4 ms·

An $18M grant would have drastically reduced food waste. Then the EPA cut it

76 points by rntn 1y ago

nickff 1y ago
This seems like an interesting project, but it’s entirely within one state; shouldn’t the state be funding it? What makes this a good program for federal support?
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  So to qualify for federal funding any experiment/project must occur in at least two states? I am skeptical you would reduce waste with that rule.
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
    I think their point is not worth addressing on its merits. I downvoted them because while the article itself focuses on an $18M grant in RI, it also plainly states that this is part of $2B program that's aimed at all states, tribal lands, and territories. With a kagi search that took less time than the poster took to write the comment, I was able to further find a whole site dedicated to the grant along with fact sheets on same, here: https://www.communitychangeta.org/about-community-change-grants-and-endyna https://www.communitychangeta.org/about-community-change-gra...
    - nickff 1y ago
      Thanks for posting the link, but it doesn’t make the program any more federal. Packaging a bunch of independent, local programs together under one umbrella doesn’t change the fact that they’re local programs. This really seems like the sort of ‘pork’ program everyone was complaining about a few cycles ago, albeit with an environmentalist sheen.
      - MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
        The entire framework is federal, the money comes from the fed, and the implementation is via fed grants given to local programs to achieve a broader result. It's a very federal program.
        nickff 1y ago
        It really seems to me that the only federal part is the allocation and distribution of funds. Put another way, what would a less federal program look like? Could you describe a program with less of a federal nexus, while still being federally funded?
      - apical_dendrite 1y ago
        That's how most federal programs work. Congress appropriates the money, a federal agency defines requirements, and then states, cities, or non-governmental entities apply for grants. For example, my city is trying to build a bridge. There's a particular federal program for this (which will probably get killed by Trump), so the city applied for funding and now it's their job to build the bridge.
        nickff 1y ago
        I agree that many federal programs are made up of many local components, though transportation has often been viewed as affecting interstate trade and military logistics. Food waste in Rhode Island does not seem to have a federal nexus.
      - rat87 1y ago
        Yes it does. Paying for a land delegating work to locals is one of the most common patterns for federal action. Pork is good. Pork helps grease the wheels of government, it helps things pass and helps facilitate compromise.
  - ars 1y ago
    To qualify for federal funding it should occur in ALL states, or be federal property (like interstates). If it's not worth funding locally, it's not worth funding federally.
    - apical_dendrite 1y ago
      Usually these programs DO occur in all states, it's just that instead of having one large national bureaucracy that uses the same approach everywhere, the federal government defines requirements and then local organizations and governments apply for grants. In fact, that's how the interstates work too - the state transportation agencies apply for highway funding from the federal government and then manage the projects.
      - ars 1y ago
        I wasn't really talking specifically about this program, just kind of in general. Although I'm not really sold on even the approach you describe - it seems like it's just a way to funnel taxes from local people -> federal -> back to local. Skip the middleman?
        dummydummy1234 1y ago
        The idea is to redistribute wealth from areas of the country with wealth to areas are poorer. California tax payers support West Virginia infrastructure. Inevitably some states are wealthier than others, the federal government acts as a balancer of this. This can improve outcomes in poorer states (education, building up new industries, local economies etc). Ideally, it also provides a counter balance for changing economies, where there are inevitably winners and losers. Many industries are geographic centered, and having the ability to adjust for acute downsides in one area benefits the whole country overall in the long-term. That being said, the specifics of individual programs are up to debate in Congress (it's their job).
  - sillystu04 1y ago
    This is why Lockheed Martin has some part of the F35 supply chain in nearly every US state.
    - nickff 1y ago
      The F-35 is used for defending airspace, a doubly-federal duty. Spreading the spending so widely is a purely political gambit (I believe pioneered by NASA with the Space Shuttle).
      - robocat 1y ago
        Although expensive, it wouldn't surprise me if the F-35 was financially profitable for the US. The F-35 jet program accounts for about 27% of Lockheed's revenue Lockheed financials: 2024 net sales $71.0 billion. Recorded pre-tax losses of $2.0 billion associated with classified programs Returned $6.8 billion of cash to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases in 2024 Total Assets @Q1 54.96B $110.94 B Marketcap Nearly 80% of the $46 billion in revenue in 2014 was generated from purchases by the US government Total foreign ownership of US companies is about 40% (I wonder if total US ownership of foreign companies exceeds foreign ownership of US companies?) Sourced above by variety of sources - likely inaccurate. Total costs (e.g. externalities, political) and benefits (e.g. security, influence) are harder to guess at. The US political system puts a huge amount of pressure on allies to buy US armaments. The US military industrial capitalism is complex, and has massive political backing. Christmas lights sell missiles. I also wonder how much of the F-35 profitability comes from a Gillette/SaaS/HP financial model? Wars destroy capital goods, which is great if you're selling them.
- btown 1y ago
  There was actually quite a heated debate on this during the New Deal in the 1930s, where federal regulations and federal public works projects were often scoped to have highly localized impacts. Wickard v. Filburn, for instance, upheld in 1942 that the federal government could use the Commerce Clause to regulate even a single farmer's output, on the basis that its impact on pricing, viewed in the aggregate, could affect interstate commerce: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 And in this Rhode Island situation, Congress did indeed authorize this exact type of highly-localized program: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7438 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7438 If the federal government wants to use its resources to reduce food waste, in service of a nationwide fiscal policy to allow household funds that would otherwise go towards food waste to re-enter the economy, that's arguably largely within its purview. Because there's no national infrastructure or standards, action has to begin locally, if this is indeed the goal. This interstate commercial framing, in fact, was at the center of the first Trump administration's food waste initiatives, which laid the groundwork for this program: https://www.wastedive.com/news/trump-administration-unveils-winning-strategies-for-us-food-waste-problem/553001/ https://www.wastedive.com/news/trump-administration-unveils-... > “In one sense, this is a problem derived from America’s incredible achievements in agriculture and technology,” said [Trump's] EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler at an April 9 [2019] event, going on to recount a story about former Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s surprise when he saw the bounty of a Texas grocery store in 1989. “Together, we can promote American prosperity and turn wasted food into solutions that can feed America’s communities, fuel our economy and maximize our resources.” Whether or not specific pilot programs like the one mentioned in OP are the optimal way to implement that goal, of course, is a different question entirely. But at least they were trying to start somewhere. (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
  - nickff 1y ago
    I’m not disputing the legality of the program, just the prudence of federalizing it.
jfengel 1y ago
It will be interesting to see next April. The government has been slashed for very modest sums, even in aggregate. People's tax bills will be no lower, and there's a good chance that the deficit will be higher. I have no idea how much attention people actually pay to the final sum. It's never the same any two years in a row even if you made exactly the same salary. You just pay whatever number shows up on the bottom line (or deposit whatever check arrives).
- monero-xmr 1y ago
  The real issue is so much of this stuff was superseded decades ago by technology. There was a woman on NPR moaning about how their funding to tell women to let babies sleep on their back will result in deaths https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5383871/trump-cuts-safe-sleep-sids-baby#:~:text=Safe%20sleep%20recommendations%20for%20babies,they're%20in%20a%20vehicle. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5383871/trump-cuts-safe... Doctors. The internet. We don’t need an entire apparatus to explain basic facts that can be a document sent via text message to new mothers in the hospital. The amount of useless busywork is absurd
  - clarkevans 1y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your comment. After birth, when new parents are sleep deprived, is a uniquely stressful time when parents are bombarded with information. Advice on the Internet is prolific and often wrong, raising anxiety without providing needed context-sensitive guidance. It looks like this program was providing trustworthy materials and outreach to reduce infant death.
    - monero-xmr 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - clarkevans 1y ago
        Dissemination takes work. Materials in the right languages are needed. Finding the minimum necessary detail and visuals help. Delivery to new parents has to be done when they need the information, else they won't be receptive or remember. Then you need to get these materials into the birthing centers, to midwifes and nurses, etc. An evaluation component is also helpful to see if the approach can be improved, etc. Having this done in a repeatable way is important, every day there are new parents. I don't see the price tag for this, but a few million dollars isn't all that much given the complexity of the dissemination challenge. It's probably a program but likely not an entire department. Curating knowledge and getting it to right people's attention at the right time is hard work. Did you see the materials they produce/disseminate? https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/resources/order https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/resources/order
ars 1y ago
This title doesn't seem true. It would not have drastically reduced food waste, from the description in the article this program would have done nothing at all except add local jobs. This is an example of a program that should be defunded. Buzzword bingo: * environmental justice * local jobs * compost * emissions * connecting people to food and soil * community garden One magical program does it all!
russell_h 1y ago
I don't quite understand the goal of this project. It says they're preventing 15,000 tons of emissions, but there are all kinds of ways to prevent or offset greenhouse gas emissions for under $10/ton. So at a glance this project appears to be allowing almost 2 million tons in preventible emissions in order to... pay people to bike around and collect food scraps?
- 0xfaded 1y ago
  The actual cost to retire a 1 ton co2e carbon credit should be $70-$80. A lot of these $10 programs do not actually retire the credit and sell it to somebody else, so you are in effect subsidizing the credit. https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ TBF, this may still enable a legitimate project that is viable at $80-90 that is not at $70-80. So if you want to support a particular tree planting effort go for it.
  - russell_h 1y ago
    Interesting, good info. To be clear though, this grant is for over $1,200 per ton.
metalman 1y ago
I tried to undersand how someone with half a wheelbarow load of food scrap and leaves(picture in.article) talked there way into 20 million dollars to compost waste @$1681.8/ton, which is a lot lot more than the wholsale cost of a many kinds of NEW food, but then maybe thats why the plug got pulled.
0xfedcafe 1y ago
just one more grant!
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]

76 points by rntn 1y ago

This seems like an interesting project, but it’s entirely within one state; shouldn’t the state be funding it? What makes this a good program for federal support?

DangitBobby 1y ago
So to qualify for federal funding any experiment/project must occur in at least two states? I am skeptical you would reduce waste with that rule.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
  I think their point is not worth addressing on its merits. I downvoted them because while the article itself focuses on an $18M grant in RI, it also plainly states that this is part of $2B program that's aimed at all states, tribal lands, and territories. With a kagi search that took less time than the poster took to write the comment, I was able to further find a whole site dedicated to the grant along with fact sheets on same, here: https://www.communitychangeta.org/about-community-change-grants-and-endyna https://www.communitychangeta.org/about-community-change-gra...
  - nickff 1y ago
    Thanks for posting the link, but it doesn’t make the program any more federal. Packaging a bunch of independent, local programs together under one umbrella doesn’t change the fact that they’re local programs. This really seems like the sort of ‘pork’ program everyone was complaining about a few cycles ago, albeit with an environmentalist sheen.
    - MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
      The entire framework is federal, the money comes from the fed, and the implementation is via fed grants given to local programs to achieve a broader result. It's a very federal program.
      - nickff 1y ago
        It really seems to me that the only federal part is the allocation and distribution of funds. Put another way, what would a less federal program look like? Could you describe a program with less of a federal nexus, while still being federally funded?
    - apical_dendrite 1y ago
      That's how most federal programs work. Congress appropriates the money, a federal agency defines requirements, and then states, cities, or non-governmental entities apply for grants. For example, my city is trying to build a bridge. There's a particular federal program for this (which will probably get killed by Trump), so the city applied for funding and now it's their job to build the bridge.
      - nickff 1y ago
        I agree that many federal programs are made up of many local components, though transportation has often been viewed as affecting interstate trade and military logistics. Food waste in Rhode Island does not seem to have a federal nexus.
    - rat87 1y ago
      Yes it does. Paying for a land delegating work to locals is one of the most common patterns for federal action. Pork is good. Pork helps grease the wheels of government, it helps things pass and helps facilitate compromise.
- ars 1y ago
  To qualify for federal funding it should occur in ALL states, or be federal property (like interstates). If it's not worth funding locally, it's not worth funding federally.
  - apical_dendrite 1y ago
    Usually these programs DO occur in all states, it's just that instead of having one large national bureaucracy that uses the same approach everywhere, the federal government defines requirements and then local organizations and governments apply for grants. In fact, that's how the interstates work too - the state transportation agencies apply for highway funding from the federal government and then manage the projects.
    - ars 1y ago
      I wasn't really talking specifically about this program, just kind of in general. Although I'm not really sold on even the approach you describe - it seems like it's just a way to funnel taxes from local people -> federal -> back to local. Skip the middleman?
      - dummydummy1234 1y ago
        The idea is to redistribute wealth from areas of the country with wealth to areas are poorer. California tax payers support West Virginia infrastructure. Inevitably some states are wealthier than others, the federal government acts as a balancer of this. This can improve outcomes in poorer states (education, building up new industries, local economies etc). Ideally, it also provides a counter balance for changing economies, where there are inevitably winners and losers. Many industries are geographic centered, and having the ability to adjust for acute downsides in one area benefits the whole country overall in the long-term. That being said, the specifics of individual programs are up to debate in Congress (it's their job).
- sillystu04 1y ago
  This is why Lockheed Martin has some part of the F35 supply chain in nearly every US state.
  - nickff 1y ago
    The F-35 is used for defending airspace, a doubly-federal duty. Spreading the spending so widely is a purely political gambit (I believe pioneered by NASA with the Space Shuttle).
    - robocat 1y ago
      Although expensive, it wouldn't surprise me if the F-35 was financially profitable for the US. The F-35 jet program accounts for about 27% of Lockheed's revenue Lockheed financials: 2024 net sales $71.0 billion. Recorded pre-tax losses of $2.0 billion associated with classified programs Returned $6.8 billion of cash to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases in 2024 Total Assets @Q1 54.96B $110.94 B Marketcap Nearly 80% of the $46 billion in revenue in 2014 was generated from purchases by the US government Total foreign ownership of US companies is about 40% (I wonder if total US ownership of foreign companies exceeds foreign ownership of US companies?) Sourced above by variety of sources - likely inaccurate. Total costs (e.g. externalities, political) and benefits (e.g. security, influence) are harder to guess at. The US political system puts a huge amount of pressure on allies to buy US armaments. The US military industrial capitalism is complex, and has massive political backing. Christmas lights sell missiles. I also wonder how much of the F-35 profitability comes from a Gillette/SaaS/HP financial model? Wars destroy capital goods, which is great if you're selling them.
btown 1y ago
There was actually quite a heated debate on this during the New Deal in the 1930s, where federal regulations and federal public works projects were often scoped to have highly localized impacts. Wickard v. Filburn, for instance, upheld in 1942 that the federal government could use the Commerce Clause to regulate even a single farmer's output, on the basis that its impact on pricing, viewed in the aggregate, could affect interstate commerce: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 And in this Rhode Island situation, Congress did indeed authorize this exact type of highly-localized program: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7438 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7438 If the federal government wants to use its resources to reduce food waste, in service of a nationwide fiscal policy to allow household funds that would otherwise go towards food waste to re-enter the economy, that's arguably largely within its purview. Because there's no national infrastructure or standards, action has to begin locally, if this is indeed the goal. This interstate commercial framing, in fact, was at the center of the first Trump administration's food waste initiatives, which laid the groundwork for this program: https://www.wastedive.com/news/trump-administration-unveils-winning-strategies-for-us-food-waste-problem/553001/ https://www.wastedive.com/news/trump-administration-unveils-... > “In one sense, this is a problem derived from America’s incredible achievements in agriculture and technology,” said [Trump's] EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler at an April 9 [2019] event, going on to recount a story about former Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s surprise when he saw the bounty of a Texas grocery store in 1989. “Together, we can promote American prosperity and turn wasted food into solutions that can feed America’s communities, fuel our economy and maximize our resources.” Whether or not specific pilot programs like the one mentioned in OP are the optimal way to implement that goal, of course, is a different question entirely. But at least they were trying to start somewhere. (Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.)
- nickff 1y ago
  I’m not disputing the legality of the program, just the prudence of federalizing it.

jfengel 1y ago

It will be interesting to see next April. The government has been slashed for very modest sums, even in aggregate. People's tax bills will be no lower, and there's a good chance that the deficit will be higher. I have no idea how much attention people actually pay to the final sum. It's never the same any two years in a row even if you made exactly the same salary. You just pay whatever number shows up on the bottom line (or deposit whatever check arrives).

monero-xmr 1y ago
The real issue is so much of this stuff was superseded decades ago by technology. There was a woman on NPR moaning about how their funding to tell women to let babies sleep on their back will result in deaths https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5383871/trump-cuts-safe-sleep-sids-baby#:~:text=Safe%20sleep%20recommendations%20for%20babies,they're%20in%20a%20vehicle. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5383871/trump-cuts-safe... Doctors. The internet. We don’t need an entire apparatus to explain basic facts that can be a document sent via text message to new mothers in the hospital. The amount of useless busywork is absurd
- clarkevans 1y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your comment. After birth, when new parents are sleep deprived, is a uniquely stressful time when parents are bombarded with information. Advice on the Internet is prolific and often wrong, raising anxiety without providing needed context-sensitive guidance. It looks like this program was providing trustworthy materials and outreach to reduce infant death.
  - monero-xmr 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - clarkevans 1y ago
      Dissemination takes work. Materials in the right languages are needed. Finding the minimum necessary detail and visuals help. Delivery to new parents has to be done when they need the information, else they won't be receptive or remember. Then you need to get these materials into the birthing centers, to midwifes and nurses, etc. An evaluation component is also helpful to see if the approach can be improved, etc. Having this done in a repeatable way is important, every day there are new parents. I don't see the price tag for this, but a few million dollars isn't all that much given the complexity of the dissemination challenge. It's probably a program but likely not an entire department. Curating knowledge and getting it to right people's attention at the right time is hard work. Did you see the materials they produce/disseminate? https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/resources/order https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/resources/order

ars 1y ago

This title doesn't seem true. It would not have drastically reduced food waste, from the description in the article this program would have done nothing at all except add local jobs. This is an example of a program that should be defunded. Buzzword bingo: * environmental justice * local jobs * compost * emissions * connecting people to food and soil * community garden One magical program does it all!

russell_h 1y ago

I don't quite understand the goal of this project. It says they're preventing 15,000 tons of emissions, but there are all kinds of ways to prevent or offset greenhouse gas emissions for under $10/ton. So at a glance this project appears to be allowing almost 2 million tons in preventible emissions in order to... pay people to bike around and collect food scraps?

0xfaded 1y ago
The actual cost to retire a 1 ton co2e carbon credit should be $70-$80. A lot of these $10 programs do not actually retire the credit and sell it to somebody else, so you are in effect subsidizing the credit. https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ TBF, this may still enable a legitimate project that is viable at $80-90 that is not at $70-80. So if you want to support a particular tree planting effort go for it.
- russell_h 1y ago
  Interesting, good info. To be clear though, this grant is for over $1,200 per ton.

metalman 1y ago

I tried to undersand how someone with half a wheelbarow load of food scrap and leaves(picture in.article) talked there way into 20 million dollars to compost waste @$1681.8/ton, which is a lot lot more than the wholsale cost of a many kinds of NEW food, but then maybe thats why the plug got pulled.

0xfedcafe 1y ago

just one more grant!

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]