A man stumbled upon a 70-million-year-old dinosaur fossil but kept it secret for 2 years

Kenneth Niemeyer
Mar 3, 2024

A man in France discovered a dinosaur skeleton while walking his dog.

Getty Images


A man in France found a massive dinosaur skeleton while walking his dog.
The titanosaur skeleton is nearly 70% complete and was kept under wraps to preserve the site.

The discovery has sparked a career change for the man who found it.

A man happened upon a 70-million-year-old fossil while walking his dog, but he and local archeologists kept it a secret for two years over fears that vandals would tamper with the find.

Damien Boschetto, 25, made the discovery in Montouliers in Hérault, France, about two years ago, Newsweek reported.

Boschetto reported the discovery to the cultural, archaeological, and paleontological association in the nearby town of Cruzy, the outlet reported.

The group determined the fossil to be a nearly complete, 30-foot-long fossilized titanosaur.

While paleontologists routinely dig up bones from animals that existed millions of years ago, it's incredibly rare to find an entirely intact fossilized dinosaur skeleton. For instance, one study suggests there were 1.7 billion Tyrannosaurus rexes, which are thought to have lived 66 to 68 million years ago, but scientists have recovered fossilized remains of fewer than 100 of them.

Titanosaurs were a subgroup of sauropods, plant eaters with very long necks, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. The massive herbivores are some of the largest known dinosaurs and lived from about 150 to 66 million years ago on every continent.

Researchers discovered the titanosaur fossil discovered by Boschetto to be about 70% complete, Newsweek reported.

"While walking the dog, a landslide on the edge of the cliff exposed the bones of various skeletons," Boschetto said, according to the outlet, adding: "They were fallen bones, therefore isolated. We realized after a few days of excavations that they were connected bones."

Boschetto and the researchers kept the discovery under wraps for two years to protect the site from vandals, Newsweek reported.

When researchers are finished studying the bones, Boschetto's titanosaur is set to be on display at the Cruzy Museum, which is also home to another titanosaur femur uncovered in 2012.

Boschetto told The Washington Post he was a paleontology enthusiast. The director of the Cruzy museum, Francis Fages, told the Post that Boschetto's volunteering at the museum over the past two years had been valuable for its paleontology department.

"These discoveries are interesting from a scientific point of view because they contribute to the understanding of the species and ecosystems of the late Cretaceous of France and Europe," Fages told the outlet.
Advertisement


Boschetto quit his job in the energy sector in September to pursue a master's degree in paleontology, the Post reported.

Fact Check

Did Charles Darwin Renounce His Theory of Evolution on His Deathbed?

"I was a young man with uninformed ideas," he supposedly said.

Jack Izzo
Published Mar 3, 2024

Image Via Elliott & Fry / Wikimedia Commons

Claim:
Charles Darwin professed a belief in God and recanted the theory of evolution on his deathbed.
Rating:
Unfounded


About this rating

On April 19, 1882, Charles Darwin, author of "On the Origin of Species" and the father of evolution, died at his home in Downe, England. He was 73. More than 30 years later, in 1915, across the Atlantic in Northfield, Massachusetts, a woman named Lady Elizabeth Hope told a story during a devotional service about meeting Darwin in late 1881. During their talk, Darwin reportedly expressed his belief in God and renounced the theory of natural selection that made him a household name.

The story quickly spread and has been used as an argument against evolution ever since because, according to Lady Hope's story, even Darwin didn't believe his own theory.

That argument, however, cannot stand on stable ground. There is no evidence Darwin professed his belief in God in this conversation, nor is there evidence that he recanted the theory of evolution. In order to best understand the claim, let's start with a brief explanation of Darwin himself.

Charles Darwin

Darwin was born in 1809, when the fields of biology and geology were new and mysterious. Over the course of his life, Darwin's theory of natural selection completely redefined the scientific landscape. But it took him a very long time to publish the work that made him famous.

Between 1831 and 1836, Darwin traveled the world on the HMS Beagle, where he visited the Galápagos Islands and first began thinking about the ideas his name would become synonymous with. Although he privately proposed his theories of natural selection soon after returning to England, he waited more than 20 years to publish them. "On the Origin of Species," now one of the most famous scientific works ever, was published in 1859.

It was not initially popular, especially among conservative and religious circles. Early reviewers quickly latched onto the implied idea that humans had evolved from apes, despite the fact that Darwin chose to never explicitly state that. One reviewer wrote:

Lady Constance Rawleigh, in Disraeli's brilliant tale, inclines to a belief that man descends from the monkeys. This pleasant idea, hinted in the "Vestiges," is wrought into something like a creed by Mr. Darwin. Man, in his view, was born yesterday — he will perish to-morrow. In place of being immortal, we are only temporary, and, as it were, incidental.

…

The work deserves attention, and will, we have no doubt, meet with it. Scientific naturalists will take up the author upon his own peculiar ground; and there will we imagine be a severe struggle for at least theoretical existence. Theologians will say — and they have a right to be heard — Why construct another elaborate theory to exclude Deity from renewed acts of creation? Why not at once admit that new species were introduced by the Creative energy of the Omnipotent? Why not accept direct interference, rather than evolutions of law, and needlessly indirect or remote action? Having introduced the author and his work, we must leave them to the mercies of the Divinity Hall, the College, the Lecture Room, and the Museum.

Health problems around the time of the publication of "On the Origin of Species" prevented Darwin from actively participating in the debates over the validity of his work. As a result of his health issues, Darwin's later years were largely spent doing research and with his family: his wife, Emma, and their seven children.

In the years before he died, Darwin wrote an autobiography. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the work — completed between 1876 and 1881 — was not intended for wider publication, but for his grandchildren. The scientist died less than a year after it was finished.

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic," Darwin wrote. It is this claim that supporters of Darwin's supposed deathbed conversion must effectively prove wrong.

It didn't take long for them to start trying. According to some sources, just a few days after Darwin's death, a preacher in Wales claimed Darwin had converted on his deathbed. In "Darwinian Myths: The Legends and Misuses of a Theory," author Edward Caudill shares a correspondence from one of Darwin's most ardent supporters, Thomas Huxley, and his son Francis Darwin, confirming for a Canadian newspaper that Darwin had not converted to Christianity.

Overall, the historians agree: Such claims were few and far in between until Lady Hope's story in 1915.

Lady Hope

Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842 as the daughter of an evangelist, Lady Hope continued her father's work throughout her life. She gained her title after marrying Adm. Sir James Hope and continued to use it after his death. Around the time of Darwin's death, Hope was living relatively close to him, and according to "The Darwin Legend," a book exploring the origins of Darwin's supposed conversion written by prominent Darwin scholar James Moore, the two probably did meet about six months before Darwin died.

(Snopes was unable to access a full copy of "The Darwin Legend." Our sources for this claim come from "Darwinian Myths" and reviews of "The Darwin Legend" available online.)

Perhaps these claims would hold more weight if Lady Hope had mentioned Darwin's sudden turn to religion not long after their meeting. However, she first recounted the supposed events in 1915 during a devotional service. It was quickly reprinted in the Watchman-Examiner, a Baptist newspaper. The following quote, which she attributed to Darwin, supposedly contains his renouncement:

I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.

It's a bit much to call that a renouncement. The story quickly spread, and multiple members of Darwin's family wrote to various people advocating the theory to deny the claim. But, true or not, it has been republished multiple times since then.
Modern Distancing

Lady Hope's story was long used by creationists arguing against Darwin's theories as evidence that they were wrong. But over time, even creationist websites have come to acknowledge the inherent weakness of the argument. In fact, several of the sources we used in researching this article were from creationist websites sharing the story but cautioning readers against employing it in an argument.

We cannot sum up the arguments against this story any better than the creationist website AnswersInGenesis.org did:

Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope's story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn't. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible.


By Jack Izzo  is a Chicago-based journalist and two-time "Jeopardy!" alumnus.

UK

Labour: Young people will be expected to take up work and training

RED TORIES SAY 

HEY KIDZ; ARBEIT MACHT FREI

SEAN SEDDON - BBC NEWS
March 4, 2024 

Liz Kendall

There will be "no option of a life on benefits" for young people under Labour, its shadow work secretary will declare in a speech on Monday.

Liz Kendall is expected to say the party will invest in careers and skills training but warn young people have a "responsibility" to take them up.

The party warned the number of people aged between 16-24 who are not in work, education or training is rising.

A Tory spokesman said Labour has an "abysmal" record on youth employment.

According to Office for National Statistics estimates, there were 851,000 young people not in employment, education or training between October to December 2023.

That number has risen by 20,000 compared to the same period in 2022 and accounts for 12% of all 16-24-year-olds.

In a speech to the Demos think tank in central London, Ms Kendall will say the Tories have "failed on the economy - and that is because they have failed on work".

She is expected to add: "This is our commitment to young people. We value you. You are important. We will invest in you and help you build a better future with all the chances and choices this brings.

"But in return for these new opportunities, you will have a responsibility to take up the work or training that's on offer. Under our changed Labour party, if you can work there will be no option of a life on benefits."

The party has not detailed whether it would introduce enforcement measures to back up its stance.

Speaking to BBC's Today programme ahead of her speech, Ms Kendall said young people were "desperate to work" but struggled to get a job without experience, and experience without a job.

She said Labour would ensure jobseekers had access to careers advice, work experience, employment support and early mental health support.

Labour has previously pledged to invest in 1,000 new careers advisers, specialist mental health support in every school and so-called Young Future hubs in every area to provide a range of services to vulnerable young people.

It says it would fund the changes by removing tax breaks for private schools and closing tax loopholes used by some private equity fund managers.

The party plans to reform the apprenticeship levy - a 0.5% tax on large employers - to invest in skills training.

Ms Kendall is further expected to say on Monday that Labour would "overhaul access to work" for disabled young people if it wins the next election.

In response, a Conservative Party spokesman pointed towards the previous record of Labour governments on youth employment.

The Tories have also attacked Labour's plan to reform the apprenticeship levy in order to fund its policies, saying it would lead to a reduction in the number of people getting on-the-job training.

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "Under the last Labour government, youth unemployment almost doubled and the number of people seeking out-of-work benefits soared - their abysmal record speaks for itself."

Another Russian human rights defender pays with his freedom

BY TANYA LOKSHINA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 03/04/24 7:00 AM ET

Courtesy of Memorial
Oleg Orlov getting handcuffed in a Moscow courtroom immediately following on the judge handing down a 2.5-year prison sentence. February 2024.

Last week, a court in Moscow sentenced Oleg Orlov, a leading Russian rights defender, to two and a half years in prison, following a trial so Kafkaesque that the accused literally spent court hearings engrossed in Kafka’s iconic novel “The Trial.”

His crime, if you can call it that, was telling the truth about the Kremlin’s abusive war in Ukraine and the staggering crackdown on all forms of dissent inside Russia. At age 70, having devoted his life to exposing violations in conflict zones and helping victims seek accountability, Orlov has given up his freedom to speak out in the face of horror and injustice.

Orlov is a co-chair of Memorial, and one of three recipients of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize. I first met him more than two decades ago, at a news conference where he and his colleagues were presenting their findings about Russian atrocities in Chechnya and demanding accountability for those responsible.

Afterward, we lingered over coffee. His fact-based accounts and his raw dedication to justice blew my mind. I later had the privilege of working with him in Chechnya and other North Caucasus regions for many years, and in eastern Ukraine between 2014 and 2016. Fearless, thorough and empathetic, Orlov does stellar work in hostile environments. No matter how dicey the situation, he always has your back.

Orlov worked under bombs in Chechnya. He was a volunteer hostage, trading himself to ensure release of civilians during a terrorist attack. He lived through death threats, one kidnapping and a beating by state security agents.

Recently, he had to watch the Russian authorities dismantle Memorial and other leading human rights organizations as part of the Kremlin’s assault on its critics. He also watched the government take control over all forms of public life, leaving no space for artistic expression, academic freedom, independent media or even basic privacy.

He had to watch as politicians and civic activists were sentenced to years in prison for criticizing the war, ranging from denouncing Russian forces’ war crimes in Bucha to replacing supermarket price tags with information about Russia’s devastating siege of Mariupol.

This time, it’s Orlov who is going to prison. He knew it was coming. In his closing statement toward the end of his sham trial, he said that in contemporary Russia, “an acquittal on this charge is impossible,” but he emphasized that he had “nothing to regret or repent for.”

I, on the other hand, have much to regret. I regret I couldn’t be in that Moscow courtroom when he was handcuffed and taken into custody immediately following the outrageous verdict and sentencing. Human Rights Watch, which had a presence in Russia for three decades, was kicked out by the authorities in spring 2022, shortly after the invasion of Ukraine.

As much as I wanted to be at Orlov’s trial, I knew I’d probably be detained and charged myself. All of our reporting on Russian abuses in Ukraine fits under the same draconian war censorship legislation under which Orlov and hundreds of others have already been prosecuted.

It is unbearable not to be able to support such a close friend and colleague — not to see him in person before he is dragged to prison. But Orlov urged his supporters not to succumb to despair. Recalling Alexei Navalny — the leading Russian opposition politician for whose death in a penal colony earlier this month the Kremlin bears responsibility — Orlov said, “Navalny urged us, ‘Don’t give up.’ We remember that. What I can add is this: do not lose heart, do not lose optimism. Because truth is on our side. Those who have dragged our country into the abyss where it is now represent the old, decrepit, outdated order. They have no vision for the future — only false narratives of the past, delusions of ‘imperial greatness’…But we live in the 21st century, the present and the future are with us, and our victory is inevitable.”

Orlov is right, truth is on our side. We make sure that everyone responsible is held accountable for Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine and for its repression at home. For that, and for Orlov’s sake, we cannot despair.

Tanya Lokshina is associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/russia

Left-for-dead uranium mines are being revived as prices soar, countries eye nuclear power to address climate change

BYJACOB LORINC, MARIA CLARA COBO AND BLOOMBERG
March 3, 2024

The Mochovce nuclear power plant in Mochovce, Slovakia last November.
JANOS KUMMER/GETTY IMAGES

Across the US and allied countries, owners of left-for-dead uranium mines are restarting operations to capitalize on rising demand for the nuclear fuel.

At least five US producers are reviving mines in states including Wyoming, Texas, Arizona and Utah, where production flourished until governments soured on the radioactive element following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.

Most of those American mines were idled in the aftermath of Fukushima, when uranium prices crashed and countries like Germany and Japan initiated plans to phase out nuclear reactors.

Now, With governments turning to nuclear power to meet emissions targets and top uranium producers struggling to satisfy demand, prices of the silvery-white metal are surging. And that’s giving those once-unprofitable uranium operations a chance to fill a supply gap.

Uranium has been used as an energy source for more than six decades, fueling nuclear power plants and reactors. About two-thirds of global production comes from Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia.

Uranium will be a topic of conversation as thousands of mining executives, geologists and bankers descend on Toronto for the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada gathering this week. The annual event has attracted at least 10 uranium firms, including Denison Mines Corp., Fission Uranium Corp. and IsoEnergy Ltd.

As countries increasingly consider nuclear power to address climate change, demand for uranium is expected to skyrocket. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates the world will need more than 100,000 metric tons of uranium per year by 2040 — an amount that requires nearly doubling mining and processing from current levels.


Canada’s Cameco Corp. and Kazakhstan’s Kazatomprom, which together account for half of global supply, have struggled to ramp up production. They have warned of some operational setbacks that will result in less uranium output than expected in the coming years.

Read More: World’s Biggest Uranium Miner Warns of Production Shortfall

“We’re in an old-fashioned, plain-and-simple supply squeeze,” said Scott Melbye, executive vice president of Texas-based Uranium Energy Corp. “Demand is increasing again, with new reactors coming online.”

Production hasn’t kept pace due to years of underinvestment in mining and exploration, said Melbye, whose company is reopening mines in Wyoming and Texas that were idled in 2018.

Energy Fuels Inc. initiated plans late last year to restart operations in Arizona, Utah and Colorado, while Ur-Energy Inc. said it will dust off an idled mine in Wyoming. Mid-sized companies in Australia and Canada have announced similar plans.


To be sure, production from these mines — most of which are small and nearing the end of their lives — would comprise a small fraction of the world’s uranium supply.

“The industry is clearly trying to respond with smaller mines reopening, but when you have a mine that hasn’t operated for that long, it’s obviously not very substantive,” said John Ciampagli, Chief Executive Officer of Sprott Asset Management, which operates the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust.
Top Producers

Supply constraints should ease with top producers churning out the millions of pounds of uranium they left in the ground when prices were low. Kazatomprom has been increasing output after years of operating well below its capacity.

Cameco has been ramping up production at the world’s largest high-grade uranium mine and mill — MacArthur River and Key Lake in the western Canadian province of Saskatchewan — after idling operations between 2018 and 2021 due to weak market conditions.

The two firms “will be very concerned about losing their market share to a bunch of juniors, and so they’ll want to claim that back,” said Tom Price, a senior commodities analyst at London-based investment bank Libereum. “That will take a lot of heat out of the market.”


Still, US mine reopenings mark a revival for an American industry that was at risk of disappearing only five years ago. American uranium production hit an all-time low of 174,000 pounds in 2019 — a drop from its 44-million-pound peak in 1980 — as the US started increasing dependence on imports from countries like Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia.

Read More: The Long Arm of Russia and the Politics of Uranium

The US industry’s push is also political, with the government seeking to secure access to supply amid geopolitical uncertainty. Sanctions on Russia following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine have posed challenges for uranium shipments en route from Kazakhstan, since the former Soviet state’s exports typically pass through Russian ports.

To keep up with demand, the Uranium Producers of America forecasts the US will need eight to 10 new, major mines to start production over the next decade.

The Farming Conundrum

Agriculture is a big contributor to climate change — is there a path to reinvention?

A new report found that the United States is spending billions of dollars to try to slash greenhouse gas emissions from farms, but many of the new practices are unproven.

Credit...Tim Gruber for The New York Times

By Manuela Andreoni
Feb. 29, 2024

Two news stories this week — one that made headlines, and one that got less attention — point to the fiendish difficulty of reinventing agriculture to reduce its heavy toll on the climate.

The first development: The New York attorney general Letitia James, fresh off a $450 million civil verdict against Donald Trump, announced a lawsuit against JBS, the world’s biggest meatpacking company, for making misleading statements about its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

James’s lawsuit said that JBS has “used greenwashing and misleading statements to capitalize on consumers’ increasing desire to make environmentally friendly choices,” with statements such as: “Agriculture can be part of the climate solution. Bacon, chicken wings, and steak with net zero emissions. It’s possible.”

The lawsuit cited David Gelles’s interview with Gilberto Tomazoni, the chief executive of JBS, at our Climate Forward event in September in which he said: “We pledge to be net zero in 2040.”

James argues the company can’t possibly achieve net zero “because there are no proven agricultural practices to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions” at the company’s vast scale, at least without costly efforts to offset its emissions.

JBS is a gigantic company, but the issues raised in the lawsuit against its U.S. arm are even fundamental: Is there even a path to net zero agriculture, especially if people are determined to keep large quantities of meat in their diets?
Climate-smart agriculture

The second development this week speaks to that problem: A new report found that the United States is spending billions of dollars to try to slash greenhouse gas emissions from farms. Sounds great, but there’s a hitch: much of the money may go to projects that won’t necessarily serve that goal.

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit group that conducted the research, said that the United States Department of Agriculture is poised to fund a number of unproven practices. Those include installing new irrigation systems, despite the harm they can cause to groundwater supplies, and building infrastructure to contain animal waste, which could in fact lead to more emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases.

Allan Rodriguez, a U.S.D.A. spokesman, said in a statement that the EWG report is “fundamentally flawed” because it “did not take into account the rigorous, science-based methodology used by USDA to determine eligible practices” or the level of specificity that is required for some practices to receive climate funding.

Anne Schechinger, the author of the EWG report, told me that she is still waiting for the U.S.D.A. to share its sources and data that would justify the climate-smart designation.

The Biden Administration’s Environmental AgendaNarrowing Two Big Climate Rules: President Biden’s climate ambitions are colliding with political and legal realities, forcing his administration to recalibrate two regulations aimed at cutting the emissions that are heating the planet: one requiring gas-burning power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions and one designed to sharply limit tailpipe emissions.
Chemical Facilities: The Biden administration issued new rules designed to prevent disasters at almost 12,000 chemical plants and other industrial sites nationwide that handle hazardous materials.
Fuel Ban: The Biden administration will permanently lift a ban on summertime sales of higher-ethanol gasoline blends in eight states starting in 2025, in response to a request from Midwestern governors.
Biden’s Climate Law: A year and a half after President Biden signed into law a sweeping bill to tackle climate change, an analysis of the legislation’s effects has found that electric vehicles are booming as expected but renewable power isn’t growing as quickly as hoped.

Even setting aside that particular dispute, one thing is clear: There is a huge knowledge gap in our efforts to transform agriculture. Measuring agricultural emissions is a lot more complex than monitoring power plants and tailpipes. That makes it hard for any government to measure how well such techniques are working — or if in some cases they’re actually doing more harm than good.

“The pace at which these strategies are being implemented is greatly outpacing the speed at which the science, knowledge necessary to understand their effectiveness is being generated,” said Kim Novick, an environmental scientist at Indiana University who studies carbon in agricultural systems. “Until we close that gap, it’s really a lot of putting the cart before the horse.”

Closing the knowledge gap

Farming accounts for about a third of the world’s carbon emissions, and a 10th of America’s. But we still know shockingly little about how to reduce its toll on the climate and vulnerable ecosystems.

I spoke to a number of experts for this newsletter. Though some of them were generally supportive of investing in some climate-smart practices, they told me that even practices that are generally recognized as good for the climate still have unclear benefits.

Take cover crops, one of the most accepted climate-smart farming practices. These are legumes and other species that are planted after the harvest of cash crops, such as corn, to help nourish the soil and improve water quality.

Most people agree that implementing cover crops on a large scale could help reduce emissions. But those conclusions rely on a relatively small amount of data, Novick told me.

The Inflation Reduction Act and other funding streams are directing hundreds of millions of dollars to improve data and models. That, the U.S.D.A. spokesman said, will “ensure that future resources are directed to the most effective practices.”

Doria Gordon, a senior director at the Environmental Defense Fund, told me she is excited about “the unprecedented level of funding” the agriculture sector is getting to become more sustainable and that many practices the U.S.D.A. is supporting should have climate benefits if implemented at scale.

Still, she would like the agency to take its efforts to collect data further. There is also “an equally unprecedented opportunity” to close the knowledge gap, she said. “This really is a once in-a-lifetime chance to advance our understanding of these emerging solutions.”

More climate news

Despite ongoing protests by farmers, the European Union approved a landmark bill to restore 20 percent of its land and sea ecosystems by 2030, The Guardian reports.

Cities across the world are stripping out concrete to make room for earth and plants, the BBC reports.

Exxon’s chief told Fortune magazine that “people generating the emissions” need to pay the price.


Manuela Andreoni is a Times climate and environmental reporter and a writer for the Climate Forward newsletter. More about Manuela Andreoni

Is the USDA’s spending on ‘climate-smart’ farming actually helping the climate?

A new report asks whether supposedly green livestock practices have proven benefits.

AP Photo / Rodrigo Abd

Max Graham

Food and Agriculture Fellow
Mar 01, 2024

America’s farms don’t just run on corn and cattle. They also run on cash from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Every year, the USDA spends billions of dollars to keep farmers in business. It hands out money to balance fluctuations in crop prices; it provides loans for farmers who want to buy livestock or seeds; and it pays growers who lose crops to drought, floods, and other extreme weather.

The agency is also now giving money — including $20 billion that Congress earmarked two years ago in the Inflation Reduction Act — to farmers trying to curb their greenhouse gas emissions and store carbon in soil, a key part of the Biden administration’s goal to cut the 10 percent of the country’s emissions generated by agriculture. That windfall of climate-smart farm funding has been widely lauded by climate activists and researchers.

But exactly how the USDA spends that money is more complicated — and contentious — than it might appear, and not simply because Republicans in Congress have threatened to siphon the funds away. A new report from the Environmental Working Group says that more than a dozen of the farming practices that the USDA recently designated as “climate-smart”— including several of the highest-funded ones — don’t actually have proven climate benefits. That finding is especially important, according to the group, because the USDA is likely to spend more money on the same practices in the years to come: Much of the $20 billion authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act has yet to reach farmers’ pockets.

Supporting farming techniques with uncertain benefits “undermines potentially real reductions in emissions,” said Anne Schechinger, author of the report and Midwest director at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental research and advocacy organization. “If these unproven practices stay on the list, then a lot of money will go to these practices that likely aren’t going to reduce emissions.”

A USDA spokesperson said the agency uses a rigorous, scientific process to determine what it considers climate-smart. Still, the agency acknowledges that not everything on its list necessarily has quantifiable benefits. New additions to the list are provisional — that is, they’re added “under the premise that they may provide benefits” and will be removed later on if those benefits can’t be quantified.

Schechinger analyzed spending by the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, called EQIP for short, the agency’s biggest conservation program. She found that, between 2017 and 2022, the program directed around $2 billion to techniques that were added provisionally to its climate-smart list for this fiscal year.

“It looks like a lot of money is going to climate-smart practices between 2017 and 2022 when, really, very little of the total EQIP money has actually gone to practices with proven climate benefits,” said Schechinger.

In particular, the group called into question eight of 15 methods that the Biden administration added provisionally, such as installing a waste facility cover or an irrigation pipeline. One of them — “waste storage facility,” a structure that holds manure and other agricultural waste — may even increase emissions, according to the report. The USDA spent about $250 million on them between 2017 and 2022.

The department specifies on its list that only a specific kind of waste storage facility, one that composts manure, counts as climate-smart. These composting structures can reduce methane emissions and improve water quality, the agency says.

“Unfortunately, EWG did not take into account the rigorous, science-based methodology used by USDA to determine eligible practices, nor the level of specificity required during the implementation process to ensure the practices’ climate-smart benefits are being maximized,” said Allan Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the USDA, in an emailed statement. “As a result, the findings of this report are fundamentally flawed, speculative, and rest on incorrect assumptions around USDA’s selection of climate-smart practices.”

Schechinger acknowledged that the USDA doesn’t define all waste storage facilities as climate-smart, but she said that the funding data she was able to obtain through a records request didn’t distinguish between specific facility types and that it “remains to be seen” whether the Inflation Reduction Act money will go only to the kind that composts manure.

Some researchers have argued that more studies need to be done on most “climate-smart” practices — even ones, such as planting cover crops, that the Environmental Working Group doesn’t question in its report — before anyone can say how much climate pollution they’re curbing or carbon they’re sequestering. “For most climate-smart management practices, we do not yet have the data and information we need to understand when and where they are most likely to succeed,” said Kim Novick, an environmental scientist at Indiana University.

Most scientists agree that more data needs to be collected and analyzed to understand, say, the nuances of storing carbon in the soil. But some argue that climate change is just too urgent to delay action.

That’s one reason Rachel Schattman, a professor of sustainable agriculture at the University of Maine, supports the USDA’s use of climate funding. She also has confidence in the agency’s commitment to science. A practice doesn’t get put on the agency’s conservation list “without having demonstrated environmental benefits or reduced environmental harm,” she said. “Whether those benefits or reduced harms are related to climate change is something [the USDA] is grappling with in a really meaningful way right now.”

Schattman also said it’s important not to paint climate-smart practices with a broad brush. “Everybody’s farm is different. Everybody’s soil is different. Everybody’s microclimate is different,” she said. An irrigation pipeline in the Arizona desert might have a different effect on water and energy use than one on a farm in Vermont. Even if a practice here or there doesn’t reduce emissions or store carbon in the soil exactly how the USDA intends, Schattman said the influx of funding still could move agriculture in the right direction.

The Inflation Reduction Act created “a once in a lifetime opportunity for a lot of farmers,” she said. “I think it is going to make a lot of things possible that people couldn’t do before.”


Grist is the only award-winning newsroom focused on exploring equitable solutions to climate change. It’s vital reporting made entirely possible by loyal readers like you. At Grist, we don’t believe in paywalls. Instead, we rely on our readers to pitch in what they can so that we can continue bringing you our solution-based climate news.

New USDA 'climate-friendly' farming and ranching practices have yet to be proven, report says

March 1, 2024

A cow grazes in a field outside of Walcott, Iowa.

An environmental activist group charges that many “climate smart” farming practices recently added to a list for U.S. Department of Agriculture funding are not yet proven.

The Environmental Working Group says funding from the Inflation Reduction Act should not be used to pay farmers for using the practices, until there is more evidence that they work.

The EWG made the charge in a new report issued Wednesday about the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP.

The program, run by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, was launched in the 1990s, but its current authorization comes from the 2018 Farm Bill. EQIP helps farmers with funding to implement conservation methods that have met the department’s approval. Since 2023, its funding sources have included money authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act to fund climate change mitigation efforts.

But the EWG report says many of the 15 practices earmarked for that funding “likely do little or nothing to help in the climate fight.”

“USDA says that they have literature showing that these practices have climate benefits,” said agricultural economist and EWG Midwest Director Anne Schechinger, who authored the report. “But they don't actually have any quantifiable data showing that these practices reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

She said eight of the 15 practices are for irrigation and livestock, management techniques “that likely don’t reduce emissions,” and in one case, may even increase emissions.

Funding from the Inflation Reduction Act specifically meant for addressing climate change should be reserved for practices proven to be effective, Schechinger said. While the USDA’s NRCS plans to study the possible benefits of the new farming practices this year, she said until the results of those studies are in, the practices should be removed from eligibility for IRA funding.

New Practices:
brush management
irrigation system, sprinkler
waste storage facility
irrigation pipeline
waste facility cover
irrigation system, micro
pumping plant
woody residue treatment
herbaceous weed control
prescribed burning
wildlife habitat–restore and management
fuel break
composting facility
feed management
soil carbon amendment

The USDA is defending the EQIP program’s climate-smart agriculture practices.
In a statement, spokesman Allan Rodriguez said the department used “rigorous, science-based methodology” to determine which practices are eligible — and that farmers who qualify for funding must use the practices under specific conditions to maximize their effectiveness.

Rodriguez said the Environmental Working Group’s findings were “fundamentally flawed, speculative, and rest on incorrect assumptions around USDA’s selection of climate-smart practices.”

Jonathan Coppess, who researches federal ag policy as an associate professor at the University of Illinois, said the EWG report does raise valid concerns. He said that while he can sympathize with the USDA’s position, he points out that Inflation Reduction Act funding is scheduled to end after the 2026 fiscal year.

“Once the funds are out, you can’t pull them back,” said Coppess. “And so, if they are misspent, it's a missed opportunity in a significant way to do what is an important effort for agriculture, for our food system, and for the climate.”

But according to Erik Lichtenberg, there are more benefits to the practices in question than the EWG report credits. The University of Maryland agricultural economist, who has studied the USDA’s approach to conservation and climate change, said paying farmers to implement practices that are not fully proven is a way to find out how they work under a wide range of conditions and climates.

“We're fairly new to managing agriculture to mitigate climate change impacts, and that means we really need to be experimenting to see what does work and what doesn't,” Lichtenberg said. “Farming practices that work in one place, don't work in another. So, we're really going to need to experiment a lot and adjust for local conditions a lot.”

The USDA has funded only about a third of the applications they received from farmers for the EQIP program between fiscal year 2018 and 2022.

The USDA’s Rodriguez said the additional funding from the Inflation Reduction Act is expanding the number of farmers EQIP can serve, and also financing efforts to monitor and verify the effectiveness of new practices.

He said those efforts will enable them to “quantify the impact of conservation practices on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration and ensure that future resources are directed to the most effective practices.”

This story was produced in partnership with Harvest Public Media, a collaboration of public media newsrooms in the Midwest. It reports on food systems, agriculture and rural issues.

RESEARCH

Many newly labeled USDA climate-smart conservation practices lack climate benefits


JUMP TO:
What climate-smart practices should do
New practices probably don’t benefit climate
New list creates alternate reality of robust climate funding
Climate money will now go to different states
Map: Environmental Quality Incentives Program payments, 2017-2022
Analysis methodology


OverviewNewly designated USDA climate-smart conservation practices likely don’t reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Only practices that reduce emissions are eligible for $19.5 billion in 2022 Inflation Reduction Act funds.
The new designations make it look, erroneously, like a lot of money is going to climate-smart agriculture.


Against the backdrop of the deepening climate crisis, the Department of Agriculture recently added 15 Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, practices to its climate-smart conservation list – but many likely do little or nothing to help in the climate fight, a new EWG analysis of USDA data finds.

The new data is compiled in EWG’s just-updated Conservation Database. EQIP is one of the USDA’s largest conservation programs, helping farmers implement environmentally beneficial practices.

Some of the newly designated climate-smart practices already receive, by far, the most dollars from EQIP. So the revision of the list conveniently makes it look as though a large share of federal conservation funding will now go to climate-smart farming, providing a misleading picture of agriculture and climate in the U.S.

In 2022, EWG found that only a small portion of EQIP funding went to farmers’ implementation of climate-smart methods. The USDA's new list changes the equation significantly, effectively doubling climate-smart funding: Instead of 31 percent of EQIP funds subsidizing climate-smart farming between 2017 and 2022, it now appears that 63 percent did.

And the new climate-smart practices are about to get even more money, because they’re eligible to receive additional funds through the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. This money totals about $19.5 billion, $8.45 billion of which is meant specifically for EQIP practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in soil between fiscal years 2023 and 2026.

But many of the newly labeled practices likely do not have climate benefits. Eight of them are methods for irrigation and livestock management that likely don’t reduce emissions. One even increases emissions, according to USDA’s own data.

The USDA’s conservation agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, says that in 2024 it will study the possible climate benefits of the newly added practices.

Until then, the USDA should remove them from its climate-smart list. No IRA funds should underwrite them without proof they actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate-smart conservation is intended to provide real climate benefits

For the past few years, the NRCS has made a list of practices funded through EQIP and the Conservation Stewardship Program, one of its other tentpole conservation programs, that it considers climate-smart. The practices on this list are intended to cause “quantifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and/or increases in carbon sequestration.”

In fiscal year 2023, the NRCS climate-smart list included 45 EQIP practices for which farmers received payments at some point between 2017 and 2022. (Other practices on the list didn’t get funding.) The funded practices included those with proven climate benefits, such as “cover crops,” “nutrient management” and “grassed waterways.”

In October 2023, the NRCS updated its list of climate-smart practices for fiscal year 2024. The roster now has 57 EQIP practices that received funding between 2017 and 2022, including 15 new additions (not including two practices that were removed). (See Table 1.) Only 14 of the 15 newly added practices got any funding between 2017 and 2022. “Soil carbon amendment” was added to the list for 2024 but didn’t receive any funds.

Table 1. 2024 climate-smart EQIP practices.*



EQIP practices added to USDA's 2024 climate-smart conservation list

EQIP practices removed from USDA's climate-smart conservation list for 2024


Brush Management

Wildlife Upland Habitat Management


Irrigation System, Sprinkler


Waste Storage Facility


Irrigation Pipeline


Waste Facility Cover


Irrigation System, Micro


Pumping Plant


Woody Residue Treatment

Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation


Herbaceous Weed Control


Prescribed Burning


Wildlife Habitat- Restore and Management


Fuel Break


Composting Facility


Feed Management


*List only includes 14 practices that received money between 2017 and 2023. It does not include “Soil carbon amendment,” which did not.

Source: EWG, from public records requests for USDA-NRCS program data.
Many practices newly labeled climate-smart likely don’t benefit the climate

Of the 14 newly added (and funded) practices, more than half – eight – are irrigation or livestock practices, such as “waste storage facility” and “irrigation pipeline.”

The NRCS is calling all of these practices “provisionally” climate-smart – it cannot yet show whether they reduce emissions, so they have no proven climate benefits.

And “waste storage facility,” a structure that contains animal waste, increases greenhouse gas emissions, according to the data USDA does have.

These livestock practices are almost certainly not climate-smart. Agriculture contributes more than 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock a major source – particularly beef and dairy cattle, which emit vast quantities of methane.

EQIP funding to manage large amounts of livestock in concentrated facilities encourages farmers to keep relying on this model instead of raising animals on pasture, which could help to lower emissions.

Irrigation practices are also not clearly climate-smart. Although EQIP irrigation practices seem to enable more efficient water use, they do not always reduce total water use, especially in the West, where many farmers’ water rights follow “use it or lose it” policies.

In these cases, if a water rights holder does not use all their water allocation, they forfeit the rest, so they have an incentive to use the most they can. So installing more efficient irrigation wouldn’t necessarily save any water.

The IRA text says $8.45 billion of its funding should go only to EQIP practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in soil – in other words, to the practices on the NRCS climate-smart list.

So calling the livestock and irrigation practices climate-smart, provisionally or not, is problematic, since the IRA states that its agricultural funding should go to conservation practices that reduce emissions or sequester carbon.

The NRCS has said it will study provisional practices in 2024 to measure their greenhouse gas emission reductions, if any. It has also said if it does not find benefits, it may remove the provisional practices from the climate-smart list for the following year.

But history would show that these practices may not be studied in 2024: All eight provisional practices on the 2023 list remain on the list for 2024 – and all are still listed as provisional.
New list creates alternate reality where lots of money has gone to climate-smart farming

Some of the practices just added to the 2024 climate-smart list received the most EQIP funding between 2017 and 2022 – painting an inaccurate picture of a lot of money going to practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But because many of these new provisional practices likely do not reduce emissions, only a small share of EQIP spending is actually going to practices with proven climate benefits.

EQIP sent $5.5 billion to farmers across all practices between 2017 and 2022. Only $1.7 billion of this, or 31 percent, went to practices on the 2023 climate-smart list, most of which have been proven to reduce emissions or sequester carbon in soil.

But with the addition of the 14 funded provisional practices for 2024, that amount more than doubled to $3.47 billion – or 63 percent of all EQIP spending.

That’s because many of the practices added to the 2024 list are the most-funded practices in the whole program. The 10 practices with the most total EQIP payments made up $2.65 billion between 2017 and 2022 – almost half of all EQIP spending. Only two of these, “cover crops” and “forest stand improvement,” were on the 2023 climate-smart list.

But when the list was revised for 2024, eight of the 10 practices with the most program funding appeared on it. In addition to the two from 2023, these included “brush management”; “irrigation system – sprinkler”; “waste storage facility”; “irrigation pipeline”; “waste facility cover”; and “irrigation system – micro irrigation.” (See Table 2.) Five of these six practices are livestock or irrigation practices.

Of the 10 practices with the most EQIP payments, the only two not on the 2024 climate-smart list were “fence” and “pipeline,” which brings water to livestock or wildlife.

Table 2. Almost all the 10 EQIP practices with the most payments between 2017 and 2022 were added to the 2024 climate-smart practice list.



Practice rank

Practice name

EQIP payments 2017-2022

Percent of all EQIP payments

On 2023 climate-smart list?

On 2024 climate-smart list?


1

Cover Crop

$504,812,892



2

Brush Management

$314,991,152


3

Irrigation System, Sprinkler

$313,561,007



4

Fence

$311,036,533


5

Waste Storage Facility

$252,142,865


6

Irrigation Pipeline

$230,101,825



7

Waste Facility Cover

$228,568,531



8

Irrigation System, Micro

$175,194,972

9

Pipeline

$162,365,526


10

Forest Stand Improvement

$159,735,684



Source: EWG, from public records requests for USDA-NRCS program data.
Addition of provisional practices to climate-smart list changes states receiving IRA funds

Expanding the climate-smart list will also change where the IRA money goes.

Across EQIP, payments are concentrated in just a few places – 44 percent of the money spent between 2017 and 2022 went to just 10 states. Similarly, 45 percent of payments to practices on the 2023 climate-smart list went to farmers in just 10 states, and 46 percent of payments to practices on the 2024 list went to farmers in the 10 states with the most payments.

When the list changed, so did the states that got the most climate-smart money. California and Texas were the top two on both lists, but the others changed drastically.

Seven of the top 10 states on the 2023 list were located in the Mississippi River Critical Conservation Area, a region of the country with important agricultural, industry, wildlife and ecological resources. But only four of the top 10 states on the 2024 climate-smart list were located in the conservation area (Table 3). Now Southern and Western states like Colorado, Georgia and Oregon will receive more so-called climate-smart funding.

Table 3. The 10 states that received the most payments between 2017 and 2022 for practices on the 2023 climate-smart list, compared to those on the 2024 list.
State rank States with the most payments for 2023 list Payments 2017-2022 for practices on 2023 list States with the most payments for 2024 list Payments 2017-2022 for practices on 2024 list
1 California $167,970,025 Texas $371,894,245
2 Texas $99,642,015 California $359,871,676
3 Missouri $69,273,408 Georgia $137,069,838
4 Indiana $65,270,184 Colorado $118,425,439
5 Tennessee $64,641,082 Arkansas $110,504,198
6 Wisconsin $57,753,631 Mississippi $100,305,742
7 Iowa $55,750,215 Oregon $93,274,547
8 Ohio $55,410,931 Oklahoma $91,351,469
9 Oklahoma $55,025,391 Indiana $91,034,785
10 Mississippi $54,055,521 Ohio $90,089,372
Total 10 states $744,792,403 Total top 10 states $1,563,821,311


Source: EWG, from public records requests for USDA-NRCS program data.

The map below shows which states received the most money for practices on the 2023 climate-smart list, compared to those that got the most money for practices on the 2024 list.

INTERACTIVE MAP
Environmental Quality Incentives Program payments

This application provides details about payments from the EQIP between 2017 and 2022 for practices on the USDA's 2023 climate-smart list compared to the practices on its 2024 climate-smart list.

VIEW THE MAP


METHODOLOGY

EWG analyzed payment data from the USDA for fiscal years 2017 through 2022. We received the state- and county-level data from the USDA through public records requests and the national practice-level payment data via an email from a USDA employee, not as a response to our official request. The sums provided here represent payments made to farmers for each EQIP practice, not the amount committed to farmers for the practices, also known as obligations.

The state- and county-level EQIP data include only practices with more than four contracts in a state or county for a particular year. In response to EWG’s Freedom of Information Act requests, the USDA did not provide data for EQIP practices with four or fewer contracts in the state or county in a specific year, citing a privacy exemption. Because of this, the payments by county do not equal the total payments by practice for the state or nationally, and the payments by state will not equal the total payments nationally.

'Embarrassed and disgraced': CNN employees criticise channel's Gaza coverage in leaked recording

A leaked audio has revealed a confrontation which took place between CNN employees and network executives during a meeting in London over the war in Gaza.

The New Arab Staff
03 March, 2024

CNN has been criticised for what Palestinians have said is bias news coverage since the start of the war 

Employees at CNN have expressed their discontent with the channel’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza during a meeting with network executives, a leaked recording obtained by The Intercept has revealed.

The employees confronted a panel of executives during the meeting at CNN’s London Bureau on 13 February, berating the seniors and telling them they felt "devalued, embarrassed, and disgraced" by the channel's coverage of the war.

Among the staffers who criticised CNN was renowned news anchor Christiane Amanpour, who according to The Intercept, was identified in the recording after someone said her name.

CNN correspondents have been confronted in and outside Gaza for what Palestinians say is biased news coverage in Israel’s favour.

This, the employees said during the February meeting according to the leaked recording, was creating a "hostile climate for Arab reporters".

The executives tried to reassure staffers and told them their concerns were being heard, but still defended CNN’s work, the recording revealed.

Gaza: News leaders sign solidarity letter with journalists

Last month, a report by The Guardian said unnamed CNN staff members had accused the broadcaster of biased reporting on the war.

Six journalists from CNN newsrooms in the US and elsewhere had blamed the outlet's new management and editorial process for pro-Israel narratives that have led to "journalistic malpractice," the report said.

Israel’s unprecedented bombardment of the Gaza Strip has killed over 30,400 people, mostly women and children health authorities in Gaza say.

IN INTERNAL MEETING, CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR CONFRONTS CNN BRASS ABOUT “DOUBLE STANDARDS” ON ISRAEL COVERAGE

Amanpour expressed “real distress” over Israel stories being changed, while other staffers described a climate that is hostile to Arab journalists.

Daniel Boguslaw, Prem Thakker

March 1 2024, 12:47 p.m.


CNN EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING the renowned international news anchor Christiane Amanpour, confronted network executives over what the staffers described as myriad leadership failings in coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza, according to a leaked recording of a recent all-hands meeting obtained by The Intercept.

In the hourlong meeting at CNN’s London Bureau on February 13, staffers took turns questioning a panel of executives about CNN’s protocols for covering the war in Gaza and what they describe as a hostile climate for Arab reporters. Several junior and senior CNN employees described feeling devalued, embarrassed, and disgraced by CNN’s war coverage.

The panelists — CNN Worldwide CEO and CNN Editor-in-Chief Mark Thompson, CNN U.S. Executive Editor Virginia Moseley, and CNN International General Manager Mike McCarthy — responded with broad assurances that the employees’ concerns were being heard, while also defending CNN’s work and pointing to the persistent obstacle of gaining access inside the Gaza Strip.

Related
CNN Runs Gaza Coverage Past Jerusalem Team Operating Under Shadow of IDF Censor

One issue that came up repeatedly is CNN’s longtime process for routing almost all coverage relating to Israel and Palestine through the network’s Jerusalem bureau. As The Intercept reported in January, the protocol — which has existed for years but was expanded and rebranded as SecondEyes last summer — slows down reporting on Gaza and filters news about the war through journalists in Jerusalem who operate under the shadow of Israel’s military censor.

“You’ve heard from me, you’ve heard my, you know, real distress with SecondEyes — changing copy, double standards, and all the rest,” said Amanpour, who was identified in the recording when an executive called her name. “So you’ve heard it, and I hear what your response is and I hope it does go a long way.”

CNN spokesperson Jonathan Hawkins declined to comment on the meeting and pointed The Intercept to the network’s previous statement about SecondEyes, which described it as a process to bring “more expert eyes” to coverage around the clock. “I would add to this that the staff members on this group include Arab staff based outside Israel, and have done since the group was established,” Hawkins said.

Amanpour did not respond to a request for comment.

Read Our Complete Coverage
Israel’s War on Gaza

Like other mainstream news organizations, CNN has faced a flood of internal and external criticism of its coverage of Israel and Gaza since October 7, accused of minimizing Palestinian suffering and uncritically amplifying Israeli narratives. Just this week, CNN described an Israeli massacre of more than 100 starving people who were gathered to get food as a “chaotic incident.” Earlier this month, The Guardian published an extensive story sourced to multiple CNN staffers who described the network’s Gaza coverage as “journalistic malpractice.”

During the February meeting, a half-dozen staffers spoke candidly about concerns with CNN’s war coverage. They said the coverage has weakened the network’s standing in the region and has led Arab staffers, some of whom entered lethal situations to cover the war, feeling as though their lives are expendable.

“I was in southern Lebanon during October and November,” one journalist said. “And it was more distressing for me to turn on CNN, than the bombs falling nearby.”

THE MEETING BEGAN as an effort for leadership to discuss editorial priorities. Thompson, in his opening remarks, spoke at length about his vision for evenhanded journalism and reiterated his personal openness to critical exchange and inquiry. “There’s something about the essence of CNN — its brand, what it stands for — which to me is great breaking news, with, right in the middle of the frame, a human being, someone you trust and whose background you know, acting as your guide to what’s happening,” he said.

As soon as the C-suite opened the discussion up to staff questions, the interrogation began.

“My question is about our Gaza coverage,” said the journalist who worked from Lebanon in the fall. “I think it’s no secret that there is a lot of discontent about how the newsgathering process — and how it played out.”

Instead of finding solace in CNN’s coverage of the war, the staffer continued, “I find that my colleagues, my family, are platforming people over and over again, that are either calling for my death, or using very dehumanizing language against me … and people that look like me. And obviously, this has a huge impact in our credibility in the region.”

MOST READ

The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé
Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, Daniel Boguslaw


How Israel Quietly Crushed Early American Jewish Dissent on Palestine
Debbie Nathan

The journalist posed a question to the executives: “I want to ask as well, what have you done, and what are you doing to address the hate speech that fills our air and informed our coverage, especially in the first few months of the war?”

Thompson responded that he’s generally satisfied with how the network has covered Israel’s war on Gaza, while conceding that “it is impossible to do this kind of story where there are people with incredibly strong opinions on both sides,” without “sometimes making mistakes.” He added that CNN has gotten better at admitting mistakes and trying to correct them and suggested, in response to the staffer’s concerns over dehumanization, that holes in coverage are a consequence of limited access to Gaza.

“I think the fact that it’s been very difficult for us until relatively recently, and even today, to get fully on the ground inside Gaza, has made it hard for us to deliver the kind of individualized personal stories of what it’s been like for the people of Gaza, in the way it has been more possible for us with the story of the families of those murdered and kidnapped by Hamas in the original Hamas attack on Israel,” said Thompson, who answered most of the questions.

If the network had the same access to Gaza as it does to the families of Israeli hostages, he continued, “I believe we would have done the same,” citing a story the network ran about one of its own producers caught in Gaza. “I think that we have for the most part tried very hard to capture the … our job is not to be moral arbiters, it is to report what’s happening.”

Another newsroom staffer chimed in to object to the network’s uncritical coverage of statements by Israeli officials, including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. “I think a lot of us felt very strongly about the fact that there were very senior anchors not challenging people like, comments like, the defense minister using what is considered under international law, genocidal language, ‘human animals,’ all of those things that made up the first seven pages of the South African legal case at the ICJ,” referring to the International Court of Justice.

The employee then turned to SecondEyes: “If we want a culture that truly values diversity, we need to be really honest about, nobody gets it right. But we did not have our key Jerusalem producers on that Jerusalem SecondEyes — we didn’t have an Arab on it for some time.”

The staffer went on to say that Muslim or Arab journalists at CNN were made to feel that they must denounce Hamas to clear their names and be taken seriously as journalists. “I’ve heard this, where a number of younger colleagues now feel that they didn’t want to put their hands up to speak up even in the kind of the local Bureau meeting,” the staffer said. “People were taking their names off bylines.”

Thompson interjected, saying that people seemed to be speaking up now and that he welcomes editorial discussions.

Another staffer disputed that characterization and noted that Arab and Muslim journalists walk a difficult line between feeling proud of working for CNN while facing pressure from their families and communities over working for a network with a pronounced pro-Israel bias.

“I think it’s very important for you to know that the degree of racism that those of us of Arab and Muslim descent face inside Israel, covering Israel, was disproportionate — the targeting of us by pro Israeli organizations, and what we had to hear,” another staffer added.

Amanpour chimed in toward the end of the meeting. She praised the reports of Clarissa Ward, Nada Bashir, and Jomana Karadsheh and suggested that CNN should have more experts like them on the ground and in the field, especially at the start of a conflict.

“Bottom line, we do actually have to send experts to these unbelievably difficult, contentious, you know, game-changing stories,” said Amanpour, a veteran war reporter. “It isn’t a place, with due respect, to send people who we want to promote or whatever, or teach. Maybe in the second wave, maybe in the third wave — but in the first wave, it has to be the people who know, through experience, what they’re seeing, and how to speak truth to power on all sides. And how to recognize the difference between political or whatever or terrorist attack, and the humanity, and to be able to put all of that into reporting.”

“For me, video is not a talking head on a balcony in a capital,” Amanpour said. “It just isn’t. To me, video is reportage.”

Yes, a Florida school sent a permission slip to parents for student participation in a Black History Month activity

The situation appears to have stemmed from a misunderstanding of a new rule in Florida's Parental Rights and Education law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022.

Author: Isabella Casapao, First Coast News (On Your Side)
Published: March 3, 2024

FLORIDA, USA — Florida officials are clearing up some confusion surrounding a viral tweet showing a Miami-Dade County Public Schools permission slip asking parents if their child can participate in reading a book written by an African American.

The confusion appears to have stemmed from a misunderstanding of Flordia's Parental Rights and Education law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022.


THE QUESTION
Did a Florida school send a permission slip to parents for a Black History Month activity?

THE SOURCES
Parental Rights and Education law
Florida Department of Education
Code Rule 6A-10.085
Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz
The Poynter Institute

THE ANSWER



THE CLAIM

The parent of a first-grade student at Coral Way K-8 Center in Miami took to social media to ask why he "had" to give permission for his child to participate in a Black History Month school activity, where students would participate and listen to an African American author's book.

Shown in an image taken by the parent, Chuck Walter, the permission slip describes the activity as: "Students will participate & listen to a book written by an African American."

The slip also lists a place for "Types of guests that may attend the activity or event," which states: fireman, doctor and artist.

So let's VERIFY.

WHAT WE FOUND

No Florida law, including the Parental Rights in Education law, requires schools to get parental consent to teach Black history or celebrate Black History Month.

Florida officials are condemning the school's actions in asking for permission for what they say is required material.

"African American history is required instruction, Black History Month is required instruction. There's no permission slip required for required instruction," Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz said during a news conference on Feb. 15. "Those permission slips have to do with field trips, extracurricular activities, those kind of activities."

Diaz is referring to the new Code Rule 6A-10.085 of the Parental Rights in Education Bill, which requires schools to get permission from parents before students can participate in field trips, extracurricular activities and other supplemental programs and activities.

The rule does not indicate that Black History or Black History Month must get approval from parents before being taught in a Florida classroom.

A day after the parent's tweet went viral, Diaz made a post on X, formally known as Twitter, saying: "Any school that does that is completely in the wrong."

During the conference, Diaz said: "There was a letter written from the Chairman of the State Board clarifying the issue."

In the letter obtained by First Coast News, State Board of Education Chair Ben Gibson asks the principal of Coral Way K-8 Center to update its school policies to correctly align with Florida law.

"It has come to my attention that your school has a policy that requires parental permission for students to engage in routine curricular activities," Gibson wrote, pointing to the fact the school is the "only school in Florida interpreting the State Board of Education's new rule this way."

"Obviously, it is wrong to interpret the rule to require parental permission for a student to receive ordinary instruction, including on subjects required by state law and Department rule," Gibson adds.

The letter concluded with Gibson asking the school's principal and superintendent to immedietely review the situiation and "take appropriate action."

A spokesperson for Miami-Dade County Public Schools told The Poynter Institute that the permission slips were sent home because the activity involved participation from a guest speaker during a school-authorized education-related activity.

However, the particular, viral permission slip that prompted the response from the board does not indicate guest-related involvement as the main reason for parental consent.