SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
alaska
The Arctic Is the Last Frontier, Trump Could Make It the Lost Frontier
With Trump’s return to the Oval Office, fossil fuel giants will get another chance to turn this pristine wilderness into the country’s largest gas station.
Jan 10, 2025
I’ve guided trips to Alaska’s North Slope and Brooks Range Mountains for 31 years, and I always start out with the same speech: “You are headed to some real wild country.” Alaska’s Arctic is home to some of our most iconic landscapes. This is probably the wildest place left in the United States and some of the most remote country in North America. What you see there—and what you won’t see–are things you’ll never forget.
I had guided rafting trips for a number of years across the western U.S., but I was unprepared for the sheer scale of this country. At all points of the compass, nothing but tundra for days and a river filled with exotically beautiful aufeis–layer upon frozen layer of ice. I’ve seen caribou, wolves, bears–a muskox nearly trampled my tent. I’ve had the good fortune to return to this landscape every year and it still is as wild and free from development as ever–for now. But with the return of Donald Trump to the White House, that could soon change.
To stem the tide of species loss and to give our environment a fighting chance, we need to protect more lands and waters by the end of the decade than we did in the last century.
The Arctic as we currently know it is thanks to Jimmy Carter, who passed away last week at the age of 100. Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act created 16 wildlife refuges, 13 national parks, two national monuments, two national forests, two conservation areas, and 26 wild and scenic rivers, and designated 57 million acres of wilderness. Ironically, Carter’s funeral will happen the same day the Biden administration holds its final lease sale in the Arctic Refuge—the smallest version they could legally offer. It’s a fitting move from an administration that, unlike Carter, had a complicated approach to the Arctic.
The Western Arctic was the setting for one of President Biden’s worst climate decisions—the March 2023 approval of the Willow project. Instead of preserving these landscapes from extraction, the president seemed to extend a new and dark era for the Arctic that began with Trump’s approval of oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge in 2017.
But a lot can change in a few months, and the Biden administration seemingly shifted strategies in the Western Arctic from extraction to preservation. Beginning last summer, the White House advanced a slate of new protections to safeguard millions of acres of public lands from oil and gas drilling. This summer was my 31st leading people into the Brooks Range mountains and the tundra beyond to the north in those little planes, and as we flew over wild Alaskan landscapes, we saw no signs of human development—in part due to Biden’s actions. But oil and gas companies will soon have a new ally to turn to.
With Trump’s return to the Oval Office, those same companies will get another chance to turn this pristine wilderness into the country’s largest gas station. On the campaign trail, Trump made it clear he would “drill, baby, drill” and give those Big Oil CEOs free rein to drill wherever and whenever they could. Opening up the Arctic Refuge to drilling was one of the first actions the Republican trifecta took in 2017, and extending that law is one of their top priorities this time around. For Arctic communities, wildlife, and ecosystems, it’s the biggest threat in a generation.
We’re currently witnessing an extinction crisis driven by habitat destruction, and the key driver of habitat destruction is development. At the same time, the effects of the climate crisis are being exacerbated by development that destabilizes ecosystems and natural carbon absorption. To stem the tide of species loss and to give our environment a fighting chance, we need to protect more lands and waters by the end of the decade than we did in the last century. The Arctic survived four years of Trump, but it’s up to us to ensure it survives another four.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Virtuous Cycle': Local Business Owners Celebrate 2025 Minimum Wage Hikes
“The minimum wage increase will recirculate back into the economy through spending at the main street shops that make up the fabric of our communities,” said one business owner in New York.
Dec 30, 2024
With 23 states and the District of Columbia slated to increase their minimum wages by the end of 2025, the national network Business for a Fair Minimum Wage reports that business owners in states around the country are cheering those increases, saying they will boost consumer spending and hiring, increase productivity, help retain employees, and in general strengthen the economy.
According to a statement Business for a Fair Minimum Wage issued on December 12, the following states will have either a planned or indexed minimum wage increase on January 1: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Florida, Oregon, and the District of Columbia will see increases later in the year, and some states like Alaska will experience multiple wage floor increases during 2025, per the statement.
Voters in Alaska and Missouri approved ballot measures in November that greenlit increases to the minimum wage. Hundreds of business owners in those two states worked with Business for a Fair Minimum Wage to support the ballot initiatives, according to the statement.
"Workers are also customers and minimum wage increases boost consumer buying power. They go right back into the economy as increased spending at local businesses," said Holly Sklar, the CEO of Business for a Fair Minimum Wage.
She added: "State raises are vital for workers, businesses, and communities as the federal minimum wage remains stuck at just $7.25, falling further and further behind the cost of living." The federal minimum wage hasn't budged since 2009, when it was raised to $7.25.
One business owner, Erik Milan, whose music store Stick It In Your Ear is based in Springfield, Missouri, praised the state's increase. "Raising Missouri's minimum wage will be good for workers and businesses. When workers in our community are paid more, they can spend more at local businesses ... Thanks to better wages and paid sick time because of Proposition A, businesses will also benefit from lower employee turnover, increased productivity, better health and morale, and better customer service," he said, per the statement.
Because of Proposition A, Missouri will increase the state minimum wage to $13.75 an hour on January 1 for private and non-exempt employees, and then increase it again to $15 in 2026. Beginning in May of this coming year, employers are required to give employees one hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked.
Over in Alaska, the owner of Waffles and Whatnot in Anchorage, Derrick Green, said that "Alaska's minimum wage increases will help Alaskans thrive ... The more that people can make a living in Alaska, the stronger our businesses and communities will be."
Same as Proposition A, Alaska's Ballot Measure One mandates that workers will be able to earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked. Alaska's minimum wage was already set to increase on January 1, and then thanks to Ballot Measure One it will increase again on July 1 to $13 and then again to $14 in July 2026.
The statement from Business for a Fair Minimum Wage in total quotes 11 business owners touting the wage floor increases, including Jessica Galen, owner of Bloomy Cheese & Provisions in Dobbs Ferry, New York.
"The minimum wage increase will recirculate back into the economy through spending at the main street shops that make up the fabric of our communities. It's a virtuous cycle. When we take care of our employees, they take care of us," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
On Biden's Failure to Protect Our Oceans
The hope and optimism for ocean protection at the beginning of the Biden administration has, in the end, turned to profound disappointment.
Dec 30, 2024
Among President Biden’s many laudable environmental accomplishments, one of his historic failures is that he declined to protect America’s ocean ecosystems. Despite the president’s professed goal to protect 30 percent of America’s oceans by 2030, he did virtually none of this. Perhaps he was planning on a second term (obviously a bad gamble), or perhaps he never really intended to do any of this.
Regardless, the hope and optimism for ocean protection at the beginning of the Biden administration has, in the end, turned to profound disappointment. On this issue, the administration prioritized local politics over science, need, and national interest.
At the start of his term, a group of marine scientists from across the nation submitted a joint Scientists’ Letter on Ocean Protection to President Biden, urging him to strongly protect 30% of America’s ocean ecosystems by 2030. The scientists’ ocean letter — signed by more than 90 university deans, department chairs, distinguished marine professors, agency and independent scientists (including legendary Dr. Jane Goodall) — told the president that America’s ocean ecosystems are in significant decline due to decades of over exploitation, climate change, acidification, and pollution.
History will not be kind to those government officials with the responsibility to address our ocean crisis, but stood by and did nothing.
Scientists warned the president that ocean ecosystems will have difficulty retaining functional integrity throughout the climate crisis this century, and that these ecosystems need the strongest protections the government can provide. As virtually all of America’s strongly protected federal waters to date are in the remote central Pacific, and none are on productive, intensively exploited continental shelves, the scientists urged President Biden to use executive authority under the Antiquities Act to establish Marine National Monuments in the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine, Caribbean, and Pacific and Atlantic coasts. This isn’t rocket science, but simply adaptive, precautionary ecosystem management.
President Biden ignored the scientists’ plea.
Although he has so far designated seven cultural/historic monuments on land, Biden has still established no Marine National Monuments. While it is possible he may enact marine monuments in the final weeks of his term, indications are that this is unlikely.
Further, the Biden administration has designated only three small National Marine Sanctuaries: two in the Great Lakes and one small one off California. In early January, the administration is expected to announce, with great fanfare no doubt, its designation of a Marine Sanctuary overlaying the already strongly protected Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (northwestern Hawaiian Islands), Coral Reef Reserve, and National Wildlife Refuge. To be clear, this sanctuary designation will not protect any new ocean area, but will simply further insulate existing protections from future administrative and legal challenges (e.g. at the Supreme Court). While this additional layer of protection is appropriate, it does not substitute for the critical need to strongly protect other more threatened marine ecosystems. And on this, the Biden administration simply failed.
The U.S. presently has seventeen National Marine Sanctuaries, five of those in just one state (California); and five Marine National Monuments, four in the remote central Pacific, and one small one in the northwest Atlantic. But other productive, and troubled marine ecosystems on continental shelves continue to be ignored, largely due to politics.
Alaska for instance—with more shoreline, continental shelf, marine mammals, seabirds, and fish than the rest of the U.S. combined, and one of the most over-exploited and climate stressed marine ecosystems in the world ocean—still has no national marine sanctuary or marine national monument, due to federal timidity in face of industry and political opposition. The federal government has essentially ceded ownership of Alaska’s vast federal offshore waters—over twice the size of the land area of the state—to parochial politics in Alaska.
Astonishingly, the U.S. is the only Arctic coastal nation that still has no permanently protected Arctic Ocean waters. Russia, Canada, Norway, and Greenland all have established permanent Arctic marine protected areas. But while presenting itself as an international leader in Arctic and ocean conservation, the U.S. has only established temporary administrative restrictions in its Arctic waters (oil & gas withdrawals and commercial fishery closures) that will almost certainly be rescinded in the Trump II administration, as most were in Trump I.
To remedy this, a group of Arctic Indigenous Peoples, conservationists, and marine scientists in Alaska proposed to President Biden that he designate an Arctic Ocean Marine National Monument, to protect the U.S. Arctic Ocean now in severe decline due to global warming and sea ice loss.
The Arctic Ocean Monument would encompass all U.S. federal waters (3-200 miles offshore) from the Northern Bering Sea north along the U.S./Russia maritime boundary, and east to the U.S./Canada maritime boundary (approx. 219,000 square miles), and would also include the Extended Continental Shelf seabed claims recently made by the U.S. in international Arctic waters north of the 200-mile limit (approx. 200,000 square miles). The Monument would permanently prohibit offshore oil & gas development, commercial fishing, and seabed mining; protect subsistence; enhance science; and would establish a co-management relationship between the federal government and Arctic coastal Tribes to manage this vast offshore ecosystem. As the region is the now-submerged ancient homeland for all Indigenous Peoples in the western hemisphere—Beringia—it is an inarguable candidate for monument designation under the Antiquities Act.
President Biden could have helped save our oceans with the simple stroke of his pen, but he refused.
Even though President Biden stated that: “What I really want to do... is conserve significant amounts of Alaskan sea and land forever,” he ignored the Arctic Ocean monument proposal.
This decade is likely our last best chance to secure strong protections for America’s offshore ecosystems, but now as the Biden administration has failed to do so, and Trump II will do none of this, we may have lost that last best chance.
Whenever faced with industry push-back or political pressure to ocean conservation measures, every federal administration, Democratic or Republican, simply refuses to act. This is a recipe for a disastrous future for our oceans. History will not be kind to those government officials with the responsibility to address our ocean crisis, but stood by and did nothing.
President Biden could have helped save our oceans with the simple stroke of his pen, but he refused.
The blame for further industrial damage and decline in America’s ocean ecosystems in the Trump II presidency will be shared by President Biden, as he had the authority, science, public support, and national interest obligation to prevent such, yet did nothing—an historic betrayal of the public trust.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular