Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Montana GOP Senate Candidate’s Ongoing Hypocrisy On Climate

The Trump-endorsed MAGA conservative keeps flip-flopping on the climate — and SEC filings reveal how hypocritical he really is.

Montana businessman Tim Sheehy built his aerial firefighting company, Bridger Aerospace, on certain scientific realities — namely that global climate change is real and driving more extreme wildfires. He even touted it as a leader in the fight against planet-warming emissions.But when it came time to campaign for the U.S. Senate, the GOP hopeful quickly embraced partisan talking points on climate, repeatedly railing against what he calls the “climate cult” and “radical environmentalists,” while blaming the growing wildfire threat exclusively on forest mismanagement.And while the Trump-endorsed MAGA conservative flipped his script on climate, his company continues to embrace climate and wildfire science — at least in public filings. In its latest annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed in March, Bridger Aerospace writes that “we believe that rising global temperatures have been, and in the future are expected to be, one factor contributing to increasing rates and severity of wildfires.” It cites climate research, including an Environmental Protection Agency website that notes “multiple studies have found that climate change has already led to an increase in wildfire season length, wildfire frequency, and burned area.” And it warns shareholders and potential investors that climate change poses numerous risks to the company. “The potential physical effects of climate change, such as increased frequency and severity of storms, floods, fires, fog, mist, freezing conditions, sea-level rise, and other climate-related events, could affect our operations, infrastructure, and financial results,” the document states. “Further, we have been studying the potential effects of climate change (increased severity and frequency of storm events, sea level rise, land subsidence, change in temperature extremes, changes in precipitation patterns and drought, and wildfire) on Bridger’s assets, operations and services, and we are developing adaptation plans to set forth a strategy for those events and conditions that we believe are most significant,” it continues. “Consequences of these climate-driven events may vary widely and could include increased stress on our services due to new patterns of demand, physical damage to our fleet and infrastructure, higher operational costs and an increase in the number [of] requests for our services. In addition, we could incur substantial costs to repair or replace aircraft and facilities.”Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL and the founder of an aerial firefighting company based in Montana, announced his Republican campaign for the U.S. Senate last year.Sheehy, a decorated former Navy SEAL, founded Bridger Aerospace in 2014 after retiring from the military and has continued to serve as its chief executive officer while running for office. It wasn’t long ago that Sheehy spoke freely about the climate and wildfire threats. In a January 2023 interview with journalist Jane King on Nasdaq Marketplace, Sheehy described wildfires as a global, climate-fueled “crisis.”“The wildfire crisis is really spreading globally as we see the effects of climate change and urbanization,” he said. “We’re seeing fires become larger, they move faster, they’re hotter, and most importantly it’s becoming more and more critical to combat them early because of the amount of settlement we have in wildfire prone areas.” Sheehy said demand for his company’s services has “skyrocketed” in recent years, with no signs of slowing down. Sheehy launched his bid to take on incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) just five months later, in June. Before doing so, Bridger scrubbed climate language from its website, including a line about the company “fighting on the front lines of climate change,” as ABC News first reported. Right out of the gate, Sheehy seemingly abandoned any concern about the global crisis — one that his party has spent decades denying and downplaying while cheerleading for planet-warming fossil fuels. As the campaign has rolled along, Sheehy has advanced his attacks against climate activists and environmentalists. He’s described John Kerry, who until recently served as President Joe Biden’s climate envoy, as the “Supreme Leader of the Climate Cult,” accused Biden of being “more worried about the climate cult than our national security and men and women in uniform,” and railed against both the federal government — his company’s biggest client — and “radical environmentalists.”“When radical Democrats tell us they want to shut down our economy and kill Montana jobs — we ought to take them at their word and take them out of office,” he wrote in a recent post to X, formerly Twitter.On his campaign website, Sheehy blames increasingly catastrophic wildfires not on climate change and urbanization but on poor forest management and “radical environmentalists who are suing and shutting down timber projects with frivolous litigation.”It’s hard to overstate the irony in Sheehy’s dismissal of climate action as job-killing, given that his company continues to tout its climate credentials to secure lucrative government contracts and grow its business. Federal and state government contracts accounted for 88% and 99% of Bridger’s revenue in 2023 and ’22, respectively. However, as the Montana Free Press first reported this month, Bridger is deeply in the red, reporting a net loss of $77.4 million in 2023. Sheehy’s campaign did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment, nor did it respond when HuffPost first wrote about the stark divide between Sheehy’s newfound rhetoric on climate and the company’s strategy.Bridger’s latest SEC filing offers a unique glimpse into Sheehy’s ongoing involvement with the company and how his campaign could negatively impact business. “Although Mr. Sheehy continues to spend significant time with Bridger and remain highly active in our management during his candidacy, he has not devoted his full time and attention to Bridger. Mr. Sheehy has spent, and expects to continue to spend, time campaigning for the U.S. Senate seat,” the filing states. “Additionally, Mr. Sheehy and we may be the targets of one or more negative media campaigns in connection with Mr. Sheehy’s U.S. Senate campaign. Public perception of, or news related to, Mr. Sheehy or his U.S. Senate campaign may adversely affect our brand, relationship with customers, suppliers, employees or other of our stakeholders or our standing in the industry, any of which could materially impair our business and results of operations.”Part of that might come down to the company’s own founder and CEO’s partisan about-face on what has been a key pillar of Bridger Aerospace’s business approach.Support HuffPostOur 2024 Coverage Needs YouYour Loyalty Means The World To UsAt HuffPost, we believe that everyone needs high-quality journalism, but we understand that not everyone can afford to pay for expensive news subscriptions. That is why we are committed to providing deeply reported, carefully fact-checked news that is freely accessible to everyone.Whether you come to HuffPost for updates on the 2024 presidential race, hard-hitting investigations into critical issues facing our country today, or trending stories that make you laugh, we appreciate you. The truth is, news costs money to produce, and we are proud that we have never put our stories behind an expensive paywall.Would you join us to help keep our stories free for all? Your contribution of as little as $2 will go a long way.Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.Dear HuffPost ReaderThank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?Dear HuffPost ReaderThank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you’ll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.

Everyday Noises Can Hurt Hearts, Not Just Ears, and the Ability to Learn

Experts describe ways to turn down the volume, from earbuds to smartphone apps that detect harmful noise levels

Ten years ago Jamie Banks started working from her home in the town of ­Lincoln, Mass. After a couple of months, the continuing racket from landscaping machines began to feel unendurable, even when she was inside her home. “This horrible noise was going on for hours every day, every week—leaf blowers, industrial lawnmowers, hedge trimmers,” she says. The sound of a gas-powered leaf blower outside can be as loud as 75 decibels (dB) to someone listening from inside a house—higher than the World Health Organization cutoff to protect hearing over a 24-hour period. “I started thinking, this can’t be good,” she says. “It’s definitely not good for me. It certainly can’t be good for the workers operating the equipment. And there are lots of kids and lots of seniors around. It can’t be good for them either.”Banks is a health-care specialist and environmental scientist who has worked most of her life as a consultant on health outcomes and behavior change for government agencies, law firms and corporations. She decided to do something about her situation and got together with a like-minded neighbor to pester the town government. It took the pair seven years to get their town to do one thing—ban gas-powered leaf blowers during the summer. The process was long and frustrating, and it made Banks think about going bigger and helping others.So she did. In June 2023 Quiet Communities, a nonprofit group that Banks founded and runs, sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for not publishing or enforcing rules and regulations to limit loud sounds: unmuffled motorcycles, cacophonous factories, the thunder of an airplane just overhead, the roar of an elevated train, the scream of a sound­track in a spin class, headphones set too loud. There is a federal law that calls for the EPA to do this, but it hasn’t been enforced for more than 40 years.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Banks’s idea that loud noise “can’t be good” is well supported by science. Noise can damage more than just your ears. Through daytime stress and nighttime sleep disturbances, loud sounds can hurt your heart and blood vessels, disrupt your endocrine system, and make it difficult to think and learn. The World Health Organization calculated that in 2018 in the European Union, 1.6 million years of healthy life were lost because of traffic noise. The organization recommended that to avoid these health effects, exposure to road traffic noise should be limited to below a weighted 24-hour average of 53 dB (the sound of a campfire from about 16 feet away) during the day, evening, and night and 45 dB specifically at night (the sound of light traffic about 100 feet away).Precise “safe” levels to avoid specific ailments are hard to come by. But in general, research shows, reducing loud noise can reduce the risk of harm. There are several ways to protect yourself. Various organizations have made maps that indicate quiet and noisy places around the U.S. Smartphone apps can tell you if you’re in one that’s too loud for safety. And noise experts all seem to own earbuds and headphones and use them often to block out the din.For most of human history, the issue with noise was simply how annoying it can be. The first noise ordinance on record was drafted by Julius Caesar shortly before his assassination in 44 B.C.E., limiting the times that noisy carts and wagons could be on the street. The modern industrial era brought regulations to protect the ears of workers exposed to steam engines, drop forges, and other loud machinery but little information or action on everyday noises. A big moment came in 1970, when psychoacoustics expert Karl Kryter, then at the Stanford Research Institute, published The Effects of Noise on Man. The book focused on what loud sound could do to hearing and touched on work performance, sleep, vision and blood circulation.That noise has biological effects beyond the ear makes sense in evolutionary terms. Noise may signal that a herd of elephants is charging your compound or that a pack of wolves is close by—you need to know, and your body needs to get ready for something unpleasant. As noise and sleep researcher Mathias Basner of the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues put it in a 2014 Lancet review, “evolution has programmed human beings to be aware of sounds as possible sources of danger.”MSJONESNYC; Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (reference)From an evolutionary point of view, sleep was “a very dangerous stage,” a time when you had to maintain attention to your environment, Basner says. But the psychiatrist and epidemiologist, who has spent much of his career studying the effects of airport noise on people sleeping nearby, notes a “watchman function” that leads to night awakenings is for the most part harmful, not helpful, in modern societies.A lot of people think they sleep soundly despite nearby noise. They should think again. Basner has exposed hundreds of people to noise during sleep studies. He says many would get up in the morning swearing they’d slept through the night without waking, but the data showed they’d had num­er­ous awakenings.By the early 1970s a poll showed that the public considered noise pollution a serious problem. Formal government recognition came in 1972 with the passage of the Noise Control Act and the establishment of the EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control. The act promised that the government would “promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.” At the time, the EPA estimated that 100 million Americans experienced daily average sound of 55 dB or over. Fifty-­five dB is about halfway between the level of a quiet conversation at home and one in a restaurant or office. Any 24-hour exposure average louder than that, according to the EPA, was loud enough to interfere with activities and cause annoyance.By this time, studies from universities in the U.S. and Europe were beginning to identify health effects of noise beyond the ear, starting with behavior and learning. In 1973 three U.S. researchers, with funding from the National Science Foundation and two private organizations, studied 73 children in primary school who lived in several 32-story apartment buildings clustered over Interstate 95 where it passes through New York City. Children on the lower floors, exposed to more highway noise, were less able to distinguish sounds and were reading at a lower level than children on the higher floors. There was even a dose-response relation: the longer the child had lived in the building, the lower their scores were likely to be.In 1975 researchers at the City University of New York looked at school records for 161 primary school students at a school that was 220 feet from an elevated subway, with trains hurtling by every 4.5 minutes. The records showed a three- to four-month reading lag for kids in classrooms on the noisy side of the building compared with those in classes on the quiet side.Researchers were able to do a natural ex­­per­i­ment when the Munich International Airport moved about 25 miles north in 1992. The scientists found that among children living near the old airport site, long-term memory and reading skills improved after the airport closed. But for kids near the new airport, those changes went in the opposite direction, and their stress hormone levels increased.In the early 2000s Stephen Stansfeld, then a psychiatrist at the University of London, studied kids aged nine to 11 living and going to school near airports in Europe, comparing their blood pressure and learning ability with those of similar children who did not live under flight paths. Airplane noise reached 77 dB(A) at several schools; dB(A) is a decibel scale that em­­phasizes frequencies the human ear hears best. “We found a straight-line relationship between increasing levels of aircraft noise and children’s reading comprehension,” Stansfeld says. “Noisy schools were not healthy educational environments.” A colleague found the harmful effects lasted into secondary school.All the while, the U.S. was getting noisier. In 2014 Rick Neitzel, an environmental and occupational health professor at the University of Michigan who has been researching noise for 25 years, and his colleagues estimated that more than 100 million Americans had a continuous average exposure level in 24 hours of greater than 70 dB. Imagine standing next to a washing machine all day or suffering occasional blasts from the gas-powered lawn equipment Jamie Banks could hear inside her house. It was a rise of 15 dB in just a generation, which is the difference between normal conversation and a vacuum cleaner.Beyond the brain and cognition, the heart and blood vessels also take a hit from noise—perhaps not surprising given the stressful effects of noise and the impacts of stress on the circulatory system. A slew of epidemiological studies over the years have linked environmental noise, especially nighttime noise, to high blood pressure, heart failure, myocardial infarction (heart attacks) and stroke. The association held true even after researchers controlled for confounders such as air pollution and socioeconomic variables.Some of the strongest human data come from Denmark, which is an epidemiologist’s dream country because it collects health data on pretty much every resident. Mette Sørensen, an epidemiologist at Ros­kilde University in Denmark, Thomas Münzel, a professor at Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany, and others teased apart the effects of noise on types of heart disease such as myocardial in­­farc­tion, angina and heart failure. Looking at 2.5 million people 50 years or older, they found road traffic noise increased the incidence of all three. In a 2021 report on 3.6 million Danes, they showed that an average daily 10-dB increase in sound exposure because of road noise increased the risk of stroke by 3 to 4 percent.They’ve also looked at type 2 diabetes, a condition that had already been associated with chronic sleep disturbance. This link makes sense, Sørensen says: stress such as frequent awakening raises levels of glucocorticoids, which inhibit insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity. Reducing these two things leads to diabetes. In 2013 Sørensen and her colleagues re­­port­ed an 8 percent increase in diabetes risk for every 10-dB increase in exposure to road traffic noise. Eight years later, looking at 3.56 million Danes 35 years and older, with 233,912 new cases of diabetes, they calculated that road traffic noise could be blamed for 8.5 percent of the cases of diabetes in Denmark and railway noises for 1.4 percent.Sørensen is aware that those percentages don’t sound very high. But they are meaningful, she says. In Denmark, more than one third of the population is exposed to average daily sound levels above 58 dB. “You have such a huge proportion exposed to this,” she says, “so even though it’s only a really small in­­crease in risk, it’s a large number of people who get diabetes due to noise.”The physical mechanisms behind these links are still being investigated, but animal studies have highlighted possible culprits. (Researchers cannot deliberately expose people to such potentially harmful noise effects.) Münzel explored some of these connections in mice, for example. In one study, he ex­­posed the rodents to average sound levels of 72 dB over four days and found that the animals had higher blood pressure and levels of stress hormones and inflammation, as well as changes in the activity of genes that regulate vascular health and cell death.Jen Christiansen; Source: “Environmental Noise and the Cardiovascular System,” by Thomas Münzel et al., in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 71; February 2018 (reference)In the U.S., most research on noise has been done without much help from the federal government, despite the Noise Control Act. In 1981, after Ronald Reagan was elected president on a promise of cutting back the federal government, he appointed Anne Gorsuch as head of the EPA; she eliminated funding for the agency’s noise-control office. “She wanted to show the White House that she believed in small government,” says Sidney Shapiro, a Wake Forest administrative law professor who has studied the rise and fall of noise-abatement laws. He says noise has never had a well-organized constituency to support it. Responsibility for noise-control research, funding and regulation was left to individual state and local governments.Today the EPA’s noise-control office is still there—on paper. “There is no money to enforce regulations or for research or education,” Neitzel says. That’s why Quiet Communities is suing. “Not having the EPA doing its job is hugely damaging, not only to the public who are being harmed by noise but also to the research community. We don’t have access to a stream of funding that should be there.”Without that information, noise researchers have long struggled to quantify the overall impact of the American din. In 2014 when Neitzel and his colleagues at the University of Michigan wanted to figure out whether reducing noise would have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease, they had to resort to prevalence estimates made in 1981. In 2015 they published their findings. A 5-dB reduction in average noise exposure would cut the prevalence of high blood pressure by 1.5 percent and cut heart disease by 1.8 percent. Again, these are low numbers. But because of the high incidence of these conditions to begin with, an average 5-dB reduction would have an annual economic benefit of $3.9 billion. “I was shocked that the numbers were as big as they were,” Neitzel says.Overall, as with chemical and air pollution, people with lower incomes are being hit the hardest. Their communities may have highways running through them or have factories and airports nearby. “Folks who are already in marginalized communities may be bearing way more than their fair share of noise exposure,” Neitzel says.In these areas, it’s essential to ground research and solutions in community priorities, says Erica Walker, an epidemiologist at Brown University. Walker founded the Community Noise Lab, which works with communities to study and mitigate the effects of noise and other pollutants. She believes that it’s probably not just the absolute sound level that determines bodily damage—it’s unwanted sound. If the sound is a welcome one, does prolonged exposure to, say, 75 dB (about the volume of street musicians playing trumpets 30 feet away from you) raise stress levels the way that large studies have shown? “We need to know what the difference is between sound and noise from an individual point of view and from a community perspective,” Walker says.She points to the Shaw neighborhood of Washington, D.C., which has been undergoing gentrification. “The cultural practice was to play go-go music. As the neighborhood began to become gentrified, newcomers had their own acoustical expectations of what the neighborhood should sound like,” Walker says. “If I’m going into a community and I’m measuring noise and I’m saying it’s really loud (based strictly on decibels) and harmful to health, that might be a misclassification.” People already in the community might perceive that noise as comfortable.Walker and her colleagues are now trying to tease apart unacceptable noise and acceptable sound. In an ongoing study, they’ve been asking volunteers how they feel about different kinds of noise. Then the researchers deconstruct those noises by rearranging them, making them unidentifiable as a specific sound but maintaining the decibel level and frequency spectrum (think high notes and low notes). By the end of this summer, Walker hopes to know whether the deconstructed sound matches up with the recognizable sound. Such information could help distinguish the roles of sound intensity and cultural connotation in hu­­man harm.Whatever your community’s sound tolerance, you can protect yourself from noise that’s intolerable. The simplest way, of course, is to avoid it. Sørensen’s data show that sleeping on the quieter side of a building, away from the street, makes a difference. Or you can move to a quieter area. That is easier said than done, and all the experts I spoke with noted that moving to a more peaceful place, as many of them have, is possible only for people who can afford it. If you plan to move, Basner advises visiting the new area at different times of day.For noise that can’t be avoided, science may offer some promise, at least for ear effects. Sudden loud noises (think concerts, jet engines, leaf blowers and loud machines) stimulate the delicate hair cells and nerve fibers in the inner ear, resulting in the release of damaging free radicals. Animal work has identified some promising chemicals to sop these molecules up, says Colleen Le Prell, a psychologist and head of the department of speech, language and hearing at the University of Texas at Dallas, who is working on several candidates. There is already a drug for children to prevent chemotherapy-induced hearing loss, but it has significant side effects and isn’t approved for general use.The Montello Foundation’s artist retreat in Nevada has been identified by the nonprofit Quiet Parks International as a community without irritating noise.If you want to get a snapshot of the sound around you, the Internet can help. The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety has a national map, but it works only on Apple mobile devices right now. The U.S. Department of Transportation has a map for transportation noise, but it doesn’t include workplace noise or inside noise. You can see noise across the entire country, albeit at pretty low resolution, on a National Park Service sound map.To measure sound directly, there are plenty of smartphone apps. Don’t be surprised if the numbers are high. Data from Apple watches suggest that one in three adult Americans is exposed to excessive noise and daily averages of 70 dB(A) (the sound of an older washing machine or dishwasher) or greater. Those levels are considered by both the World Health Organization and the EPA as dangerous to the ear. You can see state-by-state results on Apple Hearing Study U.S. maps. Apple watches and iPhones can be set to alert you when sound reaches a particular level.The data collected from Apple watches come from the Apple Hearing Study, begun in 2019 by Neitzel and his colleagues at the University of Michigan and funded by Apple. The study shows that a quieter world is possible. It took the lockdowns of COVID to prove it. The researchers got smartphone data from about 6,000 volunteers, covering a period from just before the pandemic began in January 2020 through late April of that year, when many businesses and activities had shut down for safety, and lots of people were staying close to home. The data showed a 3-dB(A) drop in noise exposure. Because decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, that’s a halving of sound energy, easily noticeable by the human ear.Sørensen moved from a city out into the country and checked a noise map first. Neitzel is very intentional about his exposure. “One thing that I absolutely try to do is make sure I’ve programmed periods into the day that I’m not going to have noise exposure,” he says. That means a bike ride through a quiet area or turning the TV off. If he’s at a bus stop, he stands back from the street as much as he can, and he routinely wears noise-blocking earplugs or earmuffs—sometimes both—when he’s checking out industrial sites.Neitzel protects his ears at concerts as well. “There’s a bit of social stigma around wearing ear protection at a concert,” he says, so he wears clear plugs, much like many musicians use. And he’s got noise-canceling headphones and earbuds. They seal the ear to limit outside sound, which permits listening at a lower volume. He and his family wear noise-canceling earbuds on planes.You can ask others to turn sound down. Sharon Kujawa, an audiologist at Massachusetts Eye and Ear hospital in Boston, and her colleagues did an experiment to see whether people in spin classes preferred louder or softer sound. They liked softer. The facility managers were reluctant to make a change, but eventually customer requests got them to agree to a 3-dB decrease in volume. Fellow ear researcher Le Prell had her children use volume-limiting headphones. The kids were in marching bands in high school, in the percussion section, and she donated earplugs to the entire group.As for specific levels to aim for, that’s a tough one. There’s no formula that says x hours of exposure to road traffic noise will raise your risk of heart disease y percent. The EPA, which established its noise standards in 1974, before the full health effects were so clear, indicates that a 24-hour exposure level of 70 dB or less will prevent any hearing damage, and 55 dB outdoors and 45 dB indoors will prevent activity interference and annoyance. For lack of anything more current, that’s the standard used by many noise researchers today.In terms of protective devices, there are only limited federal regulations on headphones, and there’s some concern that the devices go up to volumes that can damage the health (ear and otherwise) of children. Volume limiters on headphones generally have an upper limit of 85 dB, but what the limit should really be, and for how long, is anybody’s guess. There’s also no solid research on whether devices that produce masking noises help.Clear, consistent standards for how much is too much, and what works, are unlikely without a revitalization of the EPA’s noise-control office. An agency spokesperson wouldn’t say whether the lawsuit by Quiet Communities will spur any change. The two sides in the suit “are currently in the midst of filing motions and cross-motions,” says Quiet Communities lawyer Sanne Knudsen of the University of Washington. When we spoke, Knudsen expected some kind of agreement would be reached by April and hoped it would be one that got the Office of Noise Abatement and Control up and running again.Jamie Banks now spends most of her time in a quiet town in rural Maine, which, she says, is blissfully free of loud lawn equipment and other noise. She is optimistic that a newly active federal noise-control office will establish data-based noise limits and regulations and that the EPA will ensure regulations are enforced. In 1972, when the noise office was established, the Los Angeles Times opined that it wouldn’t mean an instant reduction in harmful sound, “but at least a start has been made.” Fifty-two years later Banks hopes for not just a start but real progress.

Unraveling the Secrets of This Weird Beetle’s 48-Hour Clock

New research examines the molecular machinery behind a beetle’s strange biological cycle

Unraveling the Secrets of This Weird Beetle’s 48-Hour ClockNew research examines the molecular machinery behind a beetle’s strange biological cycleBy Andrew ChapmanNearly all animals follow 24-hour activity cycles based on their genetically built-in circadian clocks. But one beetle species operates in 48-hour time chunks instead—apparently driven by a strict schedule for sex. A study in Current Biology shows that a particular gene somehow activates with a two-day pattern to contribute to this cycle.Both male and female black chafer beetles hide underground during the day and emerge every second night to search for food and a mate. Once aboveground, the females climb plant stalks while secreting sexy-smelling pheromone trails to lead males to them.Walter Leal, a chemical ecologist at the University of California, Davis, had long wondered whether males of this species sense the females’ pheromones on a 48-hour cycle as well. In the new study, he and his colleagues used a recently released “transcriptome”—a catalog of these insects’ RNA—to finally dig into this schedule’s genetic basis. They identified genes likely to produce odor receptors—and found that only one made a receptor fitting the female’s pheromone. Their experiments confirmed that disrupting this gene’s activity halted males’ attraction.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Next the team monitored how much of this receptor the male beetles produced over time, to determine when they’d be best at tracking the pheromone. Receptor production spiked at night every 48 hours around the time female pheromone production peaked, then hit a low the next night. “We found a 48-hour [receptor-producing] cycle, which is synchronized with the females,” Leal says. “It’s a beautiful story.” The findings show the 48-hour cycle is present in both sexes and engrained on the molecular level.Biological rhythms typically rely on environmental cues such as day and night; there are no known 48-hour cues in nature. Future work will untangle what drives this cycle in black chafer beetles and how the genes regulate their timing. Jennifer Hurley, a biologist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, says research is revealing how environmental signals can affect biological rhythms. With studies like this, she says, “the field is recognizing that the number of rhythms in biology is enormous.”

How Our Thoughts Shape the Way Spoken Words Evolve

What makes a word survive or go extinct?

How Our Thoughts Shape the Way Spoken Words EvolveWhat makes a word survive or go extinct?By Anvita PatwardhanCharles Darwin found inspiration for his theory of evolution in birds’ beaks, giant tortoise shells—and language. “The survival or preservation of certain favored words in the struggle for existence is natural selection,” he wrote in The Descent of Man in 1871.Language gradually shifts over time. Much research examines how social and environmental factors influence language change, but very little grapples with the forces of human cognitive selection that fix certain words into the lexicon. For an extensive new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, scientists investigated just that.In an experiment much like a game of telephone, thousands of participants read English-language stories and rewrote them to be read by other participants, who then rewrote them for others. Only certain words from the first stories survived in the final versions. Researchers analyzed the word types speakers consistently favored, theorizing that such preferences drive language change over time. The scientists also separately analyzed two large collections of English historical texts from the past two centuries, containing more than 40 billion words—again seeing only certain types survive.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The results converged to show three properties that give words an “evolutionary advantage” by helping them stick in the brain: First, words typically acquired at an early age (such as “hand,” “uncle” or “today”) are stabler. Next, concrete words linger better than abstract ones: “dog” persists longer than “animal,” which persists longer than “organism.” Lastly, emotionally exciting words—whether negative or positive—tend to endure.Early language-evolution models assumed that language becomes increasingly complex over time. But Indiana University Bloomington cognitive scientist and study co-author Fritz Breithaupt says the new study supports a more recent theory that language ultimately gets more efficient and easier to understand. Still, as the study notes, “the English language is not baby talk.” Breithaupt explains: “Yes, we shift toward simple language, but then we also grab complex language that we need.” New words that address the intricacies of modern life may somewhat balance out this shift.The proposed trend toward “simpler” language is controversial. Columbia University linguist John McWhorter more or less agrees with the study’s results about evolutionary advantages within language. He questions, however, implications regarding the overall efficiency of English—a language he says contains things like “needlessly complex” grammatical vestiges. “There are about five ways to indicate the future in English,” he says. “I pity anybody who doesn’t grow up with it natively” and wants to learn it.Study lead author Ying Li, a psychologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a non-native English speaker, notes that English had even more perplexing grammar in the past. McWhorter, Li supposes, “would complain more if he traveled back 800 years ago.”

Feathers, Fire, the Strong Force and Fairness

Reducing noise improves health, JWST’s galaxies change astronomy, and there’s new hope for people with prostate cancer

Feathers, Fire, the Strong Force and FairnessReducing noise improves health, JWST’s galaxies change astronomy, and there’s new hope for people with prostate cancerBy Laura HelmuthScientific American, May 2024Have you ever picked up a feather and felt how smooth, sleek, firm or fluffy it is? (The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits possession of most bird feathers, but if you find a feather and stick it in your cap or pack, nobody here at Scientific American will turn you in.) Feathers are marvels of evolutionary engineering that have been studied for centuries, but in the past few years, as paleontologist Michael B. Habib details, scientists have made some big discoveries about their evolution, structure and function. We hope the story will help you appreciate the specializations of hummingbirds, hawks, penguins, owls, and more.The “strong force” that pulls together protons, neutrons and atomic nuclei is, as its name suggests, the strongest force we know of in the universe. It’s also the least understood. But recently physicists have made real progress in measuring the strong force. Among other things, they’ve discovered that it becomes constant at a certain distance between particles. Stanley J. Brodsky, Alexandre Deur and Craig D. Roberts recount how their independent lines of research merged to uncover new properties of the force that binds together most of the matter in the universe.Children want to be fair, and they acquire a sense of justice at a very young age: they quickly learn that hurting other people is wrong and that sharing is right. But this developing sense of morality can conflict with their developing sense of belonging. Children readily pick up on us-versus-them group identities based on factors such as race and gender. Psychologist Melanie Killen describes what she and her colleagues have learned about morality and prejudice in children. Based on their research, they created a training program that successfully teaches kids to be more inclusive and empathetic.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.We are living in the age of fire—the Pyrocene, a term coined by environmental historian Stephen Pyne. As he writes, humans tamed fire and changed the world. He breaks our relationship with fire into three waves and chronicles how fire has changed human bodies and civilization and is now changing all life on the planet. Enjoy the dramatic, fire-breathing photo-essay by Kevin Cooley that accompanies the article.Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of malignancies, but thanks to advances in detection, evaluation and treatment, it has become increasingly manageable. Marc B. Garnick, a leading expert on prostate cancer, explains how the disease starts and grows. He also provides an overview of the methods that can now be used to monitor and stop it, adding years to patients’ lives.Some of the first images captured by the James Webb Space Telescope a few years ago were shocking: they revealed overgrown galaxies in the early universe—galaxies that, according to cosmological theory, shouldn’t have existed. As science writer Jonathan O’Callaghan shows, astronomers are coming up with new theories to explain these unexpected galaxies and improve our understanding of their formation.One of the things I appreciate most about walks in nature (the kinds of walks where you might find a feather and where the loudest sound is a screaming cicada) is how peaceful they are. If you’ve ever tensed up in irritation at leaf blowers, shouty bars, obnoxious car horns, or other noise pollution, health correspondent Joanne Silberner’s story may feel like vindication. A growing body of research documents how and why noise can cause a range of health problems and how you can reduce your exposure to improve your health. And our Science of Health columnist Lydia Denworth explores the importance of nature and well-being. May you be surrounded by pleasant and welcome sounds as you delve into this month’s issue.

Contributors to Scientific American’s May 2024 Issue

Writers, artists, photographers and researchers share the stories behind the stories

Contributors to Scientific American’s May 2024 IssueWriters, artists, photographers and researchers share the stories behind the storiesBy Allison ParshallStephen PyneLife in the PyroceneThe summer after his high school graduation, Stephen Pyne filled an empty spot on the Grand Canyon’s North Rim fire crew. The opportunity came through “complete serendipity,” he says, and he went on to serve a total of 15 summers on the crew, 12 as the boss. On a fire crew, “you quickly find that fire organizes your life,” he says, just as it organizes all life on Earth.For this issue, Pyne, an environmental historian, tells a story of the so-called Pyrocene, a term he coined in 2015 in “an attempt to summarize everything I’ve learned” about fire’s intimate relationship with humanity. He has written nearly 30 books on the subject but has struggled throughout his career to find an academic home for his fire-focused work, which didn’t fit cleanly into one department. The subject “was never taught, certainly not at the places where I went to school.” For Pyne’s part, though, he sees fire as an aspect of biology—“a creation of the living world and dependent on the living world.”On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Kevin CooleyLife in the PyroceneIn the 1960s Kevin Cooley’s mother lost her Los Angeles home in a wildfire. “She talked about ‘before the fire’ and ‘after the fire,’” recalls Cooley (above). In that way, fire has always been present in his life—plus, he was “a little bit of a pyromaniac” as a kid. Now a photographer based in L.A., he has made fire one of his central subjects. He began by shooting wildfires, and then, in 2013, he was inspired by the Vatican enclave’s smoke signals to create his own blazes in controlled environments. His work can involve explosions, flares, drones, laser beams and copious amounts of smoke.Cooley is a “big fan” of Stephen Pyne’s books about fire’s relationship to humanity. So when Scientific American asked Cooley whether he would be interested in creating work for Pyne’s feature on the Pyrocene, he thought, “Are you kidding me? Is there anything I’d be more interested in?” For the project, Cooley worked with a fire-breather for the first time, a military veteran named Kavan O’Toole. The experience made him want to incorporate people with this uncommon skill into future projects. “I was like, wow, this is a whole different conversation. I’m going to work with [fire-breathers] some more.”Joanne SilbernerA Healthy Dose of QuietUntil recently, Joanne Silberner lived near a highway in Seattle. “When we bought the house, [the highway] wasn’t that loud,” she says. But as its surface deteriorated, it became “loud enough that we couldn’t have a conversation in the backyard.” So Silberner, a multimedia journalist covering medicine and health policy, moved across Puget Sound to Bainbridge Island, where it’s quiet enough to hear the coyotes and the harbor seals calling at night. “It’s made such a difference in my quality of life,” she says. “I didn’t realize how anxious the sound was making me.”In her article, Silberner covers the deleterious and understudied effects noise can have on our health. Despite clear evidence of the harms of excessive noise—which are borne primarily by disadvantaged communities—noise pollution is barely regulated, leaving people to “suffer without any kind of government intervention,” she says.Throughout her career, Silberner has been guided by a quote from journalist Amy Goodman: “Go where the silence is and say something.” For this story, Silberner found the directive particularly apt: “There’s not much public awareness of the health effects of noise.”Amanda MontañezGraphic ScienceAmanda Montañez has always preferred creating observational art based on the world around her over drawing solely from her imagination. As a studio art major in college, “I always loved figure drawing the most,” she says. After working in the art world for a few years, Montañez decided to go to graduate school for medical illustration. During her master’s research project, which communicated to pregnant people how to navigate midwifery care, she “was just kind of struck by how important data visualization is,” especially in helping people understand their health-care options. That ultimately led Montañez to Scientific American, where she’s been a graphics editor over the past nine years.In this issue’s Graphic Science column, Montañez charts how family sizes are shrinking across the world. The story “hit fairly close to home,” she says. Montañez grew up with her grandparents—who lived on the other side of her family’s duplex—as “built-in babysitters.” Now with a young child of her own, she finds herself without family nearby to help with day care. In coming decades, she says, “a lot more people are going to be where I am.”

3 political newcomers vie to represent Portland’s west side in Oregon House

Each candidate has received an endorsement from a previous Oregon governor.

Three political newcomers are vying to represent Portland’s west side in the Oregon House, a seat currently held by Rep. Maxine Dexter, who is running for Congress.Doctor Bryan Duty, environmental lawyer Peter Grabiel and health care clinic CEO Shannon Isadore will face off in the May 21 Democratic primary for House District 33, which includes downtown and much of Northwest Portland. Whoever wins the primary is expected to coast to victory in November, as registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans more than seven-to-one in the district.Each candidate has received an endorsement from a previous Oregon governor, but Duty has raised about $96,000, nearly double what his competitors have received combined. The state’s most powerful public employee unions have also weighed in on the race, splitting their endorsements between Duty and Isadore.Duty, a urology professor and surgeon at Oregon Health & Sciences University, said his top priorities in the Legislature would be boosting the capacity of Oregon hospitals, expanding behavioral health services and increasing health care workforce retention. He said his medical expertise would make him a strong choice for the Behavioral Health and Health Care Committee.Duty has received endorsements from former Gov. John Kitzhaber, Metro President Lynn Peterson, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters and several unions, including the Oregon chapters of the Service Employees International Union. He has raised more than $96,000, including $10,000 from former Nike CEO Mark Parker and his wife and $10,000 from the wife of former top Nike advisor and negotiator Howard Slusher, campaign finance records show. He has also donated $11,700 to his own campaign.“If elected, I will alleviate our health care system’s strain by increasing hospital capacity, enhancing medical training, retaining the best health professionals and addressing the shortfall in health service investments,” Duty wrote in response to an Oregonian/OregonLive questionnaire.Grabiel, a lawyer who has advocated for major international efforts to curb the effects of climate change, said his top priorities would be enacting environmental legislation and addressing Oregon’s public defender shortage. Grabiel spent several years negotiating climate policy for the United Nations as a senior lawyer for the African Union, according to his LinkedIn profile. He was part of a team that negotiated the 2016 Kigali Amendment, an international agreement to reduce the use of certain greenhouse gasses commonly used in air conditioners and refrigerators.If elected, Grabiel would be the first Latino to hold the District 33 seat, according to his campaign website. Grabiel has received endorsements from the Portland Metro Chamber, former Gov. Barbara Roberts and international climate expert Durwood Zaelke. He has raised about $34,000, including a $10,000 loan he made to his campaign, campaign finance records show.“I am the only candidate who has built a broad-based coalition to achieve a significant policy goal — which I did at the United Nations over a nine year period culminating in the adoption of a landmark international climate change law [in 2016],” Grabiel wrote. “I also know how to draft legislation that accomplishes a chosen policy goal, as I have done throughout my career as an environmental lawyer.”Environmental lawyer Peter Grabiel is vying to represent Portland's west side in the Oregon House. He said his top priorities in office would be enacting environmental legislation and addressing Oregon’s public defender shortage.Pete Grabiel campaignIsadore, a U.S. Marine veteran and founder of the Oregon Change Clinic, a culturally specific behavioral health clinic, said her focus in the Legislature would be creating affordable housing, supporting behavioral health initiatives and addressing Portland’s downtown office vacancies. If elected, Isadore would become the only Black woman serving in the Legislature with the departure of Rep. Janelle Bynum, D-Happy Valley, who is running for Congress.She is endorsed by former Gov. Kate Brown, five Democratic lawmakers from the Portland area and several unions, including the statewide teachers union and the Oregon chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Isadore has raised about $15,000, including a $5,000 contribution from the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association’s political action committee.“I know what it takes to provide culturally specific behavioral health and substance use disorder services to BIPOC people and veterans,” Isadore wrote. “Oregon taxpayers are investing $211 million in treatment and recovery. They deserve the expertise of a treatment provider with the financial background I have to ensure it’s well spent.”Housing, tolling, climate changeEach of the candidates said they would take steps to ensure that the $376 million housing and homelessness package approved by the Legislature earlier this year would be effectively carried out. However, they outlined different steps they would take to build on the package’s major initiatives.Isadore said she would ensure that the state’s housing and development-focused agencies have sufficient money and resources to help cities promote development and ensure that cities use their state dollars effectively. She also said “we need to streamline the siting of recovery housing to hold local jurisdictions accountable for building the entire continuum of housing.”Duty said he would prioritize making sure housing development dollars lead to new housing quickly. “If we do not see a substantial increase in affordable units,” he said, “we should revisit subsidies and incentives to further reduce the cost of development.”Grabiel said he would promote dense urban growth instead of sprawl and support legislation that reduces the amount of regulatory red tape that slows down housing development. He said he would also support the creation of large shelters to reduce unregulated camping in Portland.Lawmakers next year plan to take up a major transportation package to help maintain and build roads and necessary infrastructure. The three candidates said they wouldn’t support road tolling in their district to fund roads because it puts too high of a financial burden on working class and low-income individuals. Grabiel, however, did say he would support a toll on Vancouver residents who drive into Portland because they “pay far less taxes than Portlanders do to maintain our shared metropolis.”The three candidates also said they support the Department of Environmental Quality reestablishing the state’s Climate Protection Program, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions produced from burning fossil fuels. Last year, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the program did not meet certain disclosure requirements and was legally invalid.Doctor Brian Duty, candidate to represent Oregon's District 33 in the House, speaks with campaign supporters. Duty said his top priorities in the Legislature would be boosting the capacity of Oregon hospitals, expanding behavioral health services and increasing health care workforce retention.Courtesy of Brian Duty campaignGrabiel said he supports the environmental agency’s efforts to revive the program and would work to ensure that the program couldn’t be easily overturned by a future governor.Additionally, Grabiel said lawmakers should explore a cap-and-trade system similar to those of California and Washington, which incentivize the use of clean energy by requiring major polluters to buy state-issued allowances on every ton of greenhouse gas they produce. In Oregon, Republican lawmakers have adamantly opposed and killed Democrat-backed bills that would create a cap-and-trade system by boycotting legislative floor sessions and denying Democrats a quorum to pass those bills, most recently in 2020.Isadore said she strongly supports the reintroduction of the state program and applauded the Legislature’s recent move to order the state treasury to drop all fossil fuel investments in its investment portfolio.Duty said the climate protection program is a win-win for all Oregonians because it creates jobs, reduces carbon emissions, lowers energy prices and encourages clean energy investment.He said lawmakers should take further environmental action, including “restoring long-term funding for the electric vehicle rebate program, continuing the fight against wildfires through prevention and reforestation and expanding solar and wind projects.”All three candidates said they would support an update to the State School Fund formula, which has not been revised in 30 years. They agreed that the state should provide more funding to schools but had different views on how much say the state should have on the spending by individual districts.Duty said the situation is complex and that he supports Gov. Tina Kotek’s call for a work group to explore school funding. “I think the state should take more accountability for funding failures,” Duty said. “The evidence suggests that mandates on districts have not often been successful and should be reviewed.”Grabiel said the state should have a say in certain classroom issues, such as class sizes or programs for students who exhibit disruptive behavior. That would mark a huge policy change in a state with a long history of local control that is carefully guarded by school boards, superintendents and teacher unions.“Schools that are not meeting educational standards should be subject to additional guardrails and given additional resources to meet the state’s and citizens’ expectations,” Grabiel said.Isadore said she would oppose more state-imposed guardrails on how school districts can use their funding.Duty said the state should take more accountability for funding failures in the state’s employee pension fund, and Isadore said the state should take over paying the pension fund’s highest costs, instead of leaving that to school districts.“I would lift the voices of education experts about what would be most effective and equitable,” Isadore said. “I believe we should not only look at how we’re doling out dollars but whether the pot itself is big enough.”— Carlos Fuentes covers state politics and government. Reach him at 503-221-5386 or cfuentes@oregonian.com.Our journalism needs your support. Subscribe today to OregonLive.com.

Black Americans more concerned than other groups about pollution exposure: Survey

More Black Americans are concerned about their local exposure to air pollution than other racial or ethnic groups, a new survey found. Gallup's survey found 53 percent of Black adults are “very” or “fairly” concerned about exposure to four types of environmental pollution or contamination in their communities. Forty-six percent of Hispanic adults and 35...

More Black Americans are concerned about their local exposure to air pollution than other racial or ethnic groups, a new survey found. Gallup's survey found 53 percent of Black adults are “very” or “fairly” concerned about exposure to four types of environmental pollution or contamination in their communities. Forty-six percent of Hispanic adults and 35 percent of white adults said the same. Black Americans also report higher numbers of being concerned about contaminated drinking water. At 46 percent, Black respondents' concern is 20 percentage points higher than white Americans. Thirty-nine percent of Black adults are concerned about toxic building materials in their communities, compared to the national average of 25 percent. Similarly, 42 percent of Black adults are concerned about land and soil contamination, compared to 37 percent of Hispanic adults and 26 percent of white adults. Generally, the survey found that adults living in urban areas are more likely to express concern about exposure to local pollution threats compared to people living in rural or suburban areas. Gallup noted that racial differences in the survey are not because minority populations are more likely to live in urban areas. “While concerns about exposure to environmental pollution and contamination are similar by race/ethnicity among Americans living in urban centers, they diverge among Americans of different racial/ethnic backgrounds living in towns, suburbs and rural areas.” Minorities of all backgrounds report higher levels of concern than white people, and Black Americans report the highest level of concern in communities like the suburbs and small towns. Black Americans also reported an incident of pollution exposure within the last five years at a higher rate than both Hispanic and white Americans. Black Americans were about twice as likely as white Americans to say they have had to relocated temporarily due to harmful pollution or contamination in their community within the last year, the survey found. “The latest findings from the Gallup Center on Black Voices indicate that environmental pollution and contamination are displacing a substantial number of Black Americans,” researchers wrote. According to the report, the Environmental Protection Agency has noted that due to “historical conditions such as segregation and redlining,” Black Americans are more likely to be exposed to polluted environments. The survey was conducted July 26-Aug. 10 among 12,684 U.S. adults. It has a margin of error of 1.7 percentage points.

Buffoonery abounds in Imago Theatre’s deep-thinking ‘Mission Gibbons’

The tragicomedy by Carol Triffle, Imago co-founder, mixes eco-activism with absurdity as modern backpackers encounter a clan of cavemen.

Literally and hallucinogenically, “Mission Gibbons” is a trip. Specifically, a time-trip. After a trio of stoned backpackers cross paths with a clan of cavemen, the present daytrippers must forge an anachronistic alliance with the burly Stone Agers to stave off the apocalypse. Carol Triffle, co-founder of Imago Theatre, wrote and directs this absurdly enjoyable play, comically couching very real environmental concerns.“Mission Gibbons” runs through April 27 in the Southeast Portland performance space.The show:The minds behind the anthropomorphic-movement shows “ZooZoo” and “Frogz” have been on a creative roll throughout and despite the COVID pandemic. Imago co-founder Jerry Mouawad has produced an opera-theater piece, a comedy set in a roomful of rhinos, and a dreamy dive into insomnia (last fall’s “My Bedroom Is an Installation”).Triffle’s metaphysical musical, “Where’s Bruno?” opened about a year ago.“Mission Gibbons” isn’t as abstract as many of Imago’s past works. Still, Triffle said, “It’s hard to categorize. It’s definitely a play, but there are a lot of songs in it so you could almost call it a musical, but there’s more talking than singing.”Tragicomedy might be the best descriptor, she said — leaning harder into the humor.“It’s funny, but it’s also very deep at some points, when the cavemen actually talk about what’s going to happen to the world if they don’t find a plan to help it. And all the plans are sung,” Triffle said. “It’s really sad when you think about it, but then the sadness comes through as absurd or funny.”The post-Jurassic-World Triffle creates is kinetic. However, don’t expect the animal-inspired pantomime and dance maneuvers of “ZooZoo” and “Frogz,” though several actors in “Mission Gibbons” have appeared in those shows, and are trained in the Jacques Lecoq technique of theater movement.“There is an underlying basis of physical theater in it, but it’s not anthropomorphic in this play,” said Triffle.Buffoonery abounds. From the rough-and-(almost)-tumble way the hikers attempt to scale the mountain (a massive set-piece by Alex Meyer) to some Stone Age slapstick from Caveman Ueh (Kyle Delamarter), it’s go-time from curtain up.Carol Triffle is a playwright, director and co-founder of Imago Theatre in Portland. April 9, 2024.Beth NakamuraWho’s who:The six actors in “Mission Gibbons” have all worked with Imago before — and it shows. Throughout the opening night performance, cast members fiercely maintained their commitment to Triffle’s journey, and the exaggerated quirks of their characters.Anne Sorce, playing hiker Anna, seemed to be channeling Molly Shannon’s “Saturday Night Live” goofball Mary Katherine Gallagher by creepily, hilariously never breaking eye contact with the audience as she delivered every line.Anna even leaned in to sniff Caveman Ueh’s armpits.“Mmm. You smell like dirt. Fresh dirt.”What’s the Big Idea?“All of my plays have an underlying theme of ‘We gotta fix something,’” said Triffle. “Whenever I write, I start writing and then if something pops out at me and it starts feeling like I shouldn’t go there, then I go there. I don’t know why, but that’s been my life, for writing and for watching theater.”Lately, buried under the avalanche of bad news — “everything is a catastrophe, global warming or some other catastrophe is in every newscast” — Triffle felt helpless. Things were “getting to the point of ‘I want to do something, but I don’t know what to do,’” she said.She penned this play to give people ideas to consider how to change the future now. Absurdism is Triffle’s imaginative avenue into environmentalism. That mountain? It’s named Mount Plastic. We and the hikers learn it’s not a landform; it’s a landfill, made mostly of garbage.“I never realized how much plastic I used until I started doing this play,” Triffle said. “I do recycle but I don’t recycle all the plastic. (The play) hopefully just makes you think about that.”Triffle said that her mountain of pollution is meant to mirror the mass of plastic debris known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, floating between the coast of California and Hawaii.The messaging here is unabashedly unsubtle. But absurdism isn’t a wink and a nudge; it’s a slap and a tickle. Triffle generously swirls eco-activism with song, sci-fi twists and cheeky references to the opening scene from “2001: A Space Odyssey” and the goriest scenes from “Cocaine Bear.”Listen for:Music is a big element of this story. The tagline for the show is, “The time has come to listen to the cavemen sing.”“Anytime there is a ‘message’ they’re singing about it,” Triffle said. “I wrote the play and lyrics. Kyle did all the music composition.”Delamarter’s Cro-Magnon crooner Ueh belts out a couple of pop ballads that would shuffle nicely into a “Songs to Sing in the Shower” Spotify playlist.In the final number, as the cavemen mix harmonies with in-sync choreography, audiences may be witnessing Earth’s first boyband.Because they pre-date The Monkees.Line of the night:“You don’t have to be sad. It’s not opera!” shouts hiker Tina (Amy Katrina Bryan) near the optimism-fueled end of “Mission Gibbons.”What should audiences take away from the play?“You can walk away thinking and you can walk away laughing,” Triffle said. “We’re trying to maybe just help a little, and if everybody helps a little, maybe it will be a lot.”“Mission Gibbons”When: Continues 7:30 p.m. Friday-Saturday, 2 p.m. Sunday through April 27.Where: Imago Theatre, 17 S.E. Eighth Ave.Tickets: $23; www.imagotheatre.com.— Lee Williams, for The Oregonian/OregonLive

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.