 |
|
|
|||||
In an emergency directive issued late last week, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced her departments plan to expand logging and timber production by 25% and, in the process, dismantle the half-century-old environmental review system that has blocked the federal government from finalizing major decisions concerning national forest lands without public insight. Under Rollinss direction and following an earlier executive order signed by President Donald Trump, the U.S. Forest Service would carry out the plan that designates 67 million acres of national forest lands as high or very high wildfire risk, classifies another 79 million acres as being in a state of declining forest health, and labels 34 million acres as at risk of wildfire, insects, and disease. All told, the declaration encompasses some 59% of Forest Service lands. Rollins made no mention of the role climate change plays in escalating wildfire risk or intensity, or how warming contributes to spreading plant diseases and expanding invasive species ranges. Climate change, it seems, has also been overlooked in the development of the Trump administrations proposed solutionto cut forests down. Healthy forests require work, and right now were facing a national forest emergency. We have an abundance of timber at high risk of wildfires in our national forests, said Rollins in a press release. I am proud to follow the bold leadership of President Trump by empowering forest managers to reduce constraints and minimize the risks of fire, insects, and disease so that we can strengthen the American timber industry and further enrich our forests with the resources they need to thrive. While it may seem intuitive that cutting down high-risk trees will lead to less organic material that could incinerate, environmentalists say the administrations plans to increase timber outputs, simplify permitting, and do away with certain environmental review processes are likely to only escalate wildfire risk and contribute more to climate change. Chopping down vast tracts of trees releases tremendous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, exacerbating warming, which supercharges wildfire risk and causes blazes to burn faster and hotter. Though the climate science of timber management is complex, with techniques like prescribed burns considered widely effective in mitigating blaze-prone areas, the administrations aim to rapidly ramp up deregulated logging under the premise of lessening wildfire risk is poised to backfire, not least because of the carbon costs of cutting down forests. A map accompanying the memo from the Department of Agriculture, or USDA, indicates the stretches of forest that the agency has identified under the emergency designation. California, Colorado, Idaho, and Arizona appear to have the largest swaths of forest lands affected. Parts of the South, around the Great Lakes, and New England are also included. The USDA has not specified how many acres will be impacted per state. The agencys emergency order and push to expand logging to mitigate wildfire risk, ineffective as it can be if done haphazardly, is not a new strategy, said Lisa Dale, a lecturer at Columbia Universitys Climate School who has researched wildfire policy for decades. Similar declarations have been passed in multiple former administrations as a way to shortcut the time-consuming and onerous review processes under the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. What is new about this particular directive, however, is the USDAs explicit intention to remove NEPA processes. Trump imposed multiple limitations on the rule in his first term, most of which the Biden administration later revoked. In his second term, the president has sought to unravel how the sweeping environmental legislation is implemented, decentralizing how it has been governed and leaving it up to individual agencies to develop their own guidelines. Dale said this rings an alarm bell as the proposed elimination of NEPA processes at the USDA would mean that, in theory, a logging company could come into a forest and extract timber without having to first evaluate the environmental impacts of its actionslike when timber production overtakes endangered species habitats. Im a little skeptical about the premise of this memo, said Dale, who has been a longtime proponent for streamlining NEPA. The idea that were going to increase timber production by 25% and that that will be the equivalent of reducing wildfire risk? Thats the disconnect. As Dale noted, most of the really valuable timber is located only in a couple of states, in areas that are very difficult and expensive to access. Moreover, she said, none of those types of timber sales have much of an impact at all on wildfire risk. The USDA declined to comment for the story, but a spokesperson sent Grist a public letter issued by Chris French, the acting associate chief of the Forest Service. In the letter, French first directs all officers to use innovative and efficient approaches to meet the minimum requirements of NEPA, and later notes that the agency will soon release direction for using emergency NEPA to streamline and simplify our permitting process. The agencys emergency declaration comes even as it continues to cull federal funding for food and farm programs, and has attempted to substantially shrink the very workforce that manages forest health and wildfire management. Anna Medema, Sierra Clubs associate director of legislative and administrative advocacy for forests and public lands, said that the move will benefit industrial logging operations and create a negative climate feedback loop. She called the decision a boon for the logging industry and a disaster for our national forests. Other advocacy organizations, like the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, have vowed to use every legal tol at our disposal to halt the Trump administrations implementation of this order. Jack Algiere, director of agroecology at Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, a nonprofit farm and research center in New York, is holding out hope that agroforestry solutions will be included in how the Forest Service carries out the new emergency order. The thing with agriculture is that its working with living systems. It doesnt matter if youre in a forest or a vegetable field, said Algiere, who flagged there is no mention of a long-term implementation in the memo. Not all of these places are abandoned forests. Many of them already have management plans, and maybe this is going to disrupt that. Algiere also took note of how the language in the memorandum includes what he considers a lot of the right wordssuch as mentions of the Forest Service working toward land stewardship together with federally recognized tribes. And yet he cant help but think about how, at the same time, the USDA is freezing and cutting funding for food programs and scrubbing diversity, equity, and climate tenets from applications. This could have been written in a lot of different ways, he said. Not unlike the rest of the USDA, there seems to be a little bit of both sides getting played out. By Ayurella Horn-Muller, Grist This article was originally published by Grist. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org.
Category:
E-Commerce
As the Trump administration has set its sights on dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the workplace, the prevailing narrative has been that private-sector companies are retreating from DEI programs. That’s true to some extent: Major employers have made notable changes to their DEI efforts, altering language in public filings and slashing or pausing career development programs for underrepresented groupsand corporate leaders have said they are losing sleep over the threat of DEI-related litigation. Still, it seems that many companies are continuing to invest in diversity programs, according to a benchmarking survey that culture and inclusion platform Paradigm released today. On the whole, federal contractors and large companiesthose with more than 10,000 employeesappear to be the most likely to make significant changes to their DEI work in response to the heightened scrutiny by the Trump administration and risk of legal action. (The survey polled more than 400 employers of different sizes across a range of industries, including some of the largest U.S. companies by revenue.) What DEI policies are changing Its true that employers are moving away from certain types of DEI initiatives. Many companies are, in fact, eliminating representation goalssomething that leading tech employers like Meta and Google have already done. Paradigm found that 38% of companies surveyed had either stopped using representation goals or are planning to do so. The vast majority of employers who still use representation goals92%said they plan to stop sharing those goals publicly, while 77% said they would not even disclose them internally. As the terminology of DEI has grown more polarizing, 39% of companies have also changed the language they use for their programs. What DEI policies are staying the same Even as employers pull back on some of these efforts, however, the budget for DEI work has not radically shifted at many companies, per Paradigms findings: Only 19% of employers said they are decreasing funding for DEI efforts. More than half claimed they are not making any changes, and 23% said they actually plan to increase funding. Given that the pushback to DEI has been brewing since the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling on affirmative action, its possible some of these companies had already made changes to how they allocated funding for diversity effortsor cut back on them altogether. As Fast Company has previously reported, plenty of companies were already reevaluating their financial commitments even prior to that ruling, and in some cases trimmed headcount for teams that were dedicated to DEI-related work. Joelle Emerson, cofounder and CEO of Paradigm, also posits that some companies may have just reallocated funding or outsourced certain aspects of their DEI work to organizations like hers. Weve worked with Fortune 500 companies that have a team of five learning designers building trainings from scratch on inclusive leadership or inclusive hiring, she says. Weand Im sure other [platforms]have really great content that doesn’t need to be reinvented for every single organization. The state of external rankings Over the past year, many companies have made headlines for pulling out of the Human Rights Campaigns Corporate Equality Index, an annual survey that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees and is often touted by companies that are looking to attract more diverse employees. But the Paradigm report indicates that even amid public pressure, many companies have not changed their stance on those rankingsat least not yet. Only 18% of respondents said they had already paused their participation in external rankings that measure inclusion or planned to do so. Emerson points out that many of the companies who, for example, pulled out of the Corporate Equality Index, were being pressured to do so by right-wing activists. But the companies that seem to be staying the course may not be talking about it openly or getting media attention. If you’re a company that’s not evolving away from these things, there would be no reason anyone would hear about it, she says. By and large, youre not going to be announcing that. Reducing legal risk Nearly all the companies surveyed by Paradigmat least 90%say they have already embedded DEI practices into their talent strategy, which includes continuing to source diverse talent. Most of them are also continuing to collect demographic data on employees and invest in inclusion trainings. Employee resource groups and DEI-related benefits like parental leave and trans healthcare coverage have also remained largely unchanged (though some companies are opening affinity groups up to all employees to mitigate legal risk). Emerson adds that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions recent guidance on DEI has actually helped clarify what could constitute unlawful discrimination for some employers, which had sparked widespread confusion when Trump first introduced executive orders targeting DEI. I don’t agree with a lot of the guidanceI think a lot of the things that they’re saying are essentially illegal DEI are, in fact, not, she says. But the guidance has given the companies we work with more confidence to continue with the things they’re doing.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Fast Company Impact Council is an invitation-only membership community of leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual dues for access to peer learning, thought leadership opportunities, events and more. Disruption has become our new workplace reality. For managers, navigating change is an everyday responsibility, not an occasional responsibility. Gallup reports that 72% of employees recently experienced workplace disruptions, and nearly a third of leaders experienced extensive disruptions. Today, no disruption is as prevalent as the rise of artificial intelligence. Yes, as sophisticated as AI might become, the key to successfully leading your team through change does not lie in smarter tech, but rather in fostering the fundamental human skills that AI will never be capable of delivering. The human role Quiet the noise around AI and you will find the simple truth that the most crucial workplace capabilities remain deeply human. According to World Economic Forums Future of Jobs Report 2025, essential skills like resilience, agility, creativity, empathy, active listening, and curiosity are far more valuable than technical skills. Those skills listed may be commonly referred to as soft, but in the age of AI, they are not just feel-good assets reserved for your personality hires. The future of work hinges on how well your teams adapt, connect, and perform together as humans. Of course, none of this should be surprising. Good leaders understand the importance of human-centered skills. Yet, there remains a significant gap between what we value and what we actively build in our people. Deloittes 2025 Human Capital Trends Report says that 71% of managers and 76% of HR executives believe prioritizing human capabilities like emotional intelligence, resilience, and curiosity, is very or critically important. This human skills gap is even more urgent when Gen Z is factored in. They entered the workforce aligned with a shift to remote and hybrid environments, resulting in fewer opportunities to hone interpersonal skills through real-life interactions. This is not a critique of an entire generation, but rather an acknowledgment of a broad workplace challenge. And Gen Z is not alone in needing to strengthen communication across generational divides, but that is a topic for another day. Adding fuel to the fire are increased workloads, job insecurity, and economic stresses. When we combine these pressures with underdeveloped human skills, we see the predictable outcomes: disengagement, confusion, and last years buzzword, quiet quitting. If leaders are not proactively developing their teams human capabilities, they leave them unprepared to navigate exactly the changes they are expected to embrace. Find comfort in discomfort So what should leaders do? The answer is simple, but the practice is challenging. Leaders must embrace their inner improviser. Yes, improvisation, like what you have watched on Whose Line Is It Anyway? Or the awkward performance your college roommate invited you to in that obscure college lounge. The skills of an improviser are a proven method for striving amidst uncertainty. Decades of experience at Second City Works and studies published by The Behavioral Scientist confirm the principles of improv equip us to handle change with agility, empathy, and resilience. A study involving 55 improv classes, including several facilitated by The Second City, revealed a powerful truth. Participants who intentionally sought out discomfort developed sharper focus, took bolder creative risks, and reported greater confidence and improved communication skills. The lesson? Discomfort is not the problem. It is the pathway forward. Leaders must model this openly. Normalize statements like, This feels awkward, but well navigate it together. When your team sees discomfort as an opportunity to learn rather than a flaw to fear, they will follow your example. Encourage authentic curiosity Amid constant change, we crave clear answers. But sometimes rushing toward the first right answer closes the door to innovation and possibility. Instead, leaders should practice authentic curiosity. Ask your team, What else could be true? Welcome I dont know moments. Create psychological safety so new ideas can surface without judgment. Curiosity keeps your teams adaptable. And according to the World Economic Forum, it remains one of the most valuable capabilities leaders can nurture. Make listening the cultural norm We talk a lot about the importance of listening, but few teams actually practice it consistently. Make listening intentional and visible. Respond with the phrase, So what Im hearing is, followed by paraphrasing what you heard. Pose thoughtful questions that indicate your priority is understanding, not just replying. Consciously build pauses into conversations, especially during tense or critical discussions. When team members feel heard, they are more willing to collaborate, innovate, and commit to their teams. Listening is not simply polite. It is strategic and transformative. Disruptions will not slow down. Innovative technologies will continue to emerge. New directives will always appear. Priorities will shift rapidly. But leaders who want to guide teams who thrive, not just survive, must invest in their people first. An improvisors skills are worth cultivating. Because, the future of work does not need smarter tools, but it will demand more empowered, resilient humans, and the improvisational leader who inspired them. Tyler Dean Kempf is creative director of Second City Works.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||