IL pledges $8 million to repairs at New Salem historic site
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Illinois Capital Development Board (CDB) announced that the money is going to Lincoln's New Salem, the recreation of the log cabin village Abraham Lincoln lived in for six years. It's a site that attracted more than 350,000 visitors last year.
The money is coming from the Rebuild Illinois capital plan, and it will be used to update and repair 23 buildings at the site.
$57M going toward Illinois clean energy businesses through Climate & Equitable Jobs Act
'We are grateful for Governor Pritzker's ongoing commitment to preserving New Salem and other state historic sites for future generations,' said IDNR Director Natalie Phelps Finnie. 'For decades, Illinois families have enjoyed visiting New Salem for class trips, historical demonstrations, scouting excursions, theater outings, candlelight walks, summer picnics, and more. We want to ensure visitors can continue enjoying all that New Salem has to offer for years to come.'
The $8 million will be in addition to nearly $3 million in repairs already completed or undertaken at New Salem under the Pritzker administration. Repairs have included roof replacement and a new HVAC system at the visitor's center, stairway construction between the village and the grist mill, a bridge replacement on the Mentor Graham Trail, a planned major road and bridge improvement project and more.
The village was constructed in the 1930s and 1940s as a Civilian Conservation Corps program. The historically furnished buildings include homes, stores, tradesmen shops, a tavern, a school, a sawmill and a gristmill.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump bids to scrap almost all pollution regulations – can anything stop this?
The Trump administration is attempting to unmake virtually all climate US regulations in one fell swoop. At an Indiana truck dealership on Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled a proposal to rescind the 16-year-old landmark legal finding which allows the agency to limit planet-heating pollution from cars and trucks, power plants and other industrial sources. Related: The renewable energy revolution is a feat of technology | Rebecca Solnit 'The proposal would, if finalized, amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States,' said the EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin. The agency's primary argument for reversing the so-called 'endangerment finding' claims the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate only emissions that locally threaten health. Department of Energy officials also laid out another justification for the move, which experts say relies heavily on climate denialism. Once the proposal is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will open a public comment period. Once it finalizes the rule, it will face an array of legal challenges. But if the rollback prevails, it would leave the EPA without any authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution amid ever-compounding evidence that a swift reduction in these emissions is needed to avert catastrophic global warming. 'The importance of the endangerment finding can't be overstated,' said the renowned climate scientist Michael Mann. 'It's been the primary tool that we have had to actually regulate carbon emissions and meet our obligations under various global agreements to address the climate crisis.' What is the administration doing? The endangerment finding, enshrined in 2009, found that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health. It followed a 2007 supreme court ruling which found such gases were pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The finding has long been a target for elimination by climate deniers. Democratic administrations used it and 'twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year', according to Zeldin. The proposed undoing of the finding followed Trump's January executive order on 'Unleashing American Energy', which directed the agency to submit a report 'on the legality and continuing applicability' of the endangerment finding. It comes as part of Trump's 'drill, baby, drill' agenda, which aims to boost already booming fossil-fuel production. Along with the scrapping of the endangerment finding, the EPA said it will kill off regulations limiting pollution coming from cars and will stymie a rule that curbs the amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, spewing from oil and gas drilling operations. Officials have laid out an array of legal justifications for the rollback. The main one rests on the idea that the Clean Air Act provides authority to regulate 'air pollution that endangers public health or welfare through local or regional exposure' – but not emissions that warm the planet. Zealan Hoover, former senior adviser to the EPA administrator, said that argument does not pass muster. 'The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate any air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,' he said. 'The Trump administration is staking out the extreme position that climate pollution does not harm the physical or financial health of Americans. That flies in the face of decades of scientific research and the firsthand experience of millions facing sea level rise, extreme heat, floods and fires.' The EPA is also using the so-called 'major questions doctrine' as an argument for the rollback, said Michael Gerrard, a professor of environmental and energy law at Columbia Law School and faculty chair of Columbia's Earth Institute. Embraced by conservative justices, it says congressional authorization is needed for action on issues of broad importance and societal impact. 'They're saying that, regardless of what the text of the Clean Air Act may say, the endangerment finding is so economically and politically significant that the EPA can't issue it without explicit congressional authorization,' said Gerrard. In a 150-page report also published on Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DoE) also laid out a separate argument for the move, which attempts to undercut the scientific consensus on the climate crisis. Experts say it relies on misleading scientific claims, such as the idea that carbon is beneficial for agriculture, which downplays research suggesting climate-driven extreme weather damages crop yields, and the debunked idea that extreme cold is more dangerous than extreme heat. Reached for comment, a Department of Energy spokesperson, Ben Dietderich, said: 'This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence – not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous presidential administrations.' The UN and the US have regularly convened top scientists to produce scientific climate reports, which warn that urgent action to curb emissions is needed. Last week, the secretary general of the UN, António Guterres, gave a speech in which he said the world is on the brink of a breakthrough in the climate fight and fossil fuels are running out of road. What could the impact of the Trump administration's move be? In its proposal, the EPA claimed eliminating US carbon pollution 'would not have a scientifically measurable impact' on the global climate or on public health. But by warming the planet and increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events like wildfires and floods, greenhouse gas emissions pose grave threats to society, said Mann. 'It isn't remotely credible to argue that carbon pollution isn't a major, if not the greatest, threat now to human health,' he said. With the proposed change, 'the EPA is telling us in no uncertain terms that US efforts to address climate change are over', said Abigail Dillen, president of the environmental legal non-profit Earthjustice. 'For the industries that contribute most to climate change, the message is: pollute more,' she said. 'For everyone feeling the pain of climate disasters, the message is: you're on your own.' Though the rollback aims to create a regulatory environment friendly to fossil fuels, it could, ironically, also threaten oil companies' attempts to fend off lawsuits aiming to hold them accountable for the climate crisis. To fight some challenges by cities and states, companies have argued that because the EPA regulates greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, those suits should be void. Throwing out EPA's ability to regulate those emissions could leave energy companies open to further challenges. 'I know that industry groups have been asking the Trump folks not to reverse the endangerment finding,' Jeff Holmstead, of the oil and gas law firm Bracewell, told E&E News in February. What happens next? Zeldin's proposed rulemaking on the endangerment finding initiated a 45-day comment period, when the public will be able to weigh in on the proposed change. 'EPA will then have to respond to the comments, make any necessary changes, and issue the rule in final form,' said Gerrard, of Columbia. The final rule is expected to be met with an onslaught of lawsuits, which will go to the DC federal appeals court. The losers of those cases – either the government or the challengers – are expected to take them to the supreme court. Shaun Goho, legal director at the pollution-focused nonprofit Clean Air Task Force, said the proposal was 'unlawful'. 'Greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and the climate, and the Clean Air Act mandates that EPA regulates harmful air pollution,' he said. Some experts are confident the challenges will be successful. But Gerrard says he is not so sure. 'The US supreme court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has issued a series of decisions in the past three years cutting back on federal environmental regulations,' he said. 'So I'm concerned.' Asked about experts concerns about the health-harming impacts of greenhouse gases, the EPA said its proposal 'is primarily legal and procedural'. 'The endangerment finding is the legal prerequisite used by the Obama and Biden administrations to regulate emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines,' a spokesperson said. 'Absent this finding, EPA would lack statutory authority under [the Clean Air Act] to prescribe standards for greenhouse gas emissions.' The spokesperson said 'many of the predictions made and assumptions used' for the endangerment finding 'did not materialize'. However, scientists have in recent decades produced many new findings showing greenhouse gases are dangerous.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Barclays exits Net-Zero Banking Alliance, follows HSBC
This story was originally published on ESG Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily ESG Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Barclays is withdrawing from the United Nations-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, a sector coalition whose members have committed to aligning their financial activities with the aim of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The British bank announced its exit Friday and pointed to the financial sector's retreat from the climate group in its statement. 'With the departure of most of the global banks, the organization no longer has the membership to support our transition,' Barclays said. Barclays is the latest financial institution to quit NZBA, following in the footsteps of rival bank HSBC, which departed the group last month. The departures trail behind U.S.-based banks' exodus from NZBA and other climate-focused alliances, spurred in part by new federal leadership and ongoing scrutiny from the Republican party. Dive Insight: Barclays said it would remain committed to its sustainability goals, including a target to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The bank reiterated that its commitment to allocating $1 trillion in sustainable and transition financing by 2030 remains 'unchanged.' 'We continue to work with our clients on their transition, finance the transition and scale climate tech, while helping to ensure energy security for our customers and clients,' Barclays said. The departure from NZBA comes just a few days after the bank shared it had generated 500 million pounds (over $663 million) in revenue in 2024 from sustainable and low-carbon transition related activities. Earlier in June, Barclays announced that its climate investment arm had enabled 508 million pounds (nearly $687 million) in investments focused on climate technology and innovation since 2020. However, a recent report from a coalition of climate organizations found that Barclays was the biggest financier of fossil fuels in Europe last year, boosting its funding for related operations by over 55% to $35.4 billion. The report backed by the Rainforest Alliance Network, Sierra Club and Reclaim Finance also counted Barclays as one of four banks — alongside JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup — that increased its fossil fuel financing by over $12 billion from 2023 to 2024. The U.K.-based responsible investment NGO ShareAction called Barclay's decision to depart NZBA 'incredibly disappointing,' in an emailed statement sent to ESG Dive. The organization's Co-Director of Corporate Engagement Jeanne Martin said the bank took a 'step in the wrong direction at a time when the dangers of climate change are rapidly mounting.' 'The announcement comes just three days after Barclays published a transition update reiterating its commitment to be a net zero bank by 2050, sending mixed signals to governments and companies around the world,' Martin added. Recommended Reading HSBC departs Net-Zero Banking Alliance, following US banks Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
Baloney about Blue Angels, biting in the office, and more. July's seven craziest stories
Yes, America, it's been another truly crazy month. July featured big, beautiful bills and bigger freakouts. We had the collective media breakdown over the cancellation of Stephen Colbert. Another about President Donald Trump defunding PBS and NPR. And then one about a jeans ad. More on all three of those below. But oddly enough, two of the strangest stories came from the legal profession, including one involving cats. 1 Catastrophic attack: The left hates the military, even some of the best of the military. Their latest campaign is to ground the Blue Angels. The Blue Angels, for the 12 people who have never heard of them, are acrobatic pilots who exemplify some of the best the military has to offer by performing death-defying maneuvers flying as close as 18 inches from one another. Eleven million Americans see the incredible flying of the Blue Angels each year. Leftist climate loons can't stand that. They are running a campaign to stop the historic show, at least in their insane neck of the woods, complete with billboards. They are even resorting to cat lawsuits. Here's a bit from a ridiculous NBC News story: "The final days of a Seattle cat were spent in 'terror' due to flyovers by Blue Angels fighter pilots, before squadron leaders blocked the feline's human mother on social media in an act of 'cowardly censorship,' she said in a lawsuit filed this week." NBC News says the author of the lawsuit, a paralegal, whined about the fliers last year on Instagram, "Nobody gives a f--- about your stupid little planes." Except for 11 million people. 2. F-bombs galore: One of the month's freakouts featured the embarrassing behavior of media liberals willing to debase themselves to keep Colbert employed, though his show lost tens of millions of dollars and wasn't funny. The worst of these came from his buddy and former coworker Jon Stewart. Stewart mocked the network (which shares the same corporate owners as his own Comedy Central) for not trying to save their late-night show and for "killing a show that you know rankled a fragile and vengeful president." Half of the segment was classic Stewart with a degree of self-deprecating humor. Then he launched into song, complete with backup singers, telling the network, "Just go f--- yourself." Counting the singers repeating his mantra, the segment featured at least 35 or so F-bombs. That's what the left is down to, they are losing so badly that all they can do is F-bomb like kids who learned a naughty word. Besides, Jason Mewes did it better. 3. Big law bites: Law has often been described as swimming with the sharks. But leave it to a young associate to put that metaphor into action – like the shark out of "Jaws." A summer associate at the prestigious Sidley Austin law firm reportedly lost her job because of her eating habits. According to Above The Law, "a Biglaw summer associate bit people at the firm — with her teeth." The site termed her the "Biglaw Biter" after rejecting several other options including, "Associate Lecter." The site reported that five people were bitten and with "a faux-quirky manic pixie dream girl crossed with the Donner party vibe." Ah, the joys of telecommuting. 4. Misreading history: Those of us who like history find it hard to reconcile the amazing stuff historian Ken Burns does with the absolute idiocy that he delivers at times. This month was no exception. He went on CBS to pretty much defend the people who pay him: "I couldn't do any of the films I've done without them being on PBS." Burns admitted he doesn't believe there's bias at the network, which really does call into question every other analysis he has ever done. Then came the killer quote: "It is the Declaration of Independence applied to the communications world." Yeah, leaves me speechless. I wish it had done the same to him. 5. In the bag: There are purses and bags and then there's the Birkin. (You can almost hear the angelic choir in the background.) Birkin bags are the in fashion accessory for the heavily cashed set. You know, the kind of people who think shopping at Tiffany is middle class. (That's a dating story.) For them, there is the almighty Birkin bag. There are videos devoted to it and even songs. One hundred years from now, it will probably qualify as a religion. This month, the late Jane Birkin's original Birkin bag sold at auction … for $10 million. This wasn't pristine, as many Birkin owners try to keep theirs. No, according to the Post, "Scratches, surface scuffs, and signs of use are present on all sides." But you know the old adage, if you have to ask how much, you can't afford it. I'm not sure I can afford to be in the same Zip Code. 6. 'Blue Jean Baby': American Eagle unveiled a new ad for their jeans with sex symbol Sydney Sweeney as spokesmodel. And it was WW II all over again. In the ad, Sweeney seductively pulls on her jeans and makes word play mixing "genes" and "jeans." The campaign tagline says, "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans." The reaction was swift and unhinged, whining that pretty women are controversial and arguing it was all about "eugenics." MSNBC claimed: "Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad shows a cultural shift toward whiteness." Yahoo ran a piece arguing, "I'm astounded Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ads got approved." Some online commentators even whined about her initials. This is the kind of reaction that makes you wish Al Gore had never pretended to invent the internet. 7. Bowling for …: And speaking of word play, Pittsburgh Area Naturalists held naked bowling in July. Naked bowling – except for shoes. (You have to protect the integrity of the game, after all.) According to WTRF out of Pittsburgh, $30 got you four hours of bowling and footwear. The event was naturally called, "Balls Out Bowling." The story included the important caveat, "Nudity is required with the exception that women can wear bottoms." I pity the poor business that had to design the trophy.
