Archive by Author

Biden wields presidential powers for climate — he should, but shouldn’t have to

President Biden took incredibly bold actions on Monday to support clean energy manufacturing and deployment in the United States. This move will create jobs, save Americans money on electric bills — and most importantly, accelerate our efforts in fighting the climate crisis. He did so quite efficiently, with the stroke of a pen.

The president took two important executive actions. First, he used the Defense Production Act to spur American manufacturing of a number of technologies needed to decarbonize the economy — solar panels and other module components, heat pumps, insulation, grid infrastructure, hydrogen fuels and more. Second, he put a two-year hiatus on the Commerce Department’s ability to retroactively collect tariffs on solar panels from certain Asian countries (Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam) — if they decide tariffs are warranted after they complete investigating claims of unfair trade practices. The majority of solar projects in the U.S. rely on solar panels from these countries, so the Commerce Department’s probe was essentially handcuffing the industry and stalling its growth.

After pressure from clean energy industry leaders and climate activists, the president took decisive action to stave off backsliding on our climate goals, and instead, to supercharge them.

Jean Su, energy justice program director of the Center for Biological Diversity called the announcement “a game changer.” She noted, “on a macro level, we’re seeing him really flex his muscles on his executive powers, which he has not yet done to date … That’s a huge sea change in terms of his approach for climate.”

A stronger approach is something climate voters have been waiting for him to do since he took office.

Not only will this have positive impacts for the clean energy industry and the economy in the short run, but it’s also creating a precedent that he and other presidents can follow — to use executive power to address the climate crisis. Because if ever there was a crisis that deserved bold and swift executive action, this is it.

The flip side of this exciting and much-needed positive news in the climate fight is that the president shouldn’t have to address the climate crisis through executive action. He’s forced to because of another grave crisis we face — our democracy crisis.

From an activist’s blog to the president’s desk

In February, climate activist and thought leader Bill McKibben penned an essay calling for the president to use the Defense Production Act to manufacture heat pumps and send them to Europe, which faced oil and gas shortages due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It would “peacefully punch Putin in the kidneys,” McKibben wrote, while also helping to fight the climate crisis and increase domestic clean energy manufacturing capacity at home.

McKibben reminds us of what the government can do when it’s motivated, as displayed during World War II. FDR used wartime powers available to the president to turn American manufacturers of all stripes into a production line of tanks, planes and weapons to fight fascism at breakneck speed.

Since the dawn of the climate crisis, people have made the poignant case for presidents to use executive power, declare a climate emergency as well as mobilize clean energy manufacturing and deployment at wartime speed, the way we did in WWII.

But no president had, until now. I’m not sure if Biden read McKibben’s essay, but clearly the idea gained traction in the right places.

The democracy crisis

As you would expect, the president’s critics are bemoaning his use of executive power. As did President Obama’s critics and President Trump’s critics, understandably.

But let’s face it — there’s a reason presidents have increasingly turned to executive power to get things done. In many cases, it’s the only way to accomplish anything, with Congress seemingly hellbent on obstructing any actions that might benefit the American people. Lest we forget Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) efforts that are “100 percent” focused “on stopping” Biden’s administration, and Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) familiar strategy of perpetually delaying meaningful climate action in the Senate.

In 2014, Princeton published a study suggesting we don’t actually live in a democracy at all. For 30 years prior, the general public’s opinion had barely influenced legislation. Meanwhile, the demands of the very wealthy correlated closely to what laws were passed. The BBC summarized the findings as, “the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.”

For example, while over 90 percent of Americans want more stringent gun laws to try and limit gun violence and the number of mass shootings, lawmakers in Congress continue to shrug their shoulders. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) laments, “we’ve been burnt so many times before” trying to work with Republicans on gun control.

Climate activists are all too familiar with this sad state of affairs. While two-thirds of Americans are worried about global warming and 77 percent would like to see more federal funding for clean energy, our energy policy remains basically the same as it has since the 1970s, despite all the oil shocks, wars and inspiring speeches about weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and international energy sources.

The fossil fuel lobby, like the gun lobby and the pharmaceutical lobby (and the list goes on) have an undemocratic influence on our political system growing by the year as money in politics becomes more commonplace and as the laws that limit it are increasingly loosened, weakening Congress’ ability to act.

That’s why these executive actions on climate are such a big deal. The president is changing that pattern, showing that climate and clean energy manufacturing are too important to wait. We can’t let another year go by while the fossil fuel lobby’s influence on Congress blocks climate action.

And yet, as citizens, we must acknowledge that this is not how a representative government should work. We must do all we can to address the democracy crisis alongside the climate crisis, if our planet and our democracy are going to survive these troubled times.

Andreas Karelas is the author of “Climate Courage: How Tackling Climate Change Can Build Community, Transform the Economy, and Bridge the Political Divide in America.” He is also the founder and executive director of RE-volv, a nonprofit climate justice organization that helps fellow nonprofits across the country go solar. Follow him on Twitter: @AndreasKarelas

Source: TEST FEED1

Watch live: Biden delivers remarks at Summit of the Americas

President Biden will deliver remarks at the Summit of the Americas on Thursday afternoon.

The event is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. ET.

Watch the video above.

Source: TEST FEED1

National average gas price has hit a new record, fuel analysts say

(NEXSTAR) – The cost of gasoline has reached a new, unwelcome milestone.

For the first time ever, the national average price of gas has topped $5 per gallon, effectively “crushing” the previous record, according to the data analysts at GasBuddy, a tech firm and fuel-pricing resource.

“It’s been one kink after another this year, and worst of all, demand doesn’t seem to be responding to the surge in gas prices, meaning there is a high probability that prices could go even higher in the weeks ahead,” said Patrick De Haan of GasBuddy in a press release issued Thursday morning.

As of Thursday, however, AAA had recorded a lower national average price for gasoline — albeit only a few cents cheaper at $4.97 per gallon.

Still, analysts at AAA suggest it’s only a matter of time until their national average exceeds $5 as well.

“People are still fueling up, despite these high prices,” AAA spokesperson Andrew Gross said earlier this month.

Gas prices have been on the rise for over a year, but recent developments — increased demand going into the summer, and Russia’s war on Ukraine — have pushed up the price of oil in the last few months. In March of 2022, the national average price of gas exceeded $4 per gallon for the first time in nearly 15 years, and prices have only continued to climb.

Some analysts say rising oil prices — as well as uncertainty over the situation in Russia — could possibly push the country toward a $6 national average, too.

“When we think about $200 a barrel, you are looking at $6 plus a gallon at the pump,” said Michael Tran, an RBC Capital analyst, in an interview with Yahoo Finance Live in March.

Tran said it’s not “unfathomable” that oil could reach $200 per barrel. But he added that such a situation could, in theory, trigger a recession and cause prices to crash — a scenario that RCB does not believe to be likely, but at least possible.

Meanwhile, the average gas price has already surged past $6 per gallon in California, with more than a dozen states following not far behind with prices exceeding $5.

“At some point, drivers may change their daily driving habits or lifestyle due to these high prices,” said AAA spokesperson Andrew Gross, “but we are not there yet.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Menéndez: Mexican president 'tried to blackmail President Biden'

Sen. Bob Menéndez (D-N.J.) on Thursday accused Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of attempting to blackmail President Biden to include non-democratic regimes in the guest list for the Summit of the Americas.

Menéndez’s comments come as López Obrador skipped the U.S.-hosted Summit, and has taken to his daily press conference to criticize Cuban-American senators, particularly Menéndez, for their role in excluding the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua from the hemispheric event.

“I think President López Obrador basically tried to blackmail President Bident into insisting countries that are not democratic, countries like Venezuela, Cuba [President] Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua, that are dictators and despots, should have been invited to the summit,” Menéndez told MSNBC’s José Díaz Balart.

López Obrador was the highest-profile leader to skip the Summit, ongoing this week in Los Angeles, but he was joined in the snub by the leaders of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

Menéndez told Díaz Balart that Mexico is one of America’s most important bilateral relationships in the world, but said Biden made the right choice to exclude the three countries that have either not signed or openly defy the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

“I applaud President Biden for upholding the standard of the Summit to be a summit of democracies,” said Menéndez, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Still, López Obrador singled out Menéndez in his daily press conference Monday, comparing his positions on relations with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua to those of Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Texas).

“Those two gentlemen, I understand them better because they’re Republicans. But this gentleman, he’s in the Democratic Party,” said López Obrador, referring to Menéndez.

López Obrador then remarked that former Presidents Obama and Trump “permitted” all the countries in the hemisphere to participate in the Summit of the Americas during their terms in office.

While Cuba did participate in the 2015 and 2018 versions of the Summit, neither of those were hosted by the United States, and U.S. officials unsuccessfully pressured Panama to exclude Cuba in 2015.

Former President Trump did not attend the Summit in Peru in 2018, sending former Vice President Pence in his stead.

“Now, because of internal pressures, President Biden can’t invite everyone,” said López Obrador. “Because of the influential senator, chairman of the committee on foreign affairs, imagine that.”

López Obrador’s direct tit-for-tats with U.S. senators are unorthodox in a bilateral relationship, where historically conflicts have been managed behind closed doors.

While López Obrador reset Mexican politics with his landslide victory in 2018, he is now in the final two years of his term, historically a vulnerable period for Mexican presidents.

Like Menéndez, Rubio has responded to López Obrador’s provocations, tweeting on Tuesday that López Obrador “has turned entire sections of his country over to drug cartels and is an apologist for a tyranny in Cuba, a murderous dictator in Nicaragua and a narco-trafficker in Venezuela.”

Laura Ortiz, Hispanic Media Director for Rubio’s reelection campaign, said the summit was “shining proof that the Biden Administration has left its foreign policy priorities in the region at the mercy of President López Obrador.”

Menéndez told Díaz Balart he wasn’t fazed by López Obrador’s attacks.

“Instead of coming to the Summit and strengthening the relationship with us after four years of Donald Trump, he chose to stay away and side with dictators and despots,” said Menéndez.

“If that’s what he claims is my problem, then so be it,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1

Operation Warp Speed was a tremendous success. Here’s why it won’t be replicated under Biden

With all the challenges the nation faces today, I am frequently asked whether another Operation Warp Speed (OWS)-like initiative is in order. For instance, I have been asked “Can’t we use an OWS initiative to cure cancer?” “How about applying it to our supply chain issues?” And most recently, “Can we use an OWS process to make more baby formula?”

My answer is always the same: Perhaps, but not under this administration.

Operation Warp Speed has been described as nothing short of a scientific “miracle.” This could not be further from the truth. Warp Speed’s achievement of bringing safe and effective vaccines to the American people in 80 percent less time than ever before was the result of a deliberate strategy, exacting execution, exceptional teamwork and inspired leadership. As important, it was the beneficiary of an underlying ideology and set of experiences present in the previous administration yet absent in the current one.

An inveterate belief in the power of America’s private sector. The Trump team was ideologically disposed to believing America’s private sector possessed the ingenuity, innovative spirit and industrial dexterity to rapidly address our most pressing challenges. Early in the pandemic, we experienced this first-hand as companies such as General Motors converted their production lines to manufacture tens of thousands of mechanical ventilators in just a few months.

It was only natural, therefore, that we would turn to the private sector to accelerate the discovery, manufacturing, distribution and administration of hundreds of millions of vaccines in record time.

In contrast, when faced with challenges such as uncontrolled energy costs, shortages of baby formula and rising meat prices, the Biden administration is more likely to criticize and disparage private sector participants as monopolists and price gougers. Its progressive biases favor increased regulatory oversight to constrain the private sector, while President Trump’s free market biases and distaste for regulatory intrusion liberated the private sector.

Leaders who knew how to mobilize industry. Trump’s prior experience was in business. He knew how the private sector worked and understood its motivations. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar spent 10 years in the pharmaceutical sector and understood its tolerance for risk-taking. Where we lacked private sector experience, we acquired it in the form of individuals such as Dr. Moncef Slaoui, who came to us from a 30-year career in vaccine development.

Contrast this with the current president and HHS secretary, who have spent their careers in politics. Exacerbating this lack of business experience, the Biden team inexplicably dismissed Dr. Slaoui from the OWS initiative upon entering office. So, even if the senior-most Biden team members were ideologically disposed to embracing the power of the private sector, none of them possesses the insights and experiences necessary to mobilize it.

The willingness to delegate decisionmaking and bypass the bureaucracy. One of the keys to Operation Warp Speed’s success was creating a multi-disciplinary team of both private-sector and government experts and then giving its members broad authority to make decisions quickly without bureaucratic meddling. Trump and Azar provided the resources necessary for success and then made themselves completely accessible to the team when needed. Jared Kushner ensured that the balance of the White House staff left the team alone. The administration never meddled, rather it offered unconditional support. We all aligned on a goal, which was to have at least one safe and effective vaccine with millions of manufactured doses before the end of 2020. The team and a small governing board subsequently spent $30 billion and delivered the results.

Upon arrival, the Biden team revoked all decisionmaking authority from the OWS experts and centralized it in the White House. This led to significant ambiguity, paralysis and lethargy in the decisionmaking process. Moreover, it led to discouragement and partial disengagement among those most critical to success.

The defining and fundamental principle underpinning Operation Warp Speed’s spectacular achievements was simple and easily replicated: The federal government’s role is to enable success, while the private sector’s role is to deliver success. Its corollary, of course, is to never permit the federal government to engage in activities the private sector can perform more competently.

Unfortunately, the ideological biases and lack of private sector insights leading to too much control and corporate distrust at the top of the Biden administration today will preclude another Operation Warp Speed-like success anytime soon.

Paul Mango was deputy chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 2019-2021, serving as Secretary Azar’s formal liaison to Operation Warp Speed. His new book, “Warp Speed: Inside the Operation That Beat COVID, the Critics, and the Odds,” is due out in hardcover this week (Republic Book Publishers, June 14, 2022).

Source: TEST FEED1

Bird flu detected in ducklings in Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool

The National Park Service (NPS) said on Wednesday that mallard ducklings at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool were found to have the H5N1 bird flu virus, but the risk to the public remains “low.”

The report is D.C.’s first confirmation of bird flu, which is highly contagious among some wild birds and can be deadly for some species.

“However, to be safe, visitors should avoid handling live or dead birds or coming into contact with their droppings as the virus can be easily moved around on shoes,” NPS said in a statement.

Officials have only detected one human case in the United States, with the current outbreak impacting commercial and backyard birds in 13 states and wild birds in 14 states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The park service also recommended visitors keep their pets on leashes and not allow them to interact with dead birds and wildlife. NPS asked visitors to report observations of dead birds or other sick wildlife to park staff.

The CDC has stressed the risk from bird flu remains low to humans, and remains primarily an animal health issue. The virus can be deadly to some avian species, like bald eagles and vultures.

“Because flu viruses are constantly changing, CDC will continue to monitor these viruses to look for genetic or epidemiologic changes suggesting they might spread more easily to and between people,” the public health agency said in a March update on the virus.

A man in Colorado tested positive for the virus in late April, the only known human case in the U.S. He reported feeling fatigued for a few days before recovering. 

Farms across the country have resorted to killing millions of hens and other birds, with the federal response being largely managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Source: TEST FEED1

Overwhelming majority backs age limit of 21 years to buy AR-15 style rifle: poll

Three-quarters of adult Americans support the idea that the minimum age for an individual to purchase an AR-15 style rifle should be 21 years old, according to a new Survey Monkey poll. 

The poll, published on Thursday, found that 75 percent of adult respondents agree that the minimum age to buy an AR-15 style rifle should be 21 years of age, while 65 percent of teenage respondents agree with the same sentiment. 

Fifteen percent of adult respondents said they oppose the motion to raise the age limit on individuals purchasing AR-15-style weapons. 

Thirty-four percent of teenage respondents said they worry a lot about being a victim of a mass shooting, while 24 percent of those surveyed said they don’t worry about being a victim, according to the poll. 

When asked the same question, 22 percent of adult respondents said in the poll that they worry a lot about being a mass shooting victim, while 36 percent of respondents said they don’t worry about being a victim. 

Forty-seven percent of respondents who identify as Asian American said they worry bout being victims of a mass shooting, followed by 39 percent of Black respondents and 36 percent of Hispanic respondents who said the same, according to the poll. 

The poll comes as the U.S. has seen a recent string of mass shootings in the past few weeks, with incidents happening in Uvalde, Texas, Buffalo, N.Y., and Tulsa, Okla. 

The House on Wednesday passed a sweeping gun package referred to as the Protecting Our Kids Act in a 223-204 vote, which addresses the issue of gun violence in the U.S. 

A bipartisan group of senators is working on creating gun reform legislation in response to the recent string of mass shootings. 

Fifty-nine percent of teenage respondents said that they have participated in an active shooter drill, which is eight percentage points up from 2018.

The latest Survey Monkey poll was conducted from May 25 to June 2 and had a total of 22,252 respondents.

Source: TEST FEED1

Rubio: Jan. 6 hearing is Dem 'free documentary' sponsored by mainstream media

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is criticizing the Jan. 6 committee’s public hearing set for prime-time Thursday as an unnecessary, “Hollywood-paid political advertisement.”

In an interview Wednesday with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Rubio said that most Americans won’t tune in to watch “this garbage” and that “people already know what happened” in the deadly Capitol riot last year.

“From day one, I have said that if people committed crimes on that day, they should be prosecuted and convicted by a jury. And that’s what’s happening,” he added.

When asked what the Jan. 6 hearing should examine, he added that “It would be a review of why didn’t Capitol Police [or] the Sergeant at Arms take advantage of these resources that were available? That’s what you would be focused on. But they’re not going to be focused on that.”

According to Rubio, the House select committee probing the Capitol beach doesn’t constitute a real congressional hearing but “a kangaroo court” and an infomercial for the Democrats’ political purposes.

He also took aim at the Jan. 6 panel’s hiring of a veteran ABC News producer to assist with assembling a package it will air Thursday night. 

“They moved this thing to prime time. They hired a producer to put it on. This is not a fact-finding mission. This is a two-hour, free documentary sponsored by virtually every major network in America — except for [Fox News] — that’s willing to give it airtime,” he said.

The Jan. 6 committee plans to use its first prime-time hearing to put former President Trump at the center of the riot at the Capitol and the attempt to keep him in power.

Republicans have blasted the hearing and promised “counterprogramming” to push back on its narrative. 

House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) told Fox News that she and her colleagues were “pushing back against lame-duck Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s sham political witch hunt.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

The next attack on our democracy could take place at the polls

The House Jan. 6 Committee plans to hold its first public hearing this evening on the Capitol riot, a violent attack that election conspiracists orchestrated to disrupt the counting of the 2020 presidential election results.  

Good. The public needs to know as much as possible about this unprecedented attack on the underpinnings of American democracy. However, while the committee holds these hearings, election conspiracists are working on a new, nonviolent strategy to undermine the results of this year’s congressional elections. Unlike the Capitol riot, they plan to undermine the elections without breaking the law. 

To address this threat, federal and state policymakers must clearly define the roles of election observers, challengers, and certification boards in order to prohibit officials from acting in bad faith.  

Across the country, election conspiracists are increasingly becoming involved in the midterm elections by serving as poll workers, observers, challengers, and by running for the office of the county clerk and secretary of state. 

Their new strategy was inspired by their failure to disrupt the 2020 presidential election. In 2020, Michigan’s Board of State Canvassers certified President Biden’s victory only because Republican board member Aaron Van Langevelde voted with the two Democratic board members (while the other Republican board member abstained). If not for Van Langevelde, Michigan may have triggered electoral chaos, ending only with the Supreme Court’s involvement. In 2021, Michigan’s Republican Party declined to nominate Van Langevelde for another term on the board. 

While election conspiracists seek larger roles in overseeing the casting of ballots and the certifying of results, the election officials who are now in office are heading for the exits. In a 2022 Brennan Center survey, 1 in 5 local election officials reported that they’re likely to quit before November 2024. Why? Well, in a survey the year before by the Brennan Center and the Bipartisan Policy Center, nearly 1 in 5 election officials listed “threats to your life” as a job-related concern. 

Efforts to question the legitimacy of elections are not confined to the Republican Party. President Biden suggested that the midterm elections could be illegitimate if Congress does not pass federal election reform, which it has not.  

Following her loss in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race, Democrat Stacy Abrams declined to concede, saying “[Republican Brian Kemp] won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia.” Abrams will likely face Kemp again in this year’s Georgia governor’s race. 

Federal and state policymakers need to recognize the danger on the horizon and make it much harder to disrupt free and fair elections. What must they do? 

For one thing, state policymakers must set tighter rules for election observers and challengers. Many state policies lack clarity around which processes observers and challengers can witness and what happens when an observer or challenger intentionally disrupts voting. Observers and challengers are a necessary part of transparent and trustworthy elections but, due to lax rules, observers and challengers have the leeway to exploit their roles and undermine the election process. 

For another thing, federal policymakers should require that, for federal contests, states’ election results are automatically certified unless a court finds evidence of fraud that exceeds the margin of victory. The threat of a certification board failing to certify a free and fair election result is greater in 2022 than in 2020, and it will be greater still in 2024 without federal legislation. 

Policymakers cannot legislate away the conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy, nor can they mandate that people always act in good faith. But federal and state policymakers can and should take proactive steps to strengthen our democratic processes against foreseen threats.

Matthew Weil is director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. He previously served in staff roles at the Treasury Department and at the United States Election Assistance Commission. 

Source: TEST FEED1