This is not a gothic movie. It isn’t the Dust Bowl, nor heavily-industrialized India. This is Oregon in 2025, grappling with the perpetual drought and disaster brought on by climate change. And according to experts, the Trump administration’s policies will only worsen the problem.

In July, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced a proposal to void the endangerment finding, a crucial decision that granted the government authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Issued in 2009, the finding established that certain greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” 

This finding, which was largely backed by the scientific community, has fueled the agency’s actions in the years since, paving the way for policies such as the regulation of tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions in American vehicles.

Opponents have long claimed that the finding is an overstep, granting the EPA far too much power over industry. However, its legitimacy has been supported by the U.S. court system: In a 2010 case, the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of regulations imposed under the finding, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case.

For members of the climate advocacy community, a rollback of the endangerment finding is not only distressing, but a perplexing negation of the scientific consensus.

“I think it’s very disappointing to see the rollback on what was very well-supported, scientifically-supported policy that’s been in place for a long time, almost 20 years,” said Neil Baunsgard, Climate Policy Manager at the Bend Environmental Center.

Baunsgard, who has worked in the sustainability field for over a decade, described the EPA’s actions under the Trump administration as a “vibes-based decision-making process” rather than one informed by scientific fact.

Dr. Erica Fleishman, a professor at Oregon State University and director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, shared similar concerns.

“Climate change is creating warmer and drier conditions in general in Oregon and across most of the Western United States,” Fleishman explained. “It’s important to clarify that it’s not what I think. It’s what there’s overwhelming evidence about: that wildfires are becoming larger and that they are becoming more frequent.”

These risks have been felt acutely in Central Oregon, a region that has in recent years been wracked with destructive wildfires. In fact, a recent study conducted by the University of Washington Bothell named Bend the third-smokiest city in the nation. Two other Oregon cities, Medford and Grants Pass, ranked first and second, and Klamath Falls, Roseburg and Eugene were situated in the top 10.

Overturning the endangerment finding would only worsen this problem, allowing manufacturers to resume the production of inefficient and high-emission vehicles. This projected jump in greenhouse gas emissions would be felt globally, but especially in the vulnerable and water-starved West.

“The effects of climate change are likely to happen faster, and they’re likely to be more severe,” Fleishman said of a post-endangerment finding future.

This accelerated progression becomes even more concerning when one considers a recent study on the deadly nature of wildfires. The researchers, who hail from universities nationwide, found that if climate change continues on its projected path, wildfire smoke is expected to kill 70,000 Americans by the middle of the century.

According to experts, studies such as this one support the assertion that the endangerment finding has enshrined for over a decade: Climate change, if left unregulated, will elicit a public health crisis of unbelievable magnitude.

Moves to dismantle the finding are not the only controversial shift in climate policy since President Trump’s inauguration in January. In fact, on the first day of his second term, the president issued an executive order withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, an international treaty dedicated to climate change mitigation (Trump also removed the United States from the pact during his first term; Joe Biden revived the country’s involvement immediately upon his inauguration in 2021).

Trump has also vowed to expand fossil fuel production in the United States, carrying out a pro-oil agenda that can best be described by its rallying cry: “Drill, baby, drill.” In October, the administration drew rancor from environmental advocates for its decision to open Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife Refuge, a swath of historically-protected land, to fracking.

“I think a lot of people are rightfully feeling disempowered with some of the rollbacks and actions on the federal level,” said Baunsgard.

So what can concerned citizens do in this era of policy upheaval? According to Baunsgard, the answer is simple: Get involved.

“We’re really lucky in Central Oregon that we have a lot of great nonprofit advocacy organizations,” he explained.

Involvement is especially important for young people, he said. After all, this world of smoke and struggle is in the younger generations’ hands. However, in a political climate where the average age of U.S. senators is 64.7 years and the average age of representatives is 57.9, their voices are often absent from the policymaking process.

With this in mind, Baunsgard emphasized the importance of seeking out groups that support one’s environmental interests and contacting political representatives with concerns.

Today, the proposal to repeal the endangerment finding remains in review. In the meantime, there is no doubt that Central Oregonians are living in a changed world: one of wildfire, warming and the everpresent risk of natural disasters. And so, as fires crackle across the West and a snowless winter serves as an omen for summers to come, Central Oregonians wait for the EPA to decide their fate.

The post How an Altered EPA May Impact Central Oregon appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.

While some people appreciate the new growth added to Bend, others aren’t too fond of the situation, creating tension among the town. 

Many of these newcomers are arriving from states including California, Washington and Arizona, with the majority of Bend’s growth coming from these areas with major cities according to Common Sense Institute of Oregon. It’s no surprise there has been plenty of backlash. Although some have been bothered, newcomers just strive to find a nice place to raise family and experience new culture and community. 

“We just moved here from California,” said Jordan A., who arrived in Bend just in time for her son to start school. “We love it. It is such a diverse environment perfect for my son and I really like his teachers in school.” 

Bend’s public education system has definitely gotten quite the recognition, as staff and school administrators pride themselves on making a welcoming community fit for each student. Yet even with positives Jordan’s family has found so far, adjusting to the community has had its challenges.

“There have been times when going out that we’ve received snarky remarks or micro aggressions concerning our character and recent migration,” said Jordan. 

Stereotypes and typecast labels have been used on those coming in from bigger cities for many years, and as Bend grows in population so does its schools, shops, restaurants and living space, creating challenges in expanding appropriately for everyone. 

With over 100,000 people now in Bend, personal troubles and preferences have risen. 

“It has definitely been a struggle for me with this past new growth to Bend.” Said longtime local of over 30 years, Hayley Albin. She expresses her feelings towards the new attitude migrants have brought forward, explaining, “People never smile anymore.”

The small tight nit community that Bend once was definitely has had some changes in not only people but their mannerisms too. Once a place where everybody knew everybody now it’s hard to even make conversation with people. “This is not the Bend I grew up in”. Hayley states. Comparisons of how lively, communicative and unreserved Bend used to be seems to be affecting people more than you would think. 

Though without this growth, you could argue Bend wouldn’t be as diverse as it is today. Showing off its undeniable widening of cultures and practices, uniting those with similar belief groups. Especially with Bend’s newest high school of five years, Caldera. A dual immersion school, focused on incorporating academic activities in both Spanish and English for native and learning speakers. The major attraction to Caldera’s amazing performance in administration, with Caldera’s principal, Chris Boyd, receiving the title of Bend-La Pine Schools’ 2025 Administrator of the Year, has only made people, including exchange students, want to join the pack.

While “Old Bend” is gone, a wider, expanded community has arisen, creating more opportunities for newcomers arriving both from the states or other countries. Nationwide, small towns will evolve into transforming cities, new people will come in as construction makes room for apartments, office buildings or stores for new shop owners. Though Bend 30 years ago might not appear the same as today, those moving into the small city are simply striving for a better way of living.

The post Is Trying to Protect “Old Bend” Worth the Spread of Hate? appeared first on Obsidian News | Oregon Youth Voices.