weight behind the energy transition.”
The EU Says Twitter Didn't Complete Its Homework Assignment

Kevin Hurler
Thu, February 9, 2023 

Several tech companies submitted reports for the EU’s Transparency Centre, but the union says that Twitter’s was lacking data.

EU officials are singling out Twitter today after the company’s report on the role of disinformation on its platform fell short of competitors like Google and Meta. Twitter now has until July to submit an updated report to the EU.

The EU has officially unveiled the Transparency Centre, which is a collection of reports from several different tech companies that have signed the 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation as a part of the EU’s commitment to battling disinformation and misinformation online. The reports, submitted from companies like Google, Meta, and even the likes of Adobe, outline how each company is enacting the Code of Practice on Disinformation on their platforms. The EU was pretty happy with the reports received from most companies—except for Twitter

According to the EU’s press release, while Twitter did meet the deadline to submit, the company’s report is short on data and lacks information on how Twitter fact checks information on its site. Twitter now has to resubmit a report by this July, with complete information on how the company is implementing the Code of Practice on Disinformation.

“Today’s reports mark a step in the battle against online disinformation. It comes as no surprise that the degree of quality vary greatly according to the resources companies have allocated to this project,” said Thierry Breton, EU’s Commissioner for Internal Market, in a statement. “It is in the interest of all signatories to abide by their commitment to fully implement the Code of practice against disinformation, in anticipation of the obligations under the Digital Services Act.”

Twitter did not immediately return Gizmodo’s request for comment on the matter.

Now that Twitter has changed hands to CEO Elon Musk, the company appears to have focused less on battling disinformation and more on rolling out useless UX updates. Recently, users noticed that Twitter was testing out an excessive and unnecessary 4,000-character tweet feature. Disinformation, meanwhile, is continuing to run rampant on the platform—after Musk’s purchase of Twitter closed in late October, the company promptly removed its covid-19 misinformation policy. Despite this, Twitter’s history of misinformation is a long one, one that predates Musk’s ownership.

Gizmodo
The ocean twilight zone could store vast amounts of carbon captured from the atmosphere – but first we need an internet of deep ocean sensors to track the effects


Peter de Menocal, Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Wed, February 8, 2023 

A large robot, loaded with sensors and cameras, designed to explore the ocean twilight zone. Marine Imaging Technologies, LLC © Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Deep below the ocean surface, the light fades into a twilight zone where whales and fish migrate and dead algae and zooplankton rain down from above. This is the heart of the ocean’s carbon pump, part of the natural ocean processes that capture about a third of all human-produced carbon dioxide and sink it into the deep sea, where it remains for hundreds of years.

There may be ways to enhance these processes so the ocean pulls more carbon out of the atmosphere to help slow climate change. Yet little is known about the consequences.

Peter de Menocal, a marine paleoclimatologist and director of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, discussed ocean carbon dioxide removal at a recent TEDxBoston: Planetary Stewardship event. In this interview, he dives deeper into the risks and benefits of human intervention and describes an ambitious plan to build a vast monitoring network of autonomous sensors in the ocean to help humanity understand the impact.

First, what is ocean carbon dioxide removal, and how does it work in nature?

The ocean is like a big carbonated beverage. Although it doesn’t fizz, it has about 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. So, for taking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it someplace where it won’t continue to warm the planet, the ocean is the single biggest place it can go.

Ocean carbon dioxide removal, or ocean CDR, uses the ocean’s natural ability to take up carbon on a large scale and amplifies it.


Methods of ocean carbon storage. Natalie Renier/©Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Carbon gets into the ocean from the atmosphere in two ways.

In the first, air dissolves into the ocean surface. Winds and crashing waves mix it into the upper half-mile or so, and because seawater is slightly alkaline, the carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean.

The second involves the biologic pump. The ocean is a living medium – it has algae and fish and whales, and when that organic material is eaten or dies, it gets recycled. It rains down through the ocean and makes its way to the ocean twilight zone, a level around 650 to 3300 feet (roughly 200 to 1,000 meters) deep.


The years indicate how long deposited carbon is expected to remain before the water cycles to the surface. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

The ocean twilight zone sustains biologic activity in the oceans. It is the “soil” of the ocean where organic carbon and nutrients accumulate and are recycled by microbes. It is also home to the largest animal migration on the planet. Each day trillions of fish and other organisms migrate from the depths to the surface to feed on plankton and one another, and go back down, acting like a large carbon pump that captures carbon from the surface and shunts it down into the deep oceans where it is stored away from the atmosphere.

Why is ocean CDR drawing so much attention right now?


The single most shocking sentence I have read in my career was in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report, released in 2021. It said that we have delayed action on climate change for so long that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now necessary for all pathways to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F). Beyond that, climate change’s impacts become increasingly dangerous and unpredictable.

Because of its volume and carbon storage potential, the ocean is really the only arrow in our quiver that has the ability to take up and store carbon at the scale and urgency required.

A 2022 report by the national academies outlined a research strategy for ocean carbon dioxide removal. The three most promising methods all explore ways to enhance the ocean’s natural ability to take up more carbon.

The first is ocean alkalinity enhancement. The oceans are salty – they’re naturally alkaline, with a pH of about 8.1. Increasing alkalinity by dissolving certain powdered rocks and minerals makes the ocean a chemical sponge for atmospheric CO2.


Studies show increasing alkalinity can also reduce ocean acidification stress on corals. Wise Hok Wai Lum/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

A second method adds micronutrients to the surface ocean, particularly soluble iron. Very small amounts of soluble iron can stimulate greater productivity, or algae growth, which drives a more vigorous biologic pump. Over a dozen of these experiments have been done, so we know it works.

Third is perhaps the easiest to understand – grow kelp in the ocean, which captures carbon at the surface through photosynthesis, then bale it and sink it to the deep ocean.

But all of these methods have drawbacks for large-scale use, including cost and unanticipated consequences.


Kelp takes up carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. 
David Fleetham/VW PICS/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

I’m not advocating for any one of these, or for ocean CDR more generally. But I do believe accelerating research to understand the impacts of these methods is essential. The ocean is essential for everything humans depend on – food, water, shelter, crops, climate stability. It’s the lungs of the planet. So we need to know if these ocean-based technologies to reduce carbon dioxide and climate risk are viable, safe and scalable.
You’ve talked about building an ‘internet of the ocean’ to monitor changes there. What would that involve?

The ocean is changing rapidly, and it is the single biggest cog in Earth’s climate engine, yet we have almost no observations of the subsurface ocean to understand how these changes are affecting the things we care about. We’re basically flying blind at a time when we most need observations. Moreover, if we were to try any of these carbon removal technologies at any scale right now, we wouldn’t be able to measure or verify their effectiveness or assess impacts on ocean health and ecosystems.

So, we are leading an initiative at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to build the world’s first internet for the ocean, called the Ocean Vital Signs Network. It’s a large network of moorings and sensors that provides 4D eyes on the oceans – the fourth dimension being time – that are always on, always connected to monitor these carbon cycling processes and ocean health.

Top predators such as whales, tuna, swordfish and sharks rely on the twilight zone for food, diving down hundreds or even thousands of feet to catch their prey.
 Eric S. Taylor /© Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Right now, there is about one ocean sensor in the global Argo program for every patch of ocean the size of Texas. These go up and down like pogo sticks, mostly measuring temperature and salinity.

We envision a central hub in the middle of an ocean basin where a dense network of intelligent gliders and autonomous vehicles measure ocean properties including carbon and other vital signs of ocean and planetary health. These vehicles can dock, repower, upload data they’ve collected and go out to collect more. The vehicles would be sharing information and making intelligent sampling decisions as they measure the chemistry, biology and environmental DNA for a volume of the ocean that’s really representative of how the ocean works.


Mesobot starts its descent toward the ocean twilight zone. Marine Imaging Technologies, LLC © Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Having that kind of network of autonomous vehicles, able to come back in and power up in the middle of the ocean from wave or solar or wind energy at the mooring site and send data to a satellite, could launch a new era of ocean observing and discovery.
Does the technology needed for this level of monitoring exist?

We’re already doing much of this engineering and technology development. What we haven’t done yet is stitch it all together.

For example, we have a team that works with blue light lasers for communicating in the ocean. Underwater, you can’t use electromagnetic radiation as cellphones do, because seawater is conductive. Instead, you have to use sound or light to communicate underwater.

We also have an acoustics communications group that works on swarming technologies and communications between nearby vehicles. Another group works on how to dock vehicles into moorings in the middle of the ocean. Another specializes in mooring design. Another is building chemical sensors and physical sensors that measure ocean properties and environmental DNA.

This summer, 2023, an experiment in the North Atlantic called the Ocean Twilight Zone Project will image the larger functioning of the ocean over a big piece of real estate at the scale at which ocean processes actually work.

We’ll have acoustic transceivers that can create a 4D image over time of these dark, hidden regions, along with gliders, new sensors we call “minions” that will be looking at ocean carbon flow, nutrients and oxygen changes. “Minions” are basically sensors the size of a soda bottle that go down to a fixed depth, say 1,000 meters (0.6 miles), and use essentially an iPhone camera pointing up to take pictures of all the material floating down through the water column. That lets us quantify how much organic carbon is making its way into this old, cold deep water, where it can remain for centuries.

For the first time we’ll be able to see just how patchy productivity is in the ocean, how carbon gets into the ocean and if we can quantify those carbon flows.

That’s a game-changer. The results can help establish the effectiveness and ground rules for using CDR. It’s a Wild West out there – nobody is watching the oceans or paying attention. This network makes observation possible for making decisions that will affect future generations.



Do you believe ocean CDR is the right answer?


Humanity doesn’t have a lot of time to reduce carbon emissions and to lower carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

The reason scientists are working so diligently on this is not because we’re big fans of CDR, but because we know the oceans may be able to help. With an ocean internet of sensors, we can really understand how the ocean works including the risks and benefits of ocean CDR.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. 

It was written by: Peter de Menocal, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.


Read more:

Nations are pledging to create ocean preserves – how do those promises add up?

Geoengineering the ocean to fight climate change raises serious environmental justice questions

These machines scrub greenhouse gases from the air – an inventor of direct air capture technology shows how it works

Peter de Menocal is the president and director of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
 
A major archaeological discovery was made on the Miami River. Was it kept ‘under wraps’?

Andres Viglucci
MIAMI HERALB
Tue, February 7, 2023

LONG READ

For the past year and a half, with scant public attention, squads of archaeologists digging at the Miami River site of a planned Related Group residential tower complex have unearthed remarkable finds, consisting of thousands of fragmentary prehistoric tools and artifacts, rare and well-preserved animal and plant remnants, vestiges of ancient structures and human remains — including some relics dating back to the earliest days of civilization on the planet.

Independent scientists say the findings, which include 7,000-year-old spearheads, are clear and abundant evidence of a continuous indigenous settlement in the area stretching much farther back in time than previously thought. The discovery, they say, may be the most significant in a series of archaeological finds made at the mouth of the Miami River in the past 25 years that include the Miami Circle National Historic Landmark, thought to be around 2,000 years old.

“There are artifacts going back sequentially over those thousands of years,” said William Pestle, an archaeologist and chairman of the anthropology department at the University of Miami, who is not involved in the excavation at the Related site but is familiar with the discoveries there. “This is like a continuous record, which is powerful and cool.

“You’re going back to the time of the emergence of the first cities in Mesopotamia. It’s thousands of years before the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. By any measure, this is an early manifestation of human activity. This is legitimately old.”

People are seen working an archaeological dig site located near Brickell on the Miami River on Monday, Jan. 30, 2023, in Miami. Artifacts going back 7,000 years have been found at the site, along with postholes, grave sites, human remains and other evidence of substantial settlement by the Tequesta Native American tribe.


Although the dig is not yet complete, the finds at the site, on the Miami River’s south bank just west of the Brickell Avenue bridge, are already recasting what anthropologists and historians thought they knew about the presence of prehistoric and indigenous people at the mouth of the waterway, the birthplace of both ancient and modern Miami.

But the discovery and the lack of public exposure are also raising an urgent concern — that Miamians will never get to see any of it if Related buries the site in concrete as planned.

Some critics say they believe the developers and the city have attempted to downplay the discoveries to avoid the kind of public uproar and litigation that led to the preservation of the Miami Circle from condominium development in 1999, as well as another Tequesta circle and other antiquities across the river at the MetSquare development in 2014. Both circles consist of postholes in the limestone bedrock that scientists think outline the foundation of Tequesta buildings.

Related officials won’t talk about the excavation, strictly restrict entry to the site and won’t say whether they plan to preserve any portion of the site or display the discoveries to the public. After the company, founded by billionaire developer and philanthropist Jorge Pérez, declined a request for an interview with the Miami Herald, a Related spokesman asked a reporter for written questions. The company did not answer the questions, instead issuing a general statement that asserts Related “has followed all existing laws and regulations for any site in a designated archaeological zone.”

“For over a year and a half, we have performed the meticulous excavation, analysis, organization, regular reporting to applicable regulatory authorities and careful preservation of all relevant findings,” according to the statement, describing the excavation carried out by its archaeological consultants as “meticulous.”

Records show a Related affiliate paid $104 million for the property in 2013. In January, the company took out a $164 million construction loan for the first skyscraper, a rental apartment tower.



The team of archaeologists excavated bone artifacts from the Related Group development site.


City officials mum


The city of Miami, which requires and regulates archaeological digs in designated zones and could require full or partial preservation of the site, among other mitigation measures, has taken no action beyond monitoring the dig and fielding reports from the excavation archaeologists. The city officials overseeing the dig, city archaeologist Adrian Espinosa-Valdor and historic preservation director Anna Pernas, did not respond to repeated requests for an interview for this story on the significance of the findings relayed for several weeks through the city communications office.

On Friday, Pernas said she was “not available” for an interview, city communications official Kenia Fallat said. Asked why Pernas was declining to talk, Fallat responded: “I can’t ask her why she is not available.”

Fallat, too, issued a general statement outlining required procedures the city has followed, but not addressing the finds, their significance or the site’s future.

“Documentation and final reports of the findings are underway,” according to Fallat’s statement. “Staff continues weekly/biweekly site visits. In addition, the archaeologist working the site provides City of Miami staff and the State Archaeologist of the Division of Historical Resources weekly reports of the findings.”

Pioneering South Florida archaeologist Robert Carr, who is leading the excavation under a contract with Related, said he can’t yet discuss it under the terms of his deal with the developers, who are required by law to fund the investigations.

But in preliminary reports filed with the city, which are public records, Carr says the site — where he notes he first dug as a boy in 1961 — is important enough to potentially merit inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. He also suggests that intact sections of midden — ancient refuse heaps where many of the artifacts, bones and shells are found — could be “preserved as part of the development.”

The critics concede that Related has followed legal requirements for excavation and documentation of the site and the finds to the letter, and has likely spent a substantial sum on the painstaking project.


Members of an archaeological team work at the site of a planned Related Group residential tower complex in Brickell at the mouth of Miami River. The team has unearthed extensive evidence of prehistoric indigenous settlement on the site and artifacts dating back to the dawn of human civilization 7,000 years ago.



‘Importance of this site cannot be overstated’

But in January, frustrated scientists went to the city’s historic preservation board, which has oversight of the excavation and legal power to require concrete action from Related, to plead for greater public exposure and discussion of the dig, its significance and the need to ensure that at least some of the finds are properly exhibited. The board promised a fuller public airing.

“The importance of this site cannot be overstated,” Sara Ayers-Rigsby, southeast director for the Florida Public Archaeology Network, which is based at West Florida University in Pensacola, told board members. She urged them to require better public discussion and documentation of the finds. “It’s a story of who we all are and where we come from.”

The board’s chairman, William Hopper, suggesting that previous presentations to the panel by Pernas and Espinosa-Valdor failed to make the site’s extreme antiquity clear, asked the city officials to schedule an updated presentation on the discoveries for its Feb. 7 meeting. He also asked the officials to invite the press to the meeting to ensure that word about the discoveries gets out to the public. A chuckling, clearly discomfited Pernas responded: ”I may not.”

The city has not issued any invitation or news release. And when the agenda for the Feb. 7 meeting was published, unusually late, on the previous Friday, the excavation topic was not on it. Fallat confirmed on Friday that the item would not be heard on Tuesday, but would come up at an as-yet-undetermined later meeting.

In an unexpected move, however, the preservation board on Tuesday, by an 8-0 vote, instructed Pernas to begin studying whether they should designate the Brickell site a protected archaeological landmark after Pestle and others showed up at the meeting at Miami City Hall to urge members to take action. That designation would give the city power to require developer Related Group to preserve all or part of the site or make accommodations in its project for public exhibition, and other measures.

Brickell residents also say the city and Related could do much more. The influential Brickell Homeowners Association has urged the city to consider requiring preservation of at least a portion of the site or for the developers to voluntarily do so, said Abby Apé, the group’s managing director.

“Preserving some kind of history is important to our neighborhood,” she said. “We want to see these artifacts preserved and we want the city to do the right thing. The concern is that perhaps they’re not taking the proper steps that code requires them to take. It would be beautiful if the developers could have an on site-park that the neighborhood could enjoy.”

Some neighbors are blunter. They say they don’t think the city or Related have been acting in good faith and have intentionally sought to keep the finds, as one resident put it, “under wraps.”


Geoff Bain’s condo balcony at the Brickell on the River tower overlooks the site of the Miami Circle and an excavation at the adjacent site of a planned residential tower complex that has unearthed a trove of prehistoric indigenous finds, including artifacts dating back to the dawn of human civilization 7,000 years ago. Bain says developer Related Group and the city of Miami should preserve a portion of the site as a park or museum.

“The city of Miami is doing absolutely nothing to keep Related from covering it all up,” said Geoff Bain, whose Brickell on the River apartment overlooks the site. “Even our commissioners are unaware of the significance and have not been briefed. I understand no one can stop development, but they can preserve at least a small portion.”

Related has said it plans three towers on the site — formerly occupied by U.S. Customs’ Miami headquarters and an adjacent parking garage — that include the ultra-luxury Baccarat condo and a rental tower. The 444 Brickell building housing the Capital Grille restaurant is part of the property and will eventually be torn town.

No neutral party to assess environmental data

There’s yet another concern: The discovery of soil contamination on the site, once also home to Standard Oil tanks, prompted Related to briefly halt all excavation last month. Work has resumed on a portion of the property, but it’s unclear what the developers intend to do on the unexcavated section nearest the river bank, where the outside experts think some of the oldest and most significant material may be found. Related has proposed removing the soil off with backhoes and taking it elsewhere, they have learned, but it’s unknown what standard the company is considering to determine if continued work would be hazardous.

“Right now we have a developer who has every interest in the world to have the archaeology go away as soon as possible. You have archaeology companies working for the developer who want to keep doing archaeology,” Pestle said. “But there is no independent, neutral third party looking at environmental data and saying it’s too high or it’s not too high.”

Pestle, Bain and others note that Related knew full well that demolition of the Customs building would likely lead to archaeological discoveries. The site is part of a city-designated archaeological zone where developers are required by law to conduct carefully regulated exploratory digs, and to finance full-fledged excavations if the evidence suggests significant finds may lie beneath the soil — which is precisely what happened at the Related property.


Archaeologists excavating the site of a planned Related Group residential tower complex on the Miami River in Brickell have uncovered extensive evidence of prehistoric indigenous settlements dating back to the dawn of human civilization 7,000 years ago. The discoveries indicate that the capital of the Tequesta tribe, believed responsible for the 2,000-year-old Miami Circle, visible at top, was significantly more extensive than once believed.

Christine Rupp, executive director of Dade Heritage Trust, Miami-Dade’s leading preservation group, said Related should not have prepared detailed development plans until it had a better idea of what was in the ground, and the city should have halted permitting until a public process could be carried out to determine how the discoveries should be handled.

Instead, the city has allowed Related to move forward with preparations for construction on half the parcel where archaeology has been completed, with no apparent effort to ask or require the developer to modify designs to accommodate some degree of preservation of the ground — including patterns of postholes in the limestone bedrock like the Miami Circle and Met Square — or to provide public display or exhibition of artifacts.

“When someone buys property in a known archaeological zone, that that owner would go forward with such a huge planning process before the zone has been fully investigated, it’s really backwards,” Rupp said. “Once construction begins, that’s an afterthought. It should be part of the process right now.”
Site occupied by indigenous settlement in 5,000 B.C.

The newly uncovered evidence, Pestle and other independent archaeologists say, suggests that the Related site was occupied by a succession of indigenous people starting in what’s known as the Archaic period. For 2,000 years or so until the arrival of the Spanish in the 16th century, it was home to the Tequesta tribe that is likely responsible for the Miami Circle, today a state park at the mouth of the river.

A bronze statue of a Tequesta hunter, woman and child stands on the Brickell Bridge in downtown Miami as a tribute to the indigenous tribe that occupied the mouth of the Miami River 2,000 years ago. A new archaeological excavation near the bridge has unearthed evidence that indigenous occupation of the site dates back 7,000 years ago.


The finds also demonstrate that the Tequesta village on the river, the tribe’s principal settlement, was far more extensive than previously believed, they say. Spanish accounts put the settlement only on the river’s north bank. But the finds at the Related site, just steps from the Miami Circle, indicate that at its peak hundreds of years ago the Tequesta town spread along both banks of the river.

It may have been home to perhaps 6,000 people, though no one has yet attempted a formal estimate, said Traci Ardren, an anthropologist and archaeologist at UM who is an expert on New World prehistoric cultures.

What is clear is that people who lived by hunting and gathering settled on the spot about 5,000 B.C., drawn by the abundant natural resources at the confluence of river and bay, including fresh water, wild plants and fish and seafood. Among the evidence: Archaic stone points that have never previously been documented in this part of Florida, Ardren said.


Traci Ardren, an anthropologist and archaeologist at the University of Miami, is photographed at her campus office on Monday, Feb. 6, 2023, in Coral Gables, Florida.

“The mouth of the Miami River was the capital of a significant settlement of people that has been there thousands of years,” Ardren said. “What we know now is that it’s a whole indigenous Southeastern settlement.”

Other unusual finds, she noted, are bits of nets and twine made of plant fiber, and a wooden device used to start fires, all materials that usually do not survive for long. That they did is likely because they were found in natural holes in the limestone filled with water, called solution holes, which better preserves them, Ardren said.
Human, animal remains uncovered

Also found on the site were numerous fragmentary human remains, most of them teeth. At least two gravesites with skeletal fragments were uncovered, and one cranium, possibly belonging to a woman who was 45 years old at death, that may have been part of a ceremonial burial. Unusually, one human molar had been carved with incisions and grooves, and one humerus bone had been deliberately “cut on both ends, polished, and hollowed into a tube,” according to a report filed with the city.


Members of an archaeological team sift through soil excavated from the site of a planned Related Group residential tower complex in Brickell. The team has unearthed extensive evidence of occupation by prehistoric indigenous people and artifacts dating back 7,000 years.

The report notes that whenever human traces are found, work is stopped while the remains are documented and removed. Under state rules, human remains found in indigenous sites are turned over to the Seminole tribe for reburial in undisclosed locations to prevent looting.

Among the most abundant finds at the Related site are postholes cut into the bedrock to support buildings and boardwalks, as well as animal bones and shells, seeds and wood, pottery shards, and stone tools used to make wooden structures and canoes. Also found were animal bones, including perforated shark teeth that would be attached to wood to make knives, that were used for fishing and hunting, as well as shell ornaments.

“All are fragmentary, but their intricate engraved surfaces present evidence of artistic intent,” a report notes.

Most of the animal remains are of fish and reptiles, but also include deer. Some highly unusual animal finds include whale vertebrae and a whale rib, likely used for offerings according to a report, “modified” bear teeth, teeth from a now-extinct Caribbean monk seal, and a “battered” Megalodon tooth.

In Miami-Dade, Pestle said, only the Cutler Fossil Site at the Deering Estate in Palmetto Bay holds finds going back 7,000 years, but those are not nearly so well preserved as the discoveries at the Related condo development site.
Findings unearthed, shelved and forgotten?

The new animal finds are likely evidence of ancient feasts and ceremonies at the site, Pestle said, “giving us a window into different aspects of the past.”

“Everyone knew that when the building on the site came down there was going to be archaeological material unearthed,” he said. “But the richness of that material has been surprising.”

That makes it especially important that the site and the finds be made available to the public in some form, Pestle and Ardren, his UM colleague, say. They’re worried that the artifacts collected will end up like most of the Tequesta and older material found in previous discoveries on the Miami River — shelved out of sight and forgotten. Though the HistoryMiami museum has some on display, they say it has run out of storage space.


William Pestle, an archaeologist and chairman of anthropology at the University of Miami, is photographed inside his department’s artifact storage room holding a conch shell from a prehistoric archaeological site in the Florida Keys.


That means much of what Carr and his teams have unearthed over the past quarter century now resides in a crammed warehouse in Broward County. Pestle likened it to the final scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” where the Ark of the Covenant that’s the object of the film’s action ends up parked in a vast warehouse.

“The inaction by the city is really concerning,” Pestle said. ”What happens to the material? There are hundreds of boxes of material. And there will be more before they’re done here.

“Building permits should be contingent on there being a plan in place for the long term to preserve, document and exhibit, display, disseminate this material. There are places in the world where you walk into a building, walk over a glass floor and see the building that was there before. But we keep losing portions of this Tequesta site to one development after another and soon there won’t be anything left.

“We can’t just dig it up out of the ground and put in a box somewhere. The residents of the city deserve better.”
Letter to the editor: Keep religion out of government



The Repository
Wed, February 8, 2023 

A Feb. 2 letter said: "Please put God back into everything and allow our country to become great again." The founders of the U.S. kept religion out of government — including not mentioning the word "God" in the Constitution — for good reasons. Doing so helped make the country great.

The founders knew that throughout history, religions controlling government used governmental powers to impose their beliefs on others. This resulted in horrible persecutions of minority religions.

Benjamin Franklin said: "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

Specific historical examples of governmental persecution of minority religions include the Inquisition, the Crusades, pogroms against Jewish communities, the burning of witches, religious wars in Europe and suppression of scientists and their findings.

Moreover, for hundreds of years in Europe, blasphemy laws required the death penalty or other severe punishments for persons opposing government-approved religions. Blasphemy laws exist and are enforced in some Islamic countries today.

Thomas Jefferson summarized the results of governments compelling people to support religion: "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."


Religion should not be put in government. Church-state separation must be supported to prevent repeating an unspeakably appalling historical record, as the founders intended.

Joseph Sommer, Columbus

This article originally appeared on The Repository: Letter to the editor: Keep religion out of government




Letter to the editor: No, natural gas is not 'green energy'




The Repository
Thu, February 9, 2023 at 2:59 AM MST·2 min read

During the recent “lame duck” session, Ohio’s predominantly Republican legislature and Gov. Mike DeWine rushed to pass H.B. 507. The legislation would “create a broad new legal definition of green energy that would include natural gas.”

An anonymously funded, pro-natural gas, dark money group, the Empowerment Alliance, helped Ohio lawmakers spin the narrative that natural gas is green. The 501c4 group “Natural Allies for Clean Energy Future” is aiding the “greenwashing” by claiming gas is “necessary to accelerate our clean energy future.” Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) recently joined their ranks.

Labeling fracked gas as green energy does not change the scientific facts: The combustion of methane produces carbon dioxide, and methane itself is a potent greenhouse gas.

Methane produces lower carbon dioxide emissions when burned but that benefit is overshadowed by the fact that extracting methane via high-pressure hydraulic fracking releases enormous amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere. These emissions can be from leaks of storage tanks, compressor stations, blowdowns, pipelines, and flaring.

A report published in “Energy Science and Engineering” states natural gas (both shale gas and conventional gas) is responsible for much of the recent increases in methane emissions, and because of this have a higher greenhouse gas footprint than coal or oil. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of methane is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.

Ohio’s southeastern counties are being used as sacrificial industrial sites. Pipelines mar wooded hillsides, well pads rise over the landscape, thousands of trucks loaded with carcinogenic chemicals, frack sand and toxic produced water travel our roads every day. Local residents are exposed to air and water emissions from the process which releases hazardous air pollutants and contaminates water.

The only time “green” can legitimately be used to describe methane gas is when pointing out it is a potent greenhouse gas.

Randi Pokladnik, Uhrichsville

This article originally appeared on The Repository: Letter to the editor: No, natural gas is not 'green energy'
What the First Amendment really says – 4 basic principles of free speech in the US

Lynn Greenky, Associate Professor of Communication and Rhetorical Studies, Syracuse University
The Conversation
Wed, February 8, 2023 

A protection that is, at least in this Philadelphia park, carved in stone.
 
Zakarie Faibis via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Elon Musk has claimed he believes in free speech no matter what. He calls it a bulwark against tyranny in America and promises to reconstruct Twitter, which he now owns, so that its policy on free expression “matches the law.” Yet his grasp of the First Amendment – the law that governs free speech in the U.S. – appears to be quite limited. And he’s not alone.

I am a lawyer and a professor who has taught constitutional concepts to undergraduate students for over 15 years and has written a book for the uninitiated about the freedom of speech; it strikes me that not many people educated in American schools, whether public or private – including lawyers, teachers, talking heads and school board members – appear to have a working knowledge about the right to free speech embedded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But that doesn’t have to be the case.

In short, the First Amendment enshrines the freedom to speak one’s mind. It’s not written in code and does not require an advanced degree to understand. It simply states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The liberties embraced by that phrase belong to all of us who live in the United States, and we can all become knowledgeable about their breadth and limitations.

There are just four essential principles.

1. It’s only about the government

The Bill of Rights – the other name for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution – like the Constitution itself and all the other amendments, sets limits only on the relationship between the U.S. government and its people.

It does not apply to interactions in other nations, nor interactions between people in the U.S. or companies. If the government is not involved, the First Amendment does not apply.

The First Amendment ensures that Twitter is, in fact, free of government restrictions against spreading misinformation and disinformation or virtually anything else. The company is similarly free to expel any users who offend Musk’s personal sensibilities. They can be booted off Twitter and any charges of “Censorship!” don’t apply.

2. For decades, speech has faced very few limits


Freedom of expression was understood by the nation’s founders to be a natural, unalienable right that belongs to every human being.

Over the course of the first 120-plus years of the country’s democratic experiment, judicial interpretation of that right slowly evolved from a limited to an expansive view. In the middle of the 20th century, the Supreme Court ultimately concluded that because the right to speak freely is so fundamental, it is subject to restriction only in limited circumstances.

It is now an accepted doctrine that tolerance for discord is built into the very fabric of the First Amendment. In the words of one of the most revered Supreme Court justices, Louis D. Brandeis, “it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; … fear breeds repression; … repression breeds hate; … hate menaces stable government.”

Opinions, viewpoints and beliefs – which are sometimes based on provable fact, other times on hypothetical theories and occasionally on lies and conspiracies – all contribute to what constitutional scholars and lawyers refer to as the “marketplace of ideas.” Similar to the commercial marketplace, the marketplace of ideas subjects all products to competition. The hope is that only the best will survive.

Therefore, members of the Westboro Baptist Church can picket the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs disparaging the LGBTQ+ community, Nazi hate groups can hold rallies and civil rights groups can participate in lunch-counter protests. The ideas expressed by each of these groups represent one perspective in the public debate about rights and privileges, government responsibility and religion. Other people and groups may disagree, but their perspectives are also protected from government censorship and repression.

Messages communicated by means other than speech or writing are generally protected by the First Amendment, too. A jean jacket bearing the Vietnam-era anti-war slogan “F*ck the Draft” is protected, as is the act of burning a United States flag in front of a crowd. These were potentially more emotionally powerful than politely worded statements opposing government policies.


It may be upsetting to see – but that’s part of the point of burning a flag, and a key reason it’s protected by the First Amendment.
Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

3. But not all speech is protected

The government does, in fact, have the power to regulate some speech. When the rights and liberties of others are in serious jeopardy, speakers who provoke others into violence, wrongfully and recklessly injure reputations or incite others to engage in illegal activity may be silenced or punished.

People whose words cause actual harm to others can be held liable for that damage. Right-wing commentator Alex Jones found that out when courts ordered him to pay more than US$1 billion in damages for his statements about, and treatment of, parents of children who were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

So, abortion opponents can say what they wish but can’t threaten or terrorize abortion providers. And the white supremacists who rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 can shout to the rafters that Jews will not replace them, but they can be held liable for the intimidation, harassment and violence they used to amplify their words.

Rules about incitement to illegal action are part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation into whether former President Donald Trump is at all responsible for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. On that day, citing unproven, even disproved, events, Trump delivered a speech insisting the 2020 presidential election was rife with fraud.

However, the First Amendment doesn’t protect only true statements. Trump has a constitutional right to advocate for his perspective. Even his references to violence might be considered shielded from criminal prosecution by the superpower of the First Amendment. That superpower would evaporate only if a court finds that, when he spoke the words that day, “And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” his intent was to incite the violence that followed.

4. What’s legal isn’t always morally correct

Finally, and perhaps most importantly: Moral boundaries to acceptable speech are different, and often much narrower, than constitutional boundaries. They should not be conflated or confused.

The First Amendment right to speak freely as an exercise of people’s natural rights does not mean everything anyone says anywhere is morally acceptable. Constitutionally speaking, ignorant, demeaning and vitriolic speech – including hate speech – are all protected from government repression, even though they may be morally offensive to the majority.

Still, some people insist that malicious and emotionally hurtful speech adds no value to society. That is one reason used by people who seek to cancel or ban controversial speakers from college campuses.

Indeed, virulent speech may even weaken the democratic exchange of ideas, by discouraging some people from participating in public discussion and debate, to avoid potential harassment and scorn.

Nonetheless, that sort of speech remains firmly under the umbrella of First Amendment defenses. Each person must decide how their own humanity and morality allows them to speak for themselves.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.
L.A. is shutting down its largest gas plant — and replacing it with an unproven hydrogen project


Sammy Roth
Wed, February 8, 2023

The Los Angeles City Council's approval of an $800-million plan to convert the city's largest gas-fired power plant to green hydrogen is being hailed as the kind of project needed to solve the climate crisis. But critics say keeping the Scattergood Generating Station open would harm vulnerable communities. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to move forward with an $800-million plan to convert the city's largest gas-fired power plant to green hydrogen — a first-of-its-kind project that was hailed by supporters as an important step to solve the climate crisis but slammed by critics as a greenwashing boondoggle that will harm vulnerable communities.

Council President Paul Krekorian described hydrogen as crucial to meeting L.A.'s goal of 100% clean electricity by 2035.

"It was widely seen as being an impossible goal. And we're now on the precipice of achieving that," he said.

The vote authorized the L.A. Department of Water and Power to begin the contracting process for revamping Scattergood Generating Station, which sits along the coast near El Segundo.

DWP plans to install turbines capable of burning significant quantities of hydrogen, which has never been done before on such a large scale. The fuel would be produced from water, with renewable electricity — from solar panels or wind turbines, for instance — splitting H2O molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

The city-run utility hopes to ultimately convert its other gas plants to hydrogen as well: Harbor and Haynes farther down the coast, and Valley Generating Station in Sun Valley. Those facilities wouldn't be fired up often, but they would help Los Angeles keep the lights on during times when there's not enough solar and wind power to go around, such as hot summer nights.

The city's ultimate goal is burning 100% green hydrogen — but DWP officials have acknowledged the technology might not be ready right away. That means the initial fuel mix at Scattergood might include more planet-warming natural gas than hydrogen.

Jason Rondou, DWP's director of resource planning, told The Times that Scattergood should be able to burn at least 30% green hydrogen on Day One — the same percentage the utility is targeting at its coal-fired Intermountain Power Plant in Utah.

"There's a lot of things that need to be figured out over the coming years," Rondou said.

That uncertainty helps explain why many climate and environmental justice activists opposed Wednesday's City Council motion.


A smokestack at Scattergood Generating Station near El Segundo. 
(Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)

In public comments before the vote, critics from groups including Communities for a Better Environment, Pacoima Beautiful and the Sierra Club noted that although hydrogen doesn't produce planet-warming carbon emissions when burned, it does generate lung-damaging nitrogen oxide pollution — much more than gas, at least using current technology.

That's especially problematic for low-income communities of color that have already suffered from years of fossil fuel pollution — like those around DWP's Valley Generating Station, where residents were forced to live with a years-long methane leak.

Jasmin Vargas, an organizer with Food and Water Watch, described hydrogen as "fundamentally racist and inequitable." She also objected to public comments from labor union and business leaders saying hydrogen would create good-paying jobs.

"The jobs that everybody's talking about are not clean energy jobs," she said.

Other activists pointed to the risk of explosions from hydrogen leaks and to research finding that hydrogen can worsen climate change in the short term if too much of it leaks from pipelines before it’s burned. They also raised the possibility that DWP's experimental green hydrogen project could fail, leaving L.A. stuck burning natural gas when the city instead could have invested more heavily in battery storage, energy efficiency and other strategies to ditch fossil fuels while keeping the lights on.

"DWP should go back to the drawing board," said Theo Caretto, a UCLA legal fellow at Communities for a Better Environment.

After hearing from opponents and supporters, the council voted 12 to 0 to move forward with the hydrogen plan — but only after approving a separate motion that newly elected Councilmembers Traci Park and Katy Young Yaroslavsky said would require DWP officials to more closely examine alternatives and more robustly engage with communities near the gas plant.

"Even with the additional oversight, safeguards and engagement, I am still very reluctant to vote to move this project forward," Yaroslavsky said before the vote. "However, I am willing to support allowing the process to move to the next stage so that we can all collectively gather more information and understand its risks and its alternatives."

It's not yet clear, though, whether the City Council would be able to stop the Scattergood conversion if something went awry — costs spiraling out of control, for instance, or an inability by DWP to reduce nitrogen oxide pollution from burning hydrogen.

Further steps in the contracting process must be approved by the DWP board, whose members are appointed by the mayor. The City Council can override those decisions — but only with 10 supporting votes from the 15-member council, a high bar to clear.


A view of Los Angeles City Hall on Jan. 19.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

In 2021, L.A. got one-quarter of its electricity from natural gas — a major contributor to the worsening fires, droughts and heat waves of the climate crisis. Gas usage on California's power grid as a whole was even higher, at 38% — roughly the same as the country overall.

Green hydrogen has emerged in the U.S. and around the world as a potential substitute for natural gas on the electric grid — as well as gas piped to homes for heating and cooking. It's one of many relatively high-cost technologies competing to complement low-cost solar panels, wind turbines and battery storage to zero out global climate pollution by midcentury.

Many climate activists do see a role for hydrogen — but mostly in "hard to electrify" industries where switching from dirty fuels to clean electricity is expected to be too expensive, such as shipping, aviation, steelmaking and potentially long-haul trucking. Those activists' preferred technology is hydrogen fuel cells, which produce no pollution and can power heavy-duty trucks.

Activists are also cautious because the vast majority of hydrogen currently in use globally is produced from fossil fuels, adding to the climate crisis. The renewable "electrolysis" method for producing hydrogen planned by DWP is costlier and less efficient.

Adding to the skepticism over green hydrogen is that its loudest proponents are often fossil fuel companies.

In Los Angeles, that would be Southern California Gas Co., the nation's largest gas utility. Last year, the company proposed Angeles Link, a massive and potentially lucrative pipeline that would bring green hydrogen fuel to the L.A. Basin.

“It allows California to dramatically advance its climate and environmental goals,” SoCalGas President Maryam Brown said at the time. “It creates a cornerstone for the California green hydrogen economy, and the hydrogen economy in general."

"Southern California Gas is an infrastructure company. And we use that infrastructure to be able to meet customers’ needs,” she added. “Customers’ needs are changing. We see our customers needing cleaner and cleaner fuels.”

In an email ahead of the City Council's vote Wednesday, SoCalGas spokesperson Chris Gilbride said company executives "have not been engaged, and are currently not engaged, on the Scattergood project."

But there's little question it could be a boon for SoCalGas, fueling demand for the company's proposed pipeline and potentially leading to more widespread use of hydrogen.

Federal dollars could also accelerate L.A.'s hydrogen plans. The City Council voted last year to apply for a share of $8 billion in federal "hydrogen hub" funds, allocated by Congress as part of the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed by President Biden in 2021.

Whether or not that money materializes, DWP's Rondou said Los Angeles has little choice but to bet on hydrogen.

"We certainly looked at all the different pathways to get to 100%" clean energy, he said, referring to an in-depth study conducted with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "But the study was clear. ... There wasn't an alternative."

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.