Share:
Energy & Environment — Interior punts on offshore drilling plan
The Biden administration has released its proposed five-year offshore drilling plan … sort of. We’ll dive into the details.
Plus: The Supreme Court gives Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer renewed urgency on climate and former EPA head Andrew Wheeler has a new position.
This is Overnight Energy & Environment, your source for the latest news focused on energy, the environment and beyond. For The Hill, we’re Rachel Frazin and Zack Budryk. Subscribe here.
Interior proposes 0-11 offshore sales
The Biden administration is punting a decision on whether to open up more lease sales for offshore drilling.
- In a statement issued Friday, the administration said it is still working on a plan, and that when issued it could include as many as 11 specific lease sales for offshore oil and gas drilling or as few as zero.
- An Interior Department official said equal weight is being given to scenarios with zero sales, some sales or all 11 sales.
The statement and department’s proposal for the program’s future was issued one day after a previous five-year offshore drilling plan expired. That plan had been launched by the Obama administration.
The sales under consideration include an area in the Cook Inlet near Alaska, and as many as 10 sales in the Gulf of Mexico. Earlier this year, the department canceled a planned lease sale in Cook Inlet, citing lack of industry interest.
The political context: The move comes as the administration grapples with the politics of high gas prices, which recently reached as high as $5 per gallon nationally.
- It also follows a major Supreme Court decision curbing the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to regulate climate contributions of power plants.
- And it comes as Democrats are still trying to sell their social and climate agenda to swing vote Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who is generally supportive of fossil fuels.
Manchin, in a statement, said he was “pleased” that the department released its proposal, but “disappointed” that the zero-sale option is being considered.
The Interior official defended not deciding on a specific number of lease sales at this stage, saying it intended to put a range of options before the American people.
The actual possible schedule: The department on Friday released a schedule accompanying its proposed plan, saying the first lease sale could take place in 2023.
Of the remaining ten potential sales, as many as two could take place in 2024, two could take place in 2025, three — including the Alaska sale — could take place in 2026, two could be in 2027 and one could be in 2028.
Read more about the proposal here.
Ruling puts pressure on Schumer to get climate deal
The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to dramatically limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants puts new pressure on Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to strike a climate deal with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
- The conservative court’s 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. EPA strikes a blow to President Biden’s climate agenda and has Democrats and activists scrambling to salvage Biden’s pledge to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 50 percent by 2030.
- The setback places renewed importance on Schumer’s efforts to revive a budget reconciliation bill that would include climate provisions such as clean energy tax credits and incentives for cutting methane emissions.
“This devastating decision is only the latest shot in the arm to Congress to legislate action on climate,” said Melinda Pierce, the legislative director of the Sierra Club. “Today’s Supreme Court decision is stark reminder that the clock is ticking and Congress and must act.”
So what does he have to say? Schumer on Thursday said the court’s decision lights a fire under Congress to get something done to limit carbon emissions.
“Make no mistake — the consequences of this decision will ripple across the entire federal government, from the regulation of food and drugs to our nation’s health care system, all of which will put American lives at risk, making it all the more imperative that Democrats soon pass meaningful legislation to address the climate crisis,” he said in a statement responding to the opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Many Democratic lawmakers have become pessimistic about getting Manchin to agree to any budget reconciliation deal that would include provisions to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
Signs of life: Schumer is continuing to negotiate with Manchin, and there are some signs of progress.
- The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Democratic leaders have finalized a proposal to lower the price of prescription drugs for seniors, which would be a core element of the budget reconciliation package.
- This development puts Schumer and Manchin in position to negotiate the other pillars of the reconciliation package: tax reform and climate provisions.
Schumer’s and Manchin’s staffs have continued to negotiate over the two-week July 4 recess, leaving some Democrats optimistic of getting a deal in July or early August.
Read more here from The Hill’s Alexander Bolton.
EX-TRUMP CABINET MEMBER HEADS TO VIRGINIA DEREGULATION OFFICE
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) on Friday appointed former Environmental Protection Agency head Andrew Wheeler to a newly created Office of Regulatory Management, months after state lawmakers voted Wheeler down for another role.
- Wheeler will head the new office, which Youngkin said in a statement will aim to reduce state regulatory requirements by 25 percent.
- The Trump administration implemented a similar policy in 2017, imposing a requirement that any new regulations be accompanied by the repeal of two existing regulations.
“Last year, I pledged to Virginians that we would remove 25% of the regulatory requirements in the Commonwealth,” Youngkin said in a statement Friday.
“In the spirit of this objective, we have created the Office of Regulatory Management, led by Andrew Wheeler, which will create much needed transparency and efficiency in Virginia’s regulatory process to ensure that we have a government that works for the citizens of the Commonwealth.”
Wheeler, who served as EPA administrator from 2019 to 2021, was initially Youngkin’s nominee as Virginia’s secretary of natural resources.
His nomination immediately faced pushback in the Democratic-majority state Senate, due to his history with the Trump administration and as a coal industry lobbyist.
A spokesman for Youngkin’s office told The Hill that Wheeler will not require General Assembly confirmation as head of the new office.
DRILLING DOWN THESE NUMBERS
Over the past few days, the Interior Department carried out oil and gas lease sales on public lands, selling the rights to drill on about 70 percent of the parcels it offered up.
Some on the left argued that the fact that some parcels went without bids undercuts some criticism of the Biden administration’s climate plans.
- “The oil industry has yet again been lying through their teeth. For months – as industry giants brought in record profits – we’ve heard nothing but desperation for new leases and cries to hold these sales. And what did we get today? More than 40% of the acres offered left on the table,” Jenny Rowland-Shea deputy director for public lands at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement.
Industry and Republicans have criticized the Biden administration for implementing a now-defunct pause on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Leasing is just one of several steps to facilitate drilling on land and in water that’s owned by the federal government.
Asked about this, the American Petroleum Institute (API), which represents the oil and gas industry, argued that the sales demonstrated robust industry interest despite stipulations but in place by the administration.
“Despite Interior’s decision to increase royalty rates, reduce acreage by 80% and perpetuate regulatory uncertainty, the recent sales results demonstrate the industry’s commitment to continued development on federal lands,” API vice president of upstream policy Kevin O’Scannlain said in a statement to The Hill.
WHAT WE’RE READING
- How the gas industry aims to rebrand as ‘clean’ energy to appeal to Black and Latino voters (Floodlight)
- California Gas Tax Increases Ahead of Fourth of July Holiday Weekend (NBC Los Angeles)
- Warnings on air pollution need to be directed towards polluters – study (The Guardian)
- As Federal Climate-Fighting Tools Are Taken Away, Cities and States Step Up (The New York Times)
- The Race to Build Wind Farms That Float on the Open Sea (WIRED)
🦊 And finally… Every month is Pride Month
That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Energy & Environment page for the latest news and coverage.
Programming note: We’ll be off on Monday, but will be back in your inbox on Tuesday. Happy 4th of July!
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Health Care — Biden steps further into abortion battle
He may not be 2000 years old, but a happy belated birthday to Mel Brooks, who turned 96 yesterday— and doesn’t feel a day over 95.
Today in health care, President Biden is stepping up his response to Roe v. Wade’s overturning — but still faces some major obstacles.
Welcome to Overnight Health Care, where we’re following the latest moves on policy and news affecting your health. For The Hill, we’re Peter Sullivan, Nathaniel Weixel and Joseph Choi. Subscribe here.
Biden leans into abortion fight
President Biden is injecting new vigor into the fight to protect abortion rights, seemingly nudged into action by criticism from within his own party about a lackluster response to date.
- Biden branded the Supreme Court’s decision last week to strike down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling “outrageous” and “destabilizing” during a Thursday news conference in Madrid.
- More importantly, he declared his support for a carveout to the Senate filibuster in order to codify Roe’s now-stricken provisions into federal law.
Biden said that if “the filibuster gets in the way” of such a law, then “an exception” would have to be made.
The big caveat: His chances of success in that regard look slim, however.
Every Senate Democrat would need to vote to amend the filibuster rules, given that no Republicans are expected to back such a move. There are no signs as yet that Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have altered their previous opposition to filibuster reform.
Praise from progressives: That said, Biden’s move was welcomed by progressives, who have been dismayed by the administration’s response to the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision rescinding a right that had stood for almost half a century.
“Now we’re talking!” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) enthused on Twitter about Biden’s pledge. “Time for people to see a real, forceful push for it. Use the bully pulpit. We need more.”
But…Biden concedes Dems don’t have the votes
President Biden conceded Friday that Democrats currently lack the votes to alter the legislative filibuster to pass abortion rights legislation, adding the party’s goal should be to pick up two seats in the midterm elections to do so.
- “Ultimately, Congress is going to have to act to codify Roe into federal law,” Biden said during a virtual meeting with Democratic governors on reproductive rights Friday afternoon.
- “The filibuster should not stand in the way of us being able to do that, but right now we don’t have the votes in the Senate to change the filibuster,” Biden said. “That means we need two more votes.”
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have expressed opposition to changing the filibuster and reiterated that their positions had not changed through spokespeople following Biden’s remarks on Thursday.
Warning of GOP moves: Biden on Friday also repeatedly said he thought that Republicans would try to ban abortion nationwide if they achieve majorities in the House and Senate after the midterm elections.
“This is going to go one way or the other after November,” the president said.
Can it change the midterms? History, polling and current economic conditions suggest Democrats are on a path to lose seats in Congress in the upcoming elections. Still, Democrats believe that the issue of abortion rights could be a game-changer come November, particularly when it comes to appealing to female voters.
📱 CONTACT TRACING NO MORE
The D.C. Health Department ended its COVID-19 contact tracing program on Thursday, laying off 131 workers employed by the program.
- “The COVID-19 Contact Trace Force has been instrumental in helping slow the spread of COVID-19 in the District of Columbia,” D.C. Health told The Hill.
- “However with COVID infection levels coming down and easier access to at-home testing kits, the COVID-19 Contact Trace Force is no longer as effective or vital a tool as it was during the peak of the pandemic.”
The District of Columbia government currently considers COVID-19 infection levels in the area “low,” the most recent weekly case rate coming in at 195.9 for the week of June 19-25 and the most recent hospital admission rate at 0.4 percent.
D.C. Health emphasized that its department gave advance notice of the end of the trace force and aided its employees in finding new roles.
👩🏻⚖️ OKLAHOMA ABORTION BANS CHALLENGED
Abortion providers in Oklahoma filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s two abortion bans on Friday, just a week after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion.
- The lawsuit asks the Oklahoma Supreme Court to strike down two bans: one that was enacted in 1910 and revived when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, and another law scheduled to take effect in August that makes performing an abortion a felony by up to 10 years in prison.
- It was filed by Dechert LLP, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of providers such as Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma.
They also asked the court to issue an emergency order to block the bans while it reviews the lawsuit.
“As more and more states ban abortion in the region, it is all the more imperative that this court act swiftly to rule under its own constitution and restore abortion access in the state,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.
DeSantis vows to fight judge’s decision on abortion ban
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) is vowing to appeal a judge’s decision to temporarily block Florida’s 15-week abortion ban, which the court called unconstitutional.
- DeSantis said at a press conference on Florida’s “Improved Civics Literacy Rates” that his administration had been expecting this decision and will continue the “legal battle.”
- “That was likely going to be what was decided in that case. We knew that we were going to have to move forward and continue the legal battle, and that’s something that was decided under state law,” DeSantis said.
- “It was not of course something, you know, that we were happy to see,” he added.
The dispute: The Florida law, which the governor signed in April, bans all abortions past 15 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest.
However, the plaintiffs, including Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, say that abortions are protected under the Florida constitution.
Judge John C. Cooper said Thursday that he will temporarily block the 15-week abortion ban from taking effect.
“While we are disappointed with yesterday’s ruling, we know that the pro-life HB 5 will ultimately withstand all legal challenges,” a spokesperson for DeSantis’s office told The Hill.
WHAT WE’RE READING
- Post-Roe, states struggle with conflicting abortion bans (AP)
- Walmart is working on a response to the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, CEO says in memo (CNBC)
- How much health insurers pay for almost everything is about to go public (Kaiser Health News)
STATE BY STATE
- Miami pediatrician ousted from state board for her comments about COVID vaccine policy (Miami Herald)
- Abortion-rights advocates in the 13 trigger law states refuse to give up post-Roe (NPR)
- At a New Mexico abortion clinic, calls flood in from Texas and wait time for appointments grows (Texas Tribune)
That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Health Care page for the latest news and coverage. See you next week.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Federal grand jury, SEC subpoena Trump's media company
A federal grand jury in Manhattan and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have both subpoenaed former President Trump’s media company, according to a SEC filing dated Friday.
Digital World Acquisition Corp, a special purpose acquisition company which is seeking to merge with Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), disclosed in its filing that the blank check company had been informed that TMTG had been given a subpoena from the SEC on Monday and a separate subpoena from a federal grand jury in Southern District of New York on Thursday.
The SEC’s subpoena is “seeking documents relating to, among other things, Digital World and other potential counterparties for a business transaction involving TMTG,” according to the SEC filing.
The subpoena from the federal grand jury in Manhattan is “seeking a subset of the same or similar documents demanded in subpoenas to Digital World and its directors,” the filing notes.
Digital World also disclosed that some former and current personnel at Trump’s media company have also received their own subpoenas from the grand jury.
The development comes after every member of Digital World’s board of directors received subpoenas from the grand jury, which was disclosed in a SEC filing earlier this week.
Financial regulators have been investigating the merger between TMTG and Digital World, which was announced last October. Trump’s media company stands to gain a stock market listing and as much as $1 billion in capital should the merger go through, according to The New York Times.
“TMTG is focused on reclaiming the American people’s right to free expression. Every day, our team works tirelessly to sustain Truth Social’s rapid growth, onboard new users, and add new features. We encourage-and will cooperate with-oversight that supports the SEC’s important mission of protecting retail investors,” TMTG said in a statement following the Monday SEC filing.
The Hill has reached out to a Trump spokesperson and TMTG for comment.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
On The Money — Congress eyes powerful cartels driving prices higher
Members of Congress in both parties aren’t happy about forces beyond their control pushing inflation higher. Today we’ll also look at progress toward government funding and why fireworks are so much more expensive this year.
But first, see why NASA is investigating a mystery rocket that crashed into the moon.
Welcome to On The Money, your nightly guide to everything affecting your bills, bank account and bottom line. For The Hill, we’re Sylvan Lane, Aris Folley and Karl Evers-Hillstrom. Subscribe here.
Lawmakers fear growing power of cartel-like blocs
Powerful industrial blocs or cartels are increasingly drawing the attention — and in some cases, the ire — of lawmakers who blame them in part for rising inflation.
- With sputtering supply chains driving inflation to 40-year highs, market forces of all sorts are coming under the scrutiny of both legislators and regulators.
- A recurring theme is the power held by a few big companies in many different industries.
Democrats tend to be the party more focused on market concentration in a handful of industries, but Republicans also are increasingly sounding alarms as inflation becomes the number one issue for voters.
- As an example of the rising interest, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act breezed through Congress earlier this month with bipartisan support.
- The new law jacks up regulations on major container shipping companies, empowering the Federal Maritime Commission to crack down on the late fees charged by ocean carriers when they can’t offload their cargo in time.
The World Shipping Council trade association, which represents foreign shipping behemoths like Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, blasted the bill, saying it is “appalled by the continued mischaracterization of the industry by U.S. government representatives,” adding that congestion at ports will continue “until the import congestion is remedied.”
The Hill’s Tobias Burns breaks it down here.
💰 HOUSE FINISHES SPENDING BILLS
House negotiators have advanced spending bills worth more than $1 trillion for the coming fiscal year as the chamber’s leadership seeks to put a bow on its messy appropriations work.
- The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved two fiscal 2023 funding bills that cover the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
- They were the final two of 12 annual government funding bills to pass out of the committee this year and their passage capped off weeks of partisan battles over how the government should be funded.
But Thursday wasn’t without fireworks. A large chunk of the committee’s markup of the bill to fund the departments of Labor, HHS and Education was devoted to debate over abortion-related amendments.
Aris takes us there.
✈️ CANCEL CULTURE
More than 300 flights have been canceled nationwide as of early Friday afternoon as the U.S. enters one of the busiest travel weekends of the year.
- An additional 3,000 flights have been delayed on Friday as airlines continue to struggle to have enough staffing to meet demand, according to the flight-tracking website FlightAware.
- Thousands of cancellations and delays are expected throughout the Fourth of July weekend, with demand for air travel currently at its highest level since before the start of the coronavirus pandemic.
A pilot shortage has forced airlines to cancel and delay flights recently, and millions of seats have been made unavailable as a result. Airlines have placed blame on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for being short-staffed and lacking a staffing plan for the summer when demand for travel increases.
The Hill’s Jared Gans has more here.
🧨 EXPLOSIVE INFLATION
Americans looking to celebrate July 4th with some fireworks could be facing some rough sticker shock.
Supply chain issues and rising shipping and labor costs have led to inflation rates not seen in decades, and the fireworks industry is feeling it as well.
- The trade group the American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) released a report earlier this year stating that overall costs are up more than 35 percent, which could pose a challenge for sellers.
- “Unfortunately, we had to pass some of the price increases on to the public,” Bruce Zoldan, head of the distributor Phantom Fireworks, told USA Today. “I would say from 2019 till ’22, [costs] have at least doubled.”
Good to Know
A group of 15 Black current and former employees of tech giant Tesla sued the company on Thursday over accusations of racial abuse.
Plaintiffs claimed that they were harassed based on their race, with colleagues and managers using the N-word and other racially charged terms, including “slavery” and “plantation,” in daily interactions, according to Reuters.
Here’s what else have our eye on:
- The Republican National Committee (RNC) released a Spanish-language ad in four states Friday, targeting vulnerable Senate Democrats on the economy.
- The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to dramatically limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants puts new pressure on Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to strike a climate deal with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
That’s it for today. Thanks for reading and check out The Hill’s Finance page for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you next week.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Equilibrium/Sustainability — Game, set, match on plastic bottles
A former junior Wimbledon champion is challenging her fellow players to improve their tennis tactics — not with respect to the game itself, but with regards to their court-side environment.
Laura Robson, 28, called upon Wimbledon on Thursday to ban single-use bottles altogether or limit players to just one, during a panel discussion at the ongoing tennis tournament, according to The Guardian.
“There are all the players on the practice courts, just taking a couple of sips from a water bottle and then leaving it there. Should there be a fine, maybe?” the Olympic silver medalist asked.
If a single-use bottle ban was enforced at Wimbledon, it could risk rattling 22-time Grand Slam victor Rafael Nadal, Robson acknowledged. The Spanish player is known for lining up multiple water bottles as part of a courtside ritual, The Guardian reported.
Hattie Park, sustainability manager for the All England Lawn Tennis Club, called upon Wimbledon to follow the lead of the French Open, where players were only allowed to have reusable bottles this year, according to The Guardian.
That bottle ban “did not seem to trouble Nadal,” Spanish sports newspaper Diario AS reported. Nadal went on to win his 14th such tournament at Paris’s Roland Garros last month.
But to Robson, it’s not just about the bottles — it’s about making the whole tennis culture more sustainable, according to The Guardian.
“There’s other players who prefer the plastic bags around the rackets after a restring,” she said, suggesting that the solution must involve “slowly but surely changing the mindset.”
Welcome to Equilibrium, a newsletter that tracks the growing global battle over the future of sustainability. We’re Saul Elbein and Sharon Udasin. Send us tips and feedback. Subscribe here.
Today we’ll look at some of the implications of the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling and how world leaders are responding. Plus: Some fascinating new facts about dinosaurs. Let’s jump in.
Court ruling boxes in feds on climate action
Federal climate regulation may now become much more difficult following Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.
- The court knocked down large parts of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, a defunct rule withdrawn by former President Trump.
- The rejected parts of that rule — which was not in force at the time of the ruling — directed the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emitted by power plants as a means of slowing climate change, The Hill’s Rachel Frazin and Harper Neidig reported.
The principle that the court used in its decision “could apply to not just to EPA in the Clean Air Act but to any agency [that tries] to take on an important problem,” Lisa Heinzerling, a professor of law at Georgetown University, told Equilibrium.
What now? Federal agencies are struggling to figure that out.
- EPA Administrator Michael Regan told PBS on Thursday that the tool of regulating carbon dioxide emissions in some way “is still available” but that the agency has “just lost some flexibility there.”
- Regan pointed PBS to his agency’s “suite of regulations that are facing the power sector.”
The ruling may also endanger attempts by the Securities and Exchange Commission to have companies report carbon dioxide emissions, Reuters reported.
Behind the ruling, the reason: As important as the ruling was the justification behind it, which rested on a legal concept known as “major questions.”
This has been a key element in a decades-long rollback of federal regulation of big business, The New York Times reported.
- As expressed in Thursday’s court decision, the idea could further be used to limit public health and consumer protections, our colleague Rachel Frazin reported.
- It will likely become a “permanent feature and restriction on regulation,” former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo told Frazin.
Major use of major questions: The major questions idea — first promulgated by former Justice Antonin Scalia — holds that federal agencies must wait for explicit congressional authority before acting on certain broad policy questions, as we previously reported.
- The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday was an example of “a particularly aggressive version of the major questions principle,” Heinzerling told Equilibrium.
- In its decision, the court signaled that “when conservative justices think that an issue is important politically and economically — and they think that the agency is doing something surprising — they will not recognize the agency’s authority to take on the important questions,” Heinzerling added.
SHOWDOWN OF CLARITY V. CHARITY
The ruling was part of a broad dispute about the reach and power of federal agencies in an era of congressional deadlock.
“When Congress acts to address major policy questions affecting Americans and their livelihoods, it says so clearly, explicitly,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), ranking Republican on the House Energy Committee, told The Wall Street Journal.
“It does not hide sweeping authorities of the executive branch in obscure provisions of the law, as the Obama executive branch tried to argue,” McMorris added.
This idea represents a stark reversal in how the judiciary has traditionally treated action by federal agencies, according to Heinzerling.
- Under a principle known as Chevron deference, judges assumed “that if a statute is ambiguous, it’s up to the agency or sort of navigate in between the boundaries it’s been given,” she said.
- But she said the approach is now “to sit and wait for Congress to say something more precise.”
What about legislation? Democrats have not yet revealed any specific plans to move forward on climate legislation that would close the gap opened by the Supreme Court, Roll Call reported.
- Any such legislation would have to be quite specific, Heinzerling said.
- “Congress would not just have to approve the use of the regulation of carbon dioxide, but specifically, they’d have to approve the regulation of carbon dioxide with the goal of transitioning the energy system in these sort of defined ways.”
But even if Congress passed a law, Heinzerling noted that few laws are so specific that a dedicated lawyer wouldn’t be able to find ambiguity — or a major question — hiding within.
Global leaders: SCOTUS thwarting climate progress
Leaders around the globe are slamming the Supreme Court’s decision to restrict the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
“This is a setback in our fight against climate change, when we are already far off-track in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement,” U.N. spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric told reporters on Thursday
- Dujarric was referring to the 2015 global climate accord, in which countries agreed to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
Creating a ‘livable planet’: The world’s most developed and industrialized economies should be leading the way in bolstering climate action, Dujarric said, noting that U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has made this point repeatedly.
“Decisions like [Thursday’s] in the US — or any other major emitting economy — make it harder to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, for a healthy, livable planet,” she said.
Beijing weighs in: Officials in China, the world’s largest emitter, slammed the U.S., the No. 2 emitter, on Friday in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision.
- China’s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the U.S. must do more than “shout slogans,” according to Reuters.
- “We urge developed countries, including the United States, to… face up to their historical responsibilities and show greater ambition and action,” Zhao said.
Danger of ‘backsliding’: Environmentalists in China expressed concern the ruling could undermine the broader climate relationship between Beijing and Washington, a partnership that is necessary for global climate progress, according to Reuters.
Li Shuo, a senior adviser for Greenpeace, told Reuters that “backsliding” by the U.S. would also reduce the chances that China will transition away from coal.
“The Chinese side believes there won’t be any quid pro quo on climate between them and the United States,” Shuo said.
Dinosaurs took charge amid ice, not heat: study
Dinosaurs may have taken charge amid the ice of winter, defying conventional perceptions of the climate conditions in which they thrived, a new study has found.
The study, published in Science Advances on Friday, presented the first physical evidence that Triassic dinosaur species — then a minor group — mostly inhabited polar regions of the Earth, where they regularly endured freezing conditions.
Turning climate models upside-down: The Triassic period and most of the Jurassic period that followed featured climate-warming carbon dioxide concentrations up to five times today’s levels, the authors acknowledged.
- This meant that temperatures generally had to be more intense than those of today.
- While previous climate models suggested that high latitudes during the Triassic were chilly at times, scientists had yet to prove that these regions froze.
Proof in the prints: The study authors discovered dinosaur footprints in specific odd rock fragments, which they determined could only have been deposited by ice.
A rise to power: “The key to their eventual dominance was very simple,” lead author Paul Olsen, a geologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in a statement.
“They were fundamentally cold-adapted animals,” he continued. “When it got cold everywhere, they were ready, and other animals weren’t.”
Weathering the winter: As cold snaps spread from the planet’s poles to lower latitudes — with winters lasting a decade or more — cold-blooded, uninsulated reptiles likely died out, according to the study.
But dinosaurs were already equipped with “winter coats,” co-author Stephen Brusatte, a professor of paleontology and evolution at the University of Edinburgh, said in a statement.
Farewell to unfeathered vertebrates: “Severe wintery episodes during volcanic eruptions may have brought freezing temperatures to the tropics, which is where many of the extinctions of big, naked, unfeathered vertebrates seem to have occurred,” said co-author Dennis Kent, a geologist at Lamont-Doherty.
“Whereas, our fine feathered friends acclimated to colder temperatures in higher latitudes did OK,” he added.
Follow-up Friday
India bans some disposable plastics, WHO confronts food crisis in East Africa and Russia nationalizes a Pacific island oil and gas project.
India bans some single-use plastics
- We reported California’s new landmark law aimed at curbing single-use plastics by the end of the decade. India announced a ban on certain disposable plastic products on Friday — making it illegal to produce, stock, import or distribute 19 items that aren’t useful but have high potential to become litter, The Associated Press reported.
WHO moves to confront famine in Horn of Africa
- We covered an American College of Physician’s report deeming food insecurity a public health threat. The World Health Organization has moved to confront an outbreak of hunger in East Africa as growing supply shortages coincide with the region’s worst drought in 40 years.
Russians nationalize oil and gas project that supplies Japan
- We reported on shifts in global energy markets as the EU tries to pull away from Russia. Moscow announced late this week it was seizing financial control of a Pacific island oil and gas project — and that it might expel the two Japanese companies invested in it, Reuters reported.
Please visit The Hill’s Sustainability section online for the web version of this newsletter and more stories. We’ll see you next week.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Ahead of July 4th, Democrats frustrated with Biden's gas-tax holiday push
House Democrats are grumbling their way into the July 4th holiday, dubious that President Biden’s proposed gas-tax moratorium would help consumers and frustrated that it’s highlighted internal party divisions heading into the final months of the midterm campaign.
With gas prices approaching — and in some cases topping — $5 per gallon across the country, Democratic leaders are scrambling for ways to provide real-time relief for exasperated consumers. Last week, with July 4th looming, Biden used his bully pulpit to champion one such strategy, urging Congress to suspend the federal gas tax for three months to help ease the financial burden on drivers through the busy summer travel season.
The idea landed like a lead balloon on Capitol Hill, where even some of Biden’s closest Democratic allies — including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) — gave it a cold reception.
From a practical standpoint, the president’s Democratic detractors are wary that oil companies will simply siphon off the savings for themselves rather than passing it along to consumers. And politically speaking, the critics are irritated that Biden would push an idea he knew to be unpopular among Democratic leaders in Congress, creating an internal rift just as the party is hoping to show a united front heading into November’s elections.
“I think he was trying to send a message to the American people [that] he was listening. But he sure wasn’t listening to the congressional leadership,” said one House Democratic leader, who spoke anonymously in order to criticize a White House ally. “It didn’t make things better.”
The internal tensions illustrate the frustrations swirling within the Democratic Caucus as inflation has pushed the cost of a host of consumer goods steadily higher since the start of last year, defying the Democrats’ efforts to keep prices in check, pushing Biden’s approval rating well underwater and complicating the Democrats’ chances of keeping control of the lower chamber in the midterms.
Gas is among the staples that have seen a precipitous cost spike, rising from a national average of $2.33 per gallon in January 2021 to $4.93 last month, according to the Energy Information Administration. The trend prompted Biden last week to urge Congress to suspend the federal gas tax — currently at 18.4 cents per gallon — and for states to do the same with their local levies.
“I fully understand that a gas tax holiday alone is not going to fix the problem,” he said, “but it will provide families some immediate relief — just a little bit of breathing room — as we continue working to bring down prices for the long haul.”
The idea has won support from some moderate Democrats facing tough reelection contests in November, particularly in the Senate, where a number of vulnerable lawmakers are endorsing legislation to suspend the gas tax until January.
Yet the broader sentiment appears to align Democrats squarely against their White House leader.
Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) said Biden’s objectives are on target, but like many Democrats she’s doubtful that the consumer benefits would be anything but paltry.
“I’m concerned that the gas-tax holiday, which is well-intentioned, would not really make a great deal of impact on individual people. My fear is that we wouldn’t feel it,” Dean said. “The 18.4 cents, the gas companies I think would probably skim off half of it. And so people would see just pennies on the gallon.
“I want us to find a solution that actually makes a greater difference,” she continued. “So we’re looking at other alternatives.”
Among those alternatives is legislation to apply a one-time windfall tax on the major oil companies that have reported record profits this year, even as consumer costs have soared.
“That’s one way to go to make a difference — to return those excess profits to the American people directly,” Dean said.
A senior Democratic aide said Friday that there are no updates on leadership’s potential plans to consider either proposal. But if the reaction from party leaders is any indication, the gas tax holiday is going nowhere fast.
Pelosi, who had outright rejected the tax holiday earlier in the year, put out a tepid statement on Biden’s proposal, vowing only to “see where the consensus lies on a path forward.”
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has ranked among the loudest critics of the tax break, warning that it would provide only “minuscule” consumer savings while depleting the Highway Trust Fund, which underwrites roads, bridges and other crucial infrastructure.
And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said he’s “sympathetic” to DeFazio’s funding concerns.
“The challenge on the gas tax is: Is the savings really going to flow to the consumer? Or is it going to be pocketed by the oil companies?” echoed Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. “Those are legitimate questions.”
Throughout the debate, administration officials have defended their anti-inflation strategy, arguing that many of the factors driving the painful trend — including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, supply-chain snags caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and the Federal Reserve’s decision to keep interest rates at historic lows throughout 2021 — were outside of their control.
Biden has already released millions of gallons of oil from the country’s emergency stockpile, known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, in an effort to curb the price at the pump. And the president is planning a much-anticipated trip to Saudi Arabia this month, though he has said he won’t use the visit to press Saudi leaders to increase production.
In that context, officials say, the proposed tax holiday is just one piece of a larger strategy for getting fuel costs under control.
“It’s one of our highest priorities as an administration,” Vice President Harris said this week in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash.
Such sentiments have not won many converts to the gas-tax holiday concept. But even some of those Democrats critical of the proposal said there’s value in the fight.
“The administration is signaling [that] they realize the pain at the pump, they realize the pain in the grocery stores,” said Dean. “We’re trying to do everything we possibly can.”
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Biden administration punts on whether to open up more offshore drilling
The Biden administration is punting a decision on whether to open up more lease sales for offshore drilling.
In a statement issued Friday, the administration said it is still working on a plan, and that when issued it could include as many as 11 specific lease sales for offshore oil and gas drilling or as few as zero.
An Interior Department official said equal weight is being given to scenarios with zero sales, some sales or all 11 sales.
The statement was issued one day after a previous five-year offshore drilling plan expired. That plan had been launched by the Obama administration.
The sales under consideration include an area in the Cook Inlet near Alaska, and as many as 10 sales in the Gulf of Mexico.
The move comes as the administration grapples with the politics of high gasoline prices, which recently reached as high as $5 per gallon nationally. And it follows a major Supreme Court decision curbing the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to regulate the climate contributions of power plants.
This story is developing and will be updated.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Insulin should not be a luxury: INSULIN Act would support those who manage type 1 diabetes
Imagine you need to take a drug multiple times a day, where going even a day or two without it will make you sick. Going without it longer will be life-threatening.
Now, imagine that this drug costs you as much as $1,000 each month.
Unfortunately, this is the day-to-day reality for more than 7 million insulin-dependent Americans, including the nearly 1.6 million impacted by type 1 diabetes—thus far, an incurable autoimmune disease.
When insulin is too expensive, people ration it—as many as one out of every four people, according to published data. The results of rationing insulin go beyond a few sick days: the lifelong impact for an individual can include devastating and costly long-term complications such as kidney failure, heart attack, stroke, blindness and amputation.
Private-sector efforts such as Civica’s recent announcement to develop and distribute low-cost insulin and insulin pens by 2024 are an important step in the right direction, but there’s still more to be done.
The INSULIN Act, a bipartisan proposal by U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), will take several important steps to make insulin more affordable for the diabetes community.
First, the bill takes steps to correct the broken insulin market, in which people with diabetes can pay up to $300 a vial for insulin but payers, such as insurance companies, get discounts of 70 percent or more.
The INSULIN Act puts in place incentives for reform, with the goal for everyone—whether they have insurance or not—to have access to the same, lower prices.
In addition, the bill includes a $35 co-pay cap for people on Medicare Part D or with commercial insurance. A recently released Kaiser Family Foundation analysis showed that this cap would lower insulin costs for nearly 20 percent of those covered by commercial insurance.
Finally, many people struggle to pay for insulin when their insurance year resets, as they must shoulder the full cost burden of their insulin until they meet a deductible. This proposal fixes the problem by ensuring that insulin is fully covered regardless of whether a deductible has been met.
JDRF, the leading global type 1 diabetes research, and advocacy organization, strongly supports the INSULIN Act proposal and calls upon the U.S. Senate to pass it in the coming weeks so that people with diabetes receive the relief they desperately need.
Every day, the type 1 diabetes community does its part by constantly managing this difficult and devastating disease 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. They should not have to consider how they’ll pay for their insulin or be forced to choose between paying for life-saving medicine or other basic necessities such as food or rent.
Insulin affordability is about more than politics and business deals; this is about valuing American lives, all lives—whatever their health, financial, or employment status.
The federal government, pharmaceutical industry, health, and non-profit organizations must all do more to support those who manage this chronic, life-threatening disease every day and solve this dire problem. Enactment of the INSULIN Act would be a significant turning point and a step in the right direction.
Cynthia Rice is Chief Mission Strategy Officer at JDRF, a leading nonprofit organization funding type 1 diabetes (T1D) research.
Source: TEST FEED1
Share:
Texas board of education strikes down proposal to call slavery ‘involuntary relocation’
A proposal by Texas state educators to call slavery “involuntary relocation” in second grade classes has been rejected by the State Board of Education.
The proposal, first reported by the Texas Tribune, was introduced at the board’s June 15 meeting. Throughout the summer, the board will consider several curriculum updates to comply with lawmakers’ requirements to keep subjects that make students uncomfortable out of schools.
Nine educators, including a professor from University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, were behind the suggested language change.
The Tribune reported the proposal was struck down by the board unanimously.
While involuntary relocation isn’t an entirely unknown term in social studies, it often “has relationships to refugees and forced displacement due to violence or ethnic cleansing,” said Neil Shanks, clinical assistant professor of middle and secondary education at Baylor University.
In this case, Shanks added, the term appeared to be “intended to water down the issue of slavery.”
In a statement posted to Twitter, the Texas Education Agency said the board “provided feedback in the meeting indicating that the working group needed to change the language related to ‘involuntary relocation.’”
“Any assertion that the SBOE is considering downplaying the role of slavery in American history is completely inaccurate,” the statement concluded, referring to the Texas State Board of Education .
The suggested language change comes a year after Gov. Gregg Abbott (R) signed House Bill 3979 into law. That law, which went into effect last September, prohibits schools from teaching critical race theory curriculums.
Critical race theory examines how the history of race and racism in the U.S. continues to impact systems and institutions today.
“From a social studies perspective,” said Shanks, “talking about slavery as involuntary relocation obfuscates the way that slavery as a system is embedded in so many aspects of our lives.”
That includes the way slavery is embedded in the criminal justice system, the economic system and even the Electoral College, he said.
But in December, yet another Texas law forbade instructors from teaching slavery as the “true founding” of the United States. It also advised slavery, as well as racism, is a “deviation” from the “authentic founding principles” of liberty and equality.
But while many may question if slavery is an appropriate topic to discuss in elementary schools, Shanks believes, “If a child is young enough to be affected by, in this case, the history of slavery or the institution of slavery or the way it’s embedded in our society, then they’re young enough to learn about it.”
He added students are adept at seeing the world around them, and asking questions based on their observations. If their school curriculum is painting a picture of a world that’s free of injustice, Shanks argued, students will do one of two things.
“They either think badly about people who are struggling and suffering because of injustice,” he said, “or they reject school and the curriculum that’s being taught to them as something that’s not real or relevant because they can see with their eyes the ramifications of this.”
Source: TEST FEED1