New plan highlights the many challenges for New Hampshire's food system
For the state's 'rapidly' dwindling dairy farms, the plan called for measures like creating an association to advocate for the state's dairy industry, bolstering workforce development, and offering more grant support. (Getty Images)
A strategic plan released last month made dozens of recommendations for strengthening the state's food system.
It painted a challenging picture for New Hampshire's estimated 4,000 farms, which 'rarely operate in a way that provides enough income for the farm family,' the plan said. And the pressures are growing, with agriculture sales decreasing 12.6% from 2017 to 2022, it said.
'The data demonstrates that we need to adjust our collective work to create a stronger local food system by centering the financial viability of farming, fishing, and food production in New Hampshire,' the plan reads.
The plan was created by the NH Food Alliance, a network based out of the University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute that worked in partnership with the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food and others. It was supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure Program, as well as the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation.
While the plan noted that different types of producers face different problems, it also pointed out common struggles, like the loss of 80% of the state's farmland over the past 60 years, New Hampshire's 'shortage of affordable housing,' increased environmental pressures from climate change, and more.
At the same time, the plan pitched the benefits and opportunities of looking local when it comes to agriculture: 'regional food security, economic stability for farmers, fishermen, and food producers, regional economic growth, protected open spaces, a stable food supply, climate resilience, and improved public health and nutrition.'
The plan engaged 118 subject matter experts in developing 27 briefs across a range of topics including agritourism, dairy, fruits and vegetables, consumer education, disaster relief, farmland conservation, and more.
In the end, the plan issued 143 recommendations tied to each of the briefs. For the state's 'rapidly' dwindling dairy farms, for instance, it called for measures like creating an association to advocate for the state's dairy industry, bolstering workforce development, and offering more grant support.
The plan was spurred by the NH Food Alliance's participation in the New England Food System Planners Partnership, which aims for New Englanders to consume 30% regional food products by 2030, according to a news release from UNH. An analysis from the partnership found that only 3.2% of Granite Staters' spending on food, beverages, and alcohol in 2022 went to regional sources.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
The History, and Significance, of the 50th G7 Summit
Flags from Canada, France, German, Italy, Japan, The United Kingdom, and The United States. Credit - Streetoncamara—Getty Images On June 15, President Donald Trump and world leaders from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom will meet in Kananaskis, Canada for the annual Group of Seven (G7) Meeting. The 2025 G7 Summit will be an important opportunity for leaders of key Western democracies to resolve current trade issues, establish cooperative strategies for managing the rapid development of technologies such as AI, and address rising tensions with China and Russia. For instance, the Europeans see the meeting as a test of whether the U.S. is serious about putting more pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin by lowering the G7 ceiling price for buying Russian oil from $60 per barrel to $50. This G7 meeting will be the 50th meeting of this kind. The first occurred in 1975 in Rambouillet, France. Back then, it was then known as the G6 meeting. Canada was invited a year later. I remember the Rambouillet Summit vividly, because I was fortunate enough to be there. As Kissinger's then 32-year-old economic advisor, I joined the Rambouillet Meeting as the notetaker and advisor to President Gerald Ford. Having now participated in many Summits, I have come to recognize their value. They seldom produce big breakthroughs, but they can reduce friction, forge common understandings, and set the direction towards progress which larger and more unwieldy institutions cannot. But due to the changing global order—specifically, the economic rise of China and countries from the Global South—some have come to question the relevance of the G7 Summit. Here's what the first meetings can teach us about the importance of the G7 meeting ahead and about the G7 as an institution: The Group was designed to unify, and develop common strategies among, the leaders of these countries to address formidable economic problems they faced at the time. For instance, each was recovering then from the 1973 OPEC oil embargo aimed at Western nations that had supported Israel in the 1973 War. They were also adjusting to the recent collapse of the Bretton Woods Monetary System, which saw the U.S. cease convertibility of the dollar into gold and impose a 10% tariff as leverage to compel other industrialized countries to reduce America's trade deficit. (This came to be known as 'the Nixon Shock,' and was a source of considerable friction between the U.S. and its allies.) At the time, most of these countries were suffering from extremely high inflation coupled with low growth and high unemployment—otherwise known as, "stagflation." The West also was in the midst of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. In April,1973, finance ministers of the U.S., UK, France and what was still West Germany began a series of private meetings in the White House Library to discuss remedies to these problems. Shortly after, Japan was added to what came to be known as 'the Library Group'. George Shultz, then U.S. Treasury Secretary, was the American member. In mid-1975, French President Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, who had formerly been finance minister and thus attended these meetings, suggested that the heads of State of Library Group countries meet to discuss these issues. It was to be strictly an Economic Summit to avoid any possible overlap with NATO. He quickly received support from German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, Germany's former finance minister, and President Ford. The basic premise was that given the seriousness of the issues at hand, the heads of State themselves needed to work out a coordinated strategy. Besides, given that most of the leaders were largely unfamiliar with one another, a meeting would cultivate a spirit of trust and collaboration. Giscard volunteered a 14th Century Castle, Château de Rambouillet, in a small country town about an hour southwest of Paris, as the meeting place. He and Schmidt proposed that only the leaders themselves participate at the Summit. However, other countries (including the U.S.) thought leaders should be accompanied by their Foreign and Finance ministers. This idea was briefly met with resistance from France and Germany, but they soon accepted. The next point of contention was who else should be invited; Italy's Prime Minister Aldo Moro made a passionate case that he was fighting off a rise in pressure from the Italian Communist Party, and that his exclusion would demonstrate lack of Western support. His urgent pleas carried the day, and he was invited. The U.S. urged the French to invite Canada, but Giscard drew the line at that—although the following year, when the U.S. hosted the event, Ford unilaterally invited Prime Pierre Minister Trudeau. Another point of contention was notetakers. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was adamant that there be a U.S. notetaker—as there was at all other Presidential meetings at home and abroad. The French resisted this because they felt it further enlarged, and this compromised the intimacy of, the meeting. But the U.S. had an ally across the channel. The British had a practice that the Cabinet Secretary, at the time the highly respected John Hunt, took notes at all cabinet meetings and Prime Minister Wilson insisted that he do so at this meeting as well. The French ultimately agreed that countries could have their notetakers. Since I was Kissinger's economic advisor and had done a lot of the planning and policy papers for the Summit, I was designated to accompany Ford as notetaker. Our presence ultimately became an asset: the leaders, having originally decided that there would be no communique, then decided on a "declaration." Because we had notes on and participated in all the sessions, Hunt and I were asked to help draft the final declaration. There was no formal agenda, although the top-of-mind issues were clear. Each country had a very small delegation of four of five members. So this turned out to be the highly effective and informal affair that Giscard and Schmidt wanted. While no breakthroughs were predicted or expected, the leaders reached a consensus in several areas to increase currency stability, restore growth without triggering new inflation, and reduce trade barriers. This meeting, at the time, was considered a one-off affair. There was no expectation that it would become an annual event. However, the following year, Ford and his advisors decided that another Summit should take place and sent out invitations to his counterparts—including to Canada. Over time, the organization also began to discuss political issues, in addition to economic issues. Fifty years later, the major issues facing leaders have changed dramatically and the world faces a very different global power structure. Notedly, the dramatic rise of China and the growing role of India and other countries from the Global South. Many believe that the rise of new global players has diminished the G7's significance. But even with these changes, the G7 countries together still have considerable influence. That is, if G7 members can work together, settle their trade differences, and exercise unified leadership on key international issues. Among those international issues are responding to China's formidable economic rise, Russia's cyber and militaristic agressions, and the heightening tech race. Given the intense strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China, leaders will undoubtedly discuss how G7 countries can individually and collectively address the deepening rifts between the world's democracies and the rising authoritarian world. Leaders will likely discuss ways to collectively resist Beijing's practices in areas such as trade, cyber attacks, and supply chain interruptions. They will also likely discuss potential areas of convergence such as addressing climate change and restoring scientific and medical research collaboration. A highly aggressive Russia, which has launched a devastatingly harsh and lethal war in Ukraine, will also pose a continuing challenge to G7 members. The issue of tightening sanctions on Russia is bound to be a major topic. By demonstrating resolution on this issue, and political unity domestically and with one another and other like-minded countries, more decisive pressure can be applied to the Kremlin. And then there is the technology revolution. Though advancements in AI, quantum computing, digital commerce, biosciences, and drones have changed virtually every facet of our lives since the G7 first met, international regulations have failed to keep up. One possible approach is to establish a series of small expert G7 groups to monitor developments in a few of these areas, create an outline of common regulatory norms and guard rails, foster exchanges among experts, enable their regulators to learn from each other, and provide a venue for national leaders to connect. As the T7 Canada Communique, a document put together by the Canadian Centre for International Governance Innovation put it, "One of the most powerful contributions the G7 can make to the trajectory of transformational technologies is to unlock, organize and secure information that supports decision making, coordination, and regulatory capacity." The G7 Semiconductor Points of Contact Group is a good contemporary prototype. Establishing similar groups for quantum computing and other transformative technologies would be a productive next step. In our current era of change, there are too few organizations with the capacity to address the challenges we face. But the G7 countries can. That is, if they summon the political will, mobilize their nations' internal strengths, and demonstrate the needed unity to play this role. Contact us at letters@
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
To Bridge Generational Divides, Corporate America Needs To Invest in Soft Skills
We are living through the Fourth Industrial Revolution—and it's moving fast. AI, automation, and rapid digital transformation are reshaping businesses across all sectors. Corporate America is racing to navigate a digital-first world. As business leaders from retail to finance to professional services work to keep up with the shift, there's something that's easy to miss: the soft, or "durable" skills employees need to succeed are no longer optional—they're essential. LinkedIn's Global Talent Trends report showed that 89 percent of HR industry professionals said when a hire doesn't work out, it usually boils down to a lack of skills like emotional intelligence, clear communication, adaptability, and active listening. Forbes reported these as the top competencies employees will need in the next five years. This moment will require upskilling in more than tech. People entering and exiting a metro station are pictured. People entering and exiting a metro station are pictured. Getty Images And it's not just younger workers. Consider the workplace of today: Five years post-pandemic, work from home and remote approaches are scattershot. Some people have never worked in an office; some never wanted to leave. On average, up to five generations at a time are working together. Employees of all ages are finding it difficult to adjust to hybrid environments where communication and relationship-building matter more than ever. Expectations about work culture are different. And in an effort to build tech-savvy teams, much of today's new talent has been hired for very specific expertise, not for their people skills. It's no wonder, then, that a recent survey of corporate leaders found that there is a skills gap, with many young professionals struggling to communicate effectively, collaborate with teams, and problem-solve in real time. In an era where AI is expected to automate countless tasks, human skills—like emotional intelligence, adaptability, and leadership—are becoming even more essential. But these skills don't develop in a vacuum—we need to meet this challenge head-on. One emerging solution? Mentorship. Increasingly, corporations across sectors are investing in mentoring as a proven solution to close the skills gap and unlock our human potential. Mentorship is not just a nicety, but a viable strategy for building durable skills in both the mentee and the mentor. It's a data-backed, proven solution that creates a more equitable future and develops the talent pipeline. Macy's, for example, has invested in mentorship as a way to boost leadership skills—giving youth an opportunity to learn and practice with a mentor by their side. UPS has been a long-time investor in workplace mentoring, creating opportunities for young people to explore, learn, and develop skills from seasoned corporate leaders. The results are beneficial for all, especially knowing that they've created "life-changing career opportunities" created through their mentorship programs. Mentoring goes beyond helping youth find a good job; it's also a strategy for equipping and empowering the entrepreneurs of tomorrow, and a powerful force for personal, professional, and economic development. According to a recent study led by economist Alex Bell while at Harvard University, mentorship is one of the most cost-effective, high-impact ways to close socioeconomic gaps in society and to build the durable skills companies are seeking in the workplace. We also know that serving as a mentor gives employees at any age a chance to share their knowledge, sharpen their own communication, empathy, and leadership skills. It's a win-win: ensuring a more connected workforce today and a stronger pipeline for tomorrow. It's time for us to consider that mentorship has an impact as meaningful and scalable as apprenticeships, externships, and other upskilling programs. Mentorship benefits young people, businesses, and society. The data tells us that companies with mentorship programs have higher retention rates. Employees who participate in mentorship programs are more likely to stay with their companies, reducing turnover costs. They have stronger leadership pipelines. Mentorship helps develop the next generation of managers and executives, ensuring a steady flow of talent. And they have more effective teams. Employees with strong durable skills navigate workplace dynamics better, leading to higher collaboration and problem-solving. There's even a brand halo effect, with recent evidence showing development of soft skills as linked to a company's competitive advantage. Is mentorship worth it? Yes—it pays for itself. As the workforce continues to shift, the need for human-centered development strategies is becoming clearer. Mentorship—long known for its individual impact—is also a lever for strengthening teams, bridging generational divides, and preparing a more adaptable, resilient workforce. But scale requires intention. If we want to close skill gaps, improve opportunity, and meet the demands of a changing economy, it will take more than programs—it will take people, across every sector, stepping in. This is our moment to reimagine success—because the future of work won't be automated, it will be mentored. Ginneh Baugh is chief impact officer at Big Brothers, Big Sisters of America. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why an Ohio ban on settlements to close ‘base load' power plants matters for clean energy
Aerial photograph of the OVEC-operated Kyger Creek Power Plant in Cheshire. (Getty Images.) This story was originally published by Canary Media. A decade ago, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, trade organizations, and companies found themselves in a regulatory standoff with American Electric Power over operating costs for six coal-fired power plants in Ohio. The utility's opponents objected to letting the company collect more money from customers to keep the unprofitable plants running, while the utility argued the charges were a hedge against even higher costs. Before state regulators made a decision, the utility and some of its opponents announced a compromise. As part of the deal, the Sierra Club would drop its opposition in exchange for AEP's commitment to add more solar and wind to its portfolio as well as move up its timeline for closing or converting several coal plants to natural gas. A Sierra Club representative at the time described it as 'nowhere near a perfect deal' but as one that would significantly reduce carbon emissions and accelerate the state's clean energy transition. Such compromises will now be prohibited in Ohio under a new state law that forbids settlements involving the closure of 'base load' power plants. Proponents of House Bill 15, signed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine in mid-May, say it will support the state's ever-growing power needs and promote competition within its energy sector. Yet critics are questioning the law's definition of 'base load' generating facilities: It only covers electricity sources that run primarily on nonrenewable fuels such as natural gas or nuclear. The definition excludes wind or solar power, even when combined with battery storage. Negotiating special deals in settlements has long been common in utility regulatory cases. Industry groups or companies have gotten discounts and other benefits in return for dropping opposition to utilities' added charges. Parties in court cases often settle before trial, too. For example, the same year that the Sierra Club reached a settlement with AEP, a trade group representing industrial customers negotiated a special rate with FirstEnergy's Ohio utilities in exchange for dropping opposition to a customer-funded bailout of that company's unprofitable coal and nuclear plants. (The secret terms of that agreement were part of a criminal case filed last year against Ohio's former chief utility regulator, Sam Randazzo. They also became part of a House Bill 6-related regulatory case on which regulators will finally hear evidence this month.) HB 15 will still allow settlements with special deals, as long as terms are part of the public record, there's no cash payment, and they do not close or limit 'base load' electricity-generating facilities. Neil Waggoner, who heads the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign for the Midwest region, suspects the provision is likely a backlash to the environmental group's 2015 settlement with AEP. That deal didn't end up delivering all of the expected clean energy benefits. State rules requiring wind turbines to be a certain distance from other properties ultimately made it impossible for AEP to add the planned 500 megawatts of wind generation, and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio refused to allow the utility to charge customers the cost of building 400 MW of solar energy. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The 'base load' provisions weren't part of HB 15 as it originally passed the House, nor were they in the initial versions of the companion Senate bill, SB 2. The language appeared in a substitute version of SB 2 introduced on March 11, the same day that Ed Spiker, chair of the Ohio Coal Association, submitted written testimony pleading the state to enact 'guardrails to ensure current coal power plants are not forced to close.' The terms used in SB 2 included natural gas and nuclear in the definition of a 'base load electric generating facility' but not renewables. The Senate then added the provisions to HB 15 before passing it this spring. The law suggests Republicans' continuing willingness to prop up conventional power plants, even when their electricity may cost more than cleaner sources of power. 'How would you replace base load power generation, given the amount of megawatts that they produce that we certainly require?' Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, challenged one witness who spoke against nuclear power plants during a March 11 hearing held by the Senate Energy Committee. Yet electricity from coal and nuclear plants remains relatively expensive, compared to that from renewables or natural gas. Ashley Brown, a former state utility regulator, questioned the constitutionality of the new settlement restrictions. 'I don't know how they can tell somebody you can't shut down a plant,' he told Canary Media. Two weeks ago, the Trump administration ordered a retiring Michigan coal plant to stay open, although it's unclear whether the mandate will face a court challenge. Separately, regional grid operator PJM Interconnection has sometimes issued orders to keep power-generation facilities running to maintain grid reliability, as it did for former FirstEnergy coal plants. In that case, however, the company was paid to keep the plants open. Waggoner noted that HB 15's language only applies to settlements. Its terms wouldn't stop a company from closing an unprofitable plant on its own accord. HB 15 also finally revokes subsidies for two 1950s-era coal plants, which had been put in place by HB 6, the 2019 law at the heart of an ongoing public corruption scandal in Ohio. Yet Beth Nagusky, an adjunct law professor at Case Western Reserve University, wonders whether the provision preventing settlements that close 'base load' power plants is meant to lay the groundwork for new subsidies down the road for nuclear and coal plants, which might become involved in regulatory or judicial cases. 'I don't think that's even being hidden,' Waggoner said. Along the same lines, environmental groups have criticized laws from 2023 and 2024 that include natural gas and nuclear power in the state's definition of 'green energy.' As Waggoner sees it, utilities and policymakers who claim to be worried about maintaining enough 'base load' or 'dispatchable' electricity are concerned less about real reliability issues and more about minimizing the importance of renewable energy in the face of climate change, even when renewables are paired with storage. 'They're looking at how do you frame this argument so you're not just saying, 'We don't want renewables,'' Waggoner said. 'They're trying to find a way to justify what they want, as opposed to what the moment demands.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
