Archive by Author

Biden increasingly relies on DPA, drawing GOP scorn

President Biden is repeatedly turning to the Defense Production Act (DPA), a decades-old law that gives the president broad authority to increase the manufacturing output of critical items in a national emergency.

The DPA has been a prong of the pandemic response since the Trump administration, but Biden has turned to it for other uses. Most recently, Biden invoked it five times to boost domestic production of goods used to make solar panels. 

The move was hailed by environmental groups and climate-minded lawmakers as the kind of bold action needed to address climate change, at a time when Biden’s legislative climate agenda is stalled in Congress. 

At the same time, it triggered some criticism from Republicans, with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) accusing Biden of abusing a law that was initially passed in response to the Korean War for defense purposes. The policy, first authorized in 1950, allows the president and executive branch to order private companies to focus on the production of a needed good.

“When you get out of a national security space or something like pandemic response, the more that people are going to say, ‘Is this appropriate?’ ” said Jerry McGinn, executive director of the Center for Government Contracting at George Mason University’s School of Business. 

“It’s not surprising Republicans are going to criticize a Democrat or vice versa. But the authority’s very clear, it’s got to be essential for national defense, and are solar panels essential for national defense? So that’s where we have the debate on this,” he said. 

The White House called invoking the DPA for solar panels an important first step toward the administration’s clean energy goals when questioned about how it won’t impact the increase in electricity rates for the summer.

“The steps we’re taking today are in response to an urgent need of — to grow the domestic clean energy economy and strengthen U.S. energy security. They are part of the president’s multipronged approach to accelerating the transition to a cleaner, a clean energy future made right here in America,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Monday.

Biden also invoked the law to speed up the production of materials used to make baby formula amid the nationwide shortage, after receiving bipartisan calls from Congress to do so. Earlier this year, Biden used it to boost production of electric vehicle batteries as the administration looks to further boost its clean energy agenda. 

Former President Trump was criticized for not moving quickly enough to invoke the DPA at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to compel the production of medical equipment. He finally used it in March 2020 to order General Motors to ramp up production of life-saving ventilators despite calls from the business community to not use emergency powers to target the private sector.

Biden has been more aggressive with his use of the law.

On his first day in the White House, Biden signed a sweeping executive order for federal agencies to use the DPA to ramp up supplies of protective equipment, COVID-19 vaccines and tests and other supplies needed in the fight against the pandemic. 

The administration regularly used the law to ramp up at-home rapid tests, which by the White House’s count increased from 24 million last August to more than 300 million in December.

“It’s an incredibly important authority, and the pandemic showed its power in a very positive way. They were able to use that to get all kinds of stuff on contract. It didn’t directly impact the vaccine development, but as far as masks and production, it had a big impact,” McGinn said.

McGinn also said that while the pandemic put the DPA in the spotlight, presidents previously also used it to great effect but less publicity.

Former President Obama in 2012 invoked the DPA to speed up the development of biofuels for military and commercial use, which was criticized by Republicans at the time as a move to boost his own green energy agenda.

The wartime measure was used by former President George W. Bush in 2003 to supply GPS receivers to the British military during the Iraq War, and it was used by Bush and former President Clinton in early 2001 to ensure that emergency supplies of natural gas flowed to California utilities to avoid electrical blackouts.

The president can also delegate authorities of the DPA to agency heads, like in 2017 when the Federal Emergency Management Agency used it for manufactured housing units, food and bottled water, and restoration projects after the hurricanes in Puerto Rico.

McGinn warned that the DPA’s broad use could be inappropriate and result in the law being a subject of partisan bickering.

“The problem, since the pandemic, people recognized, ‘Wow, that DPA is something,’ ” he said. “But the challenge is if we start using it for things where it’s really not appropriate for, then it becomes more political and you can create problems for its use down the road.

“That’s the biggest concern I would have, you don’t want to undermine something that’s very, very effective by using it where it’s not appropriate.”

The DPA was last authorized in 2019 defense policy legislation and will expire in 2025, meaning lawmakers will need to renew it again in the coming years. Toomey suggested Monday that Congress should curtail the law if the Biden administration continues to use it for nondefense actions.

In his action on Monday, Biden directed the Energy Department to use the DPA to boost domestic production of solar panel parts, building insulation, heat pumps, power grid infrastructure and equipment used to make clean energy-generated fuels. 

Jean Su, director of the left-leaning Center for Biological Diversity’s energy justice program, said that the actions would spur investment in and manufacturing of those specific products. 

She said that Biden could also use the DPA to spur growth in the electric transportation sector by targeting electric vehicle charging stations, electric buses and other green modes of transportation.

“The announcement is a game changer. On a macro level, we’re seeing him really flex his muscles on his executive powers, which he has not yet done to date,” Su said. “That’s a huge sea change in terms of his approach for climate.” 

Rachel Frazin and Zack Budryk contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House: Biden will follow Jan. 6 hearing but 'not going to get involved'

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Tuesday that President Biden will likely follow the news from the Jan. 6 select House committee hearing later this week but emphasized he was “not going to get involved” in the proceedings. 

“Of course, he will be keeping up on the committee’s work as he has been,” Jean-Pierre said, noting that Biden would be on a trip to California for the Summit of Americas when the panel’s first public hearing takes place on Thursday. “And I’m sure he’ll be following the news from the hearing as well.” 

The committee investigating the Capitol attack has set its first public hearing for prime-time — Thursday evening at 8 — to examine the events that occurred on Jan. 6 of last year when a violent mob of Trump supporters stormed the building in a failed effort to prevent Biden’s election from being certified. The committee has not disclosed who its first witnesses will be.  

The White House has repeatedly expressed support for the panel’s investigation, calling its work vital. Biden condemned the Jan. 6 attack as an attempted coup in an address on its one-year anniversary earlier this year, forcefully rebuking former President Trump for spreading a “web of lies” about the legitimacy of the 2020 vote. 

“We will continue to speak out as appropriate or to defend our democracy and the rule of law and to support those who are doing work to protect our democracy,” Jean-Pierre said Tuesday.  

At the same time, she indicated Biden would also keep the proceedings at arm’s length when asked if he would be making calls to Republican leaders to try to get them to support the process.    

“He supports the bipartisan effort …  but we’re not going to get involved,” Jean-Pierre said. “That is something that is independent and needs to stay independent.” 

The committee wrote in a notice last week that it plans to “present previously unseen material documenting January 6th, receive witness testimony, preview additional hearings, and provide the American people a summary of its findings about the coordinated, multi-step effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and prevent the transfer of power.” 

In addition to the one on Thursday, the panel has also scheduled a second hearing for Monday morning. Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) has told reporters there could be as many as eight public hearings held during the month of June.  

The committee has conducted hundreds of interviews with witnesses, including former high-level Trump White House officials such as the former president’s children, and poured over official documents provided by the National Archives.  

Biden waived executive privileges for tranches of Trump White House records, allowing them to be turned over to the panel despite the former president’s objections. Trump unsuccessfully tried to prevent the release of the documents to the committee through legal proceedings.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Five automakers back CA authority to set stricter vehicle emissions standards

A group of five automakers are backing California’s authority to set its own standards for climate-warming emissions for vehicles amid a legal challenge from several Republican-led states. 

Ford, Volkswagen, BMW, Honda and Volvo on Tuesday backed the Biden administration’s decision to restore this authority to California after the Trump administration revoked it in 2019. 

California’s emissions standards are often adopted by other, usually Democrat-led states that hope to go beyond federal requirements and shift their markets towards more electric vehicles. 

In their motion to intervene, the automakers argue that under a deal they struck with California, they will adhere to state standards regardless of whether the standards are in place, but their competitors may not. 

They argue that requiring all automakers who sell vehicles in the state to abide by the standard makes the situation more equal. 

“While the Automobile Manufacturers are committed to the stringent Framework standards even if the Waiver Decision is vacated, their competitors are not, and the Automobile Manufacturers thus have a significant interest in ensuring that California’s regulatory authority applies to all automakers to enable a level playing field,” they wrote.

Last month, 17 states with Republican attorneys general sued the Environmental Protection Agency after it reinstated a waiver enabling California to set its own standards. 

The GOP has argued that it’s unfair to give this authority to just one state. The Biden administration has said that restoring it will help advance clean energy technology and reduce air pollution.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five questions that hang over the Jan. 6 committee’s public hearings

The biggest moment of the Jan. 6 House Select Committee’s existence is about to arrive. 

On Thursday evening, the panel will hold the first of its televised hearings. The event will take place in prime time and be broadcast by almost every major network and news channel. 

For some, it will be the most dramatic congressional investigation since the Watergate hearings a half-century ago. 

Others — committed supporters of former President Trump, in particular — will likely tune out the hearings. 

Here are five big questions that have yet to be answered. 

What will we learn that’s new about Trump? 

Democrats are promising explosive revelations about the former president’s role in fomenting the attack on the Capitol. 

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) on Tuesday promised in a CNN interview, “We’re going to see how much Trump was involved. Trump ran this show. He ran it from the time he lost the election in November, and he did it with his son, or sons, and all of his henchmen up there.” 

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the committee, told The Washington Post in a Monday interview that the panel had “found evidence about a lot more than incitement here.”  

Raskin added, “I think that Donald Trump and the White House were at the center of these events. That’s the only way of really making sense of them all.” 

Ironically, the main difficulty Democrats may face in making the case against Trump is the vast amount that is already known. 

Trump was, after all, impeached by the House only one week after the insurrection, becoming the only president in history to be impeached on two separate occasions.  

At a rally at the Ellipse near the White House, immediately before the assault on the Capitol, he told supporters, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” And he also told them that President Biden, if certified as the election’s winner, would be an illegitimate president. 

There have also been subsequent media leaks about other things the panel may have uncovered — including, recently, the suggestion that Trump was sympathetic to the demands of some of his supporters to “hang Mike Pence,” then the sitting vice president. 

There could be more shocking evidence to come. But the knowledge already in existence sets a high bar. 

Can the panel incriminate the Republican Party more broadly? 

The committee famously features just two Republicans — Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.), who serves as vice chair, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) — both of whom are vigorous Trump critics. 

That leaves the wider GOP in the panel’s crosshairs, especially if it can pin culpability for specific misdeeds on other members of the party. 

No fewer than 147 Republican members of Congress voted to invalidate the election results in some shape or form on the evening of the insurrection, with debris still littering the Capitol’s hallways.

Yet, at that time, senior members of the GOP were willing to acknowledge Trump’s culpability. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in February 2021 said on the Senate floor that Trump was “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.” In a recorded call with colleagues later obtained by two reporters for The New York Times, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called Trump’s actions “atrocious and totally wrong.” 

But McConnell voted to acquit Trump on the impeachment charge in the Senate and McCarthy made his peace much more publicly, traveling to Mar-a-Lago to meet Trump. Last week, Trump endorsed McCarthy for reelection to the House. 

The GOP would far rather talk about the issues bedeviling Biden than Jan. 6.  

But if the committee can make a compelling case with fresh and additional evidence, Republicans may have little choice. 

Can the Democrats put on a show? 

For good or for bad, the theater of politics matters. 

So, one question will be how compelling Democrats can make the hearings. 

The first hearing is likely to be the most important of all, much as the first presidential debate in a series tends also to be the most vital.  

All three major broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, have said they will shelve their regular programming and replace it with live coverage of the Thursday hearing. So too have CNN and MSNBC. Controversially, Fox News will not air the hearing live, instead confining such coverage to Fox Business. 

Conservatives have taken umbrage at the decision by the committee to turn to a former president of ABC News, James Goldston, to help make Thursday’s presentation as compelling as possible.  

Axios, which first reported Goldston’s involvement, wrote that he was “busily producing” the hearing “as if it were a blockbuster investigative special.” 

We’re about to see the results. 

Do the hearings change the political agenda? 

There is little doubt that Thursday’s hearing will eclipse almost all the political news out of Washington. For that night at least, it will be the only show in town. 

But how long will that effect last? 

Trump allies have promised “counterprogramming” to push back on the narrative being advanced by the committee. 

House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) is kicking off that effort Wednesday, at a morning news conference with House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and ardent Trump allies Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).  

Stefanik told Fox News that she and her colleagues were “pushing back against lame-duck Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi’s sham political witch hunt.” 

More broadly, the White House has spent months on the defensive, embattled by a host of problems including inflation, high gas prices, an infant formula shortage and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The hearings will give Democrats a chance to put the GOP on the back foot — but for how long? 

Can the panel shift public opinion? 

Politically, this is the biggest question of all. 

Many independent experts, and even some liberals, aren’t at all sure the answer is yes. 

For all kinds of reasons, opinions around Jan. 6 have calcified.  

While Democrats see Trump’s culpability as self-evident, many Republicans seem willing to dismiss anything the panel uncovers. 

Meanwhile, a politically segmented media environment combines with the bias-reinforcing dynamics of social media to deepen those divisions. 

That doesn’t mean the committee is wasting its time. New evidence regarding Jan. 6 is important by its nature. 

But it may not be enough to change many minds. 

Source: TEST FEED1

NATO-Russia: It’s time to suspend the Founding Act

During a period of greater hope for Russia tempered by uncertainties, President Bill Clinton sought both to enlarge NATO and build a strategic partnership between the Alliance and Moscow. As part of his National Security Council staff, we three worked on the approach that produced the 1997 “Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation.” It formalized a NATO-Russia relationship that we thought of as a potential “alliance with the Alliance” and contained security assurances for Moscow.

While the Founding Act produced tangible results in its early years, Europe today faces an aggressive, revanchist Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions have destroyed the basis for cooperation. NATO should suspend the Founding Act and, in particular, renounce its assurance regarding the stationing of conventional forces on the territory of new member states.

NATO and Russian leaders met in May 1997 — two months before the Alliance invited Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join — and concluded the Founding Act. The document laid out the goals and principles for NATO-Russia “consultation, cooperation and joint decision-making and joint action.” Its ambitious framework reflected a shared view that the Alliance and Russia could work together “to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free,” creating the habits of cooperation that would, among other things, alleviate Moscow’s concern about the military impact of enlargement.

The Founding Act contained two key assurances to show that NATO enlargement posed no military threat to Russia. First, NATO members reiterated that they had “no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members” (the “three no’s”). Second, the Alliance stated that “in the current and foreseeable security environment,” NATO defense did not require the “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in new members. Russia pledged to exercise similar restraint.

Unfortunately, the European security environment did not develop as NATO leaders hoped. The West was not blameless, but most of the responsibility for the deterioration lies with Putin and the Kremlin. Malign Russian actions have included a large military modernization program, cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and an increasingly hostile stance toward the West.

In 2014, Moscow violated commitments it made in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and reaffirmed in the Founding Act when its military illegally seized Crimea and fomented the conflict in eastern Ukraine. This February, Russia re-invaded Ukraine on multiple fronts, launching the largest war Europe has seen since World War II. Russia’s actions have violated its Founding Act commitments and eviscerated the goals and principles agreed 25 years ago.

NATO leaders will meet in Madrid June 29-30 to adopt a new Alliance strategy and measures to bolster NATO’s defense and deterrence posture in the wake of Russia’s war against Ukraine. They should also suspend the Founding Act.

The Alliance can continue to observe the “three no’s” in deterring Russian nuclear threats. NATO should, however, renounce its pledge to refrain from the additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces.

From 1997 to 2014, NATO stationed no ground combat forces in new member states. The United States drew down its forces in Europe to such an extent that, in 2013, it had no tanks permanently stationed there.

Following Russia’s initial assaults on Ukraine in 2014, the Alliance deployed, on a rotating basis, small battalion-sized battlegroups in the Baltic states and Poland, essentially as trip-wires, and the United States put an armored brigade in Poland on a rotational basis. This year, as Russia prepared and went to war against Ukraine, NATO placed additional forces on its eastern flank on a temporary basis, including new rotational battlegroups in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia, to deter the possible spillover of Russian aggression to NATO territory.

Regardless of how the Russia-Ukraine war ends, NATO members must accept that they face a long-term military threat to their east. Ensuring that the Kremlin does not try something against a NATO member requires that the Alliance station, on a permanent basis, more robust combat forces in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. To deter today’s Russia, those forces should serve as more than trip-wires and have ground and air capabilities sufficient to hold off attacking forces until Allied reinforcements arrive.

Of course, Moscow will not like this, but it has forfeited any reason for NATO to take Kremlin objections seriously.

The Founding Act was an opportunity to build a new Europe by establishing mechanisms for dialogue and cooperation between Russia and NATO. Unfortunately, it has failed. Suspension will leave open the possibility that it might be restored at a future point, when Russia renews its adherence to the principles of the rules-based international order. However, that may only come after Putin has left office and a new generation of Russian leaders demonstrates that Russia once again shares the goal of a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe.

Ambassadors Daniel Fried, Steven Pifer and Alexander Vershbow are retired U.S. Foreign Service officers. They served as senior directors on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and later served in various senior positions during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.

Source: TEST FEED1

Equilibrium/Sustainability — China to send solar power from space

A Chinese satellite could soon be beaming solar energy down from space — the first step in an ambitious push to supply the country with zero-carbon energy from orbit. 

But the technology — which Beijing says it will start building by 2028 — remains elusive. It involves turning solar energy into a transmittable microwave beam and sending it to receivers on Earth, according to the South China Morning Post. 

Beaming down the energy requires maintaining an antenna hundreds or thousands of meters long — amid threats of solar wind turbulence and asteroid strikes, the Post reported. 

The initial plans involve launching a satellite to test the power of its transmission technology by 2028, and the program will send a more powerful satellite to conduct further experiments two years later, according to the Post.  

But by 2050 — after a series of upgrades — the Chinese government hopes to be sending down commercially affordable power from a space station that will by then produce as much energy as a current nuclear plant, the Post reported. 

Also of note: The U.S. Air Force is planning the launch of its own “power-beaming” test mission — which it sees as a means to power the remote combat bases of the future — by 2024, according to Space.com. 

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. A friend forward this newsletter to you? Subscribe here. 

Today we’ll look at the rising number of people who want the U.S. to do more about plastic pollution and the huge majorities “very frustrated” about the toll it takes on oceans. Then we’ll look at why there aren’t any cheap electric vehicles yet — and why they’re likely coming soon.  

Prioritizing plastic waste 

Plastic waste pollution was a top-five priority issue for nearly a quarter of Americans surveyed in a new poll conducted by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). 

A jump from previous polls: About 23 percent of respondents to the poll cited this problem as a top-five issue for Congress to address in the next two years — a sharp rise from a similar poll taken in 2020, when just 16 percent of respondents considered the issue a priority.  

Skepticism about recycling endpoints: Meanwhile, more than 75 percent of respondents said they believe that none or only a small portion of the plastic waste generated in the U.S. actually gets recycled, the poll found.  

The WWF published these results, produced by Denver-based research firm Corona Insights, ahead of Wednesday’s World Oceans Day.  

An all-American issue: “On a daily basis, nearly all Americans interact with plastic and create waste, in some form – making it one of the most tangible environmental issues we face today,” Erin Simon, the WWF’s head of plastic waste and business, said in a statement.   

Overwhelming frustration: The poll — which surveyed 1,028 people across the U.S. from various demographics and political affiliations — found that 85 percent of Americans were either very or moderately frustrated that plastic waste in the U.S. often ends up in the ocean.  

A large majority of respondents likewise expressed dissatisfaction with the country’s insufficient recycling capacity, and with the fact that many items deposited for recycling do not actually end up recycled, according to the survey.  

Partisan leanings: Democratic-leaning respondents were more likely to indicate that such circumstances were “very frustrating” than their Republican-leaning peers, the poll found.  

While survey respondents across the board expressed a willingness to decrease their plastic waste, they also voiced concern that their efforts might be in vain, according to the poll.  

CONSUMERS HOLD BUSINESSES RESPONSIBLE

When asked to select groups that should be responsible for reducing plastic waste, 90 percent of the respondents chose businesses that produce or sell plastic — up four percentage points since 2020, according to the poll. 

And more than half of respondents — 53 percent — said they believe that such businesses represent the group most responsible for reducing plastic waste, which is a six percentage-point jump from 2020, the survey found.  

Action needed now: With almost a quarter of respondents deeming plastic waste a primary concern, the WWF said policymakers must take action to fix this problem.  

In a separate policy guidance document, the group offered various recommendations for transitioning from what the authors described as “a linear to a circle economy” — or one “that is restorative and regenerative, where materials are recycled and reused to their fullest extent.” 

Changing how we manage waste: While policymakers may be aware of the problem, they will need to implement policies that overhaul the management of plastic waste, according to Anthony Tusino, senior program officer for plastic policy advocacy at the WWF.  

“Together we can identify solutions and create a future where plastic no longer ends up in nature,” Tusino added. 

Industry agrees: In response to the WWF poll, Joshua Baca, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council — a trade group that includes plastic manufacturers — agreed “that more must be done so plastics remain in our economy and out of our environment.” 

“WWF’s public opinion polling on plastic and waste management reinforces the need for Congress, state and local governments and the plastics value chain to do more to address waste and foster a circular economy,” Baca said in a statement.  

Push for circular economy: Baca acknowledged that “Americans are skeptical of recycling and want businesses to take more action in reducing plastic waste,” noting that plastic-makers support a 30-percent recycled plastic standard by 2030 for all U.S. packaging.  

“We hope to work collaboratively with Congress, WWF and other stakeholders to pass meaningful legislation to accelerate a circular economy for plastics,” Baca said. 

To read the full story, please click here. 

EVs almost cheap enough for mass adoption

Electric vehicles (EVs) aren’t cheap yet — but they’re getting cheaper, with some all-electric models available for just under $30,000. 

That means EVs are pressing into the price range where mass adoption can happen, experts told Equilibrium. 

Falling prices, rising prices: With lithium-ion battery prices falling about 9 percent per year and the cost of all cars is rising, luxury and mid-range electric vehicles are already equivalent or superior in price to their fossil-fuel powered counterparts, according to industry sources.  

The average price of a new car was about $47,000 at the start of the year — and many new EVs are now “right in line” with that, Matt Degen of auto review site Kelley Blue Book told The Hill.  

A sweet spot under $30k: “Are you going to find an EV as cheap as the lowest price Kia gas model? Not yet,” Degen added.  

“Nobody really has a crystal ball as to when you’re going to see a $20,000 EV. But if you want a sub-$30,000 EV, you can get one.” 

Why aren’t EV prices falling faster? In a sense, they’re cheaper than their price would suggest.  

The energy cost of battery packs is now down to $118 per kilowatt hour — meaning it’s approaching the $100 threshold below which the Department of Energy believes we will see a rapid increase in mass adoption. 

But those gains are largely invisible to consumers — because they’re getting plowed into packing more range into every new car, John Gartner of the Center for Sustainable Energy told Equilibrium. 

CONSUMERS HOLD BUSINESSES RESPONSIBLE

Ryan Robinson, who runs the automotive research group at Deloitte consulting group, says far more is needed to make serious carbon reduction gains. 

Cars need to get cheaper: Deloitte’s research shows that most customers are looking for vehicles in a crucial $30,000 – $50,000 sweet spot, Robinson said.  

“We’re just not going to get to our reduced carbon emissions footprint, you know, on the backs of how many $100,000 vehicles we can sell.”  

Constricted EV supply chains are another major problem: Whatever its nominal price, the F-150 Lightning is now sold out. That lack of capacity keeps most EV activity confined to the luxury market, Robinson said.  

Lower prices and higher capacity are coming: The Biden administration, numerous state governments and all the major carmakers are now spending big to modernize their battery technology, find new sources of critical materials and increase the scale of their production chains.  

Temporarily spoiled for choice: For now, customers are living in “a golden era” of choice, Degen told Equilibrium. 
 

“You can still get a supercharged V-8 with a manual transmission that’s just going to burn rubber all day. Or you can get an electric car that goes 500 plus miles on a charge,” he said.  

 
Don’t expect that diversity to hold: The era when “car” and “EV” are synonymous is coming — it’s only a question of when, Degen said. 

To read the full story, please click here. And for our guide of what to look for when seeking an EV for less than $50,000, click here. 

Parks too scattered to protect most mammals  

The world’s protected areas may be too sparse and fragmented to ensure the survival of most land mammal species, a new study has observed.  

In order to bridge these gaps, countries should establish an “expanded network of global protected areas,” according to the authors, who published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.  

Such a network should prioritize connecting vulnerable animal populations — rather than covering as much area as possible, the study found.   

Scant refuge: Between 44 and 65 percent of “nonflying” mammals worldwide are “underprotected” by existing national parks and wilderness areas, the authors found.  

That means those species don’t have a large enough proportion of their population living in a protected area “to ensure long-term surivival,” according to a press release accompanying the study.  

Zooming in on the existential threat: If global populations reach the expected 10.5 to 11 billion people by 2100, millions of square miles of new lands will have to be cleared to feed and house them, the study found. 

That threatens to severely fragment surviving habitats, breaking up mammal populations to the point that they “would be unlikely to survive in the long term, with a higher risk of it and its unique genetics going locally extinct,” according to the study. 

Getting specific: Between 1,700 and 2,500 mammal species out of the approximately 3,800 surveyed were underprotected, the scientists found.   

The most vulnerable species tended to be larger, endemic to single regions or residents of tropical forests.   

Size matters less than connection: Because of the importance of connecting spread out populations, park planners should focus on connecting concentrated zones of especially high biodiversity, the authors found.  

Tuesday Troubles 

No love for ugly reef fish, the dirty-energy ships carrying the clean-energy future and a climate-driven plague in Singapore. 

‘Ugly’ reef fish need more protection 

• While people may prefer reef fish of certain shapes and colors, scientists found “mismatches between aesthetic value, ecological function and extinction vulnerability” in a new PLoS Biology study. Less attractive fish are often more important to reef function and most in need of public support, but are least likely to receive it, the authors stated.  

Ship pollution on the rise, absent world action 

• Efforts to curb the massive amounts of carbon emissions generated by ships continue to meet resistance, The Washington Post reported. While the International Maritime Organization hosted leaders this week to discuss the issue, shipping and fossil fuel industries “wield considerable influence in these negotiations,” according to the Post. 

Climate change drives mosquito-borne “emergency” 

• Dengue fever — a mosquito-borne tropical virus known for generating violent body aches — is causing an “emergency” in Singapore that experts are deeming an omen of climate change, CNN reported. Singapore, which is heating twice as fast as the rest of the world, has had twice as many dengue cases so far this year than it had in all of 2021.

That’s it for today. Please visit The Hill’s Sustainability section online for the web version of this newsletter and more stories. We’ll see you tomorrow.

Source: TEST FEED1

American, global donations fill key gap in Ukraine’s military needs

Grassroots efforts by NGOs and private citizens are helping raise millions of dollars to support Ukrainian forces, donating critical items from medical kits to bulletproof vests and even Turkish drones.

The public funds add to billions of dollars of weapons and other assistance provided by the U.S. and its global allies to support Ukraine as its war against Russia moves into its fourth month.

In the U.S., Americans and American companies have donated tens of millions of dollars to organizations that source and deliver hundreds of tons of supplies, ranging from military-grade items to medical assistance, and practical supplies like food and transportation. 

The donations largely seem to benefit Ukraine’s Territorial Defense Forces (TDF), a civilian-volunteer force that was originally intended as a reserve, regional defense unit. Their numbers swelled to about 100,000 volunteers in the wake of Russia’s invasion on Feb 24. 

While Ukrainian forces declared victory in the battle for Kyiv, Russia has taken control of larger parts of Ukraine’s east, called the Donbas, and Ukrainian forces are suffering heavy losses after weeks of punishing fighting.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said late last month that between 60 and 100 soldiers were being killed each day, with at least 500 more wounded. 

Russian missiles are also targeting Kyiv, as Russian President Vladimir Putin aims to disrupt the shipment of heavy weapons from the West, including mid- and long-range missiles from the U.S. and United Kingdom. 

While Zelensky urges for more of the heavy weapons from the West, and war planes that the U.S. and others have not delivered, activists have stepped in to support under-supplied soldiers on the front lines. 

In the early days of the war, the former civilians that compose Ukraine’s TDF force deployed to man checkpoints with rudimentary rifles, receiving only a few day’s worth of combat training sessions. 

Today, they are being sent to frontline fighting in the east, but are described as the most under-equipped and under-trained forces.

“These territorial defense units, they were less experienced and, potentially, less efficient in terms of combat activities and they were less supplied with military resources,” said Borys Danevych, a Ukrainian lawyer, who launched an organization, Yellow/Blue, focusing on sourcing donations from global corporations for frontline needs. 

“That was the reason why many different volunteer initiatives and organizations, they specifically focused on their needs and that is why, for example, thousands of vests, helmets, thermal imagers, quadcopters [drones] and some other non-lethal items were sourced and provided directly to these units.” 

Supplying military-grade items from the U.S. requires obtaining special licenses from the State and Commerce Departments, which can carry with it filing fees costing thousands of dollars. 

Still, Ukrainian-American groups and others have, with these licenses, succeeded in sending hundreds of tons of frontline equipment since February, many streamlining their delivery methods since Russia’s initial invasion in 2014, supplying Ukrainian soldiers on the frontline in the Donbas.

The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) has donated $1.75 million worth of supplies – out of an estimated $15 million raised in the U.S. – that includes body armor, helmets, communication and night vision equipment, as well as vehicles, ambulances, ready-to-eat meals and sleeping bags. 

Another community-based organization, Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (UACC), also holds licenses to export military-grade equipment. UACC has donated 12,000 pieces of body armor and 3,800 helmets, with a total value of $5.25 million. 

Mick Safron, the senior vice president of UACC, said the organization’s next major delivery is focused on “eyes in the air and eyes on the ground, with thermal vision drones and night scopes.”

“Ukrainian defenders need eyes at night with drones with thermal vision cameras, so they can see Russians attack in advance from the air, and then they can regroup and they can move around the front line,” he said, adding that such vision is also critical in monitoring humanitarian corridors to protect civilians. 

“This actually saves lives, the same way lives are saved with helmets and bullet proof vests. We are not providing them weapons, we are providing them tools to save lives of civilians, this is our mission,” Safron said.  

Other donations that supplement military equipment have focused on transportation and medical assistance. 

Spirit of America, based in Arlington, Va., has delivered $20.8 million of assistance weighing 155 tons, ranging from protective gear, trauma kits and, recently, nine 50-passenger commercial busses. These will be used to transport TDF volunteers to frontline positions and evacuate civilians from conflict zones, the organization said. 

Danevych, the Ukrainian lawyer, said his group focuses on raising money to purchase generators for hospitals near combat zones, which also provides cover for corporations that are cautious about outright equipping foreign militaries.  

“They were very happy to provide financial donations to cover the needs of such hospitals and, yes, they realized it would be potentially used also for the healthcare provided to soldiers, but that was not a question for them,” he said. 

John Herbst, a former ambassador to Ukraine and director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said donations from American citizens prove two important points, practical support and a morale boost to Ukrainians, while demonstrating U.S. popular favor to Washington. 

“It demonstrates that support for Ukraine is substantial in American society, and so substantial that private Americans are using their resources and spending their time to help a country that desperately needs support as it faces this massive aggression,” he said. 

“It also demonstrates to American politicians that American people are in on this.”

America is a key destination for organizations to raise funds and source materials for the fight in Ukraine, as many supplies in Europe have either been bought up or the prices have become prohibitive.

Jonas Oehman, director of the Blue/Yellow organization, a prominent Lithuanian- and American-based fundraising and training group for Ukrainian forces, is buying drones from the U.S. – ranging in price between $1,500 and $10,000 – and optics like binoculars and monoculars. 

But he said the group has faced delays in obtaining the specific licenses to export. In particular, it has yet to receive permission to export about 200 binoculars, an issue it raised during recent meetings with the offices of House and Senate lawmakers, while also explaining how the organization has operated on Ukraine’s front line since 2014. 

“We feel there’s a need to make our voice heard,” Oehman said. 

Blue/Yellow, and Lithuanians, in general, have stood out for their support for Ukraine. Earlier this month the Lithuanian Defense Ministry announced that Turkey had agreed to donate a combat drone – the Bayraktar TB2 – after Lithuanian citizens raised nearly six million euros for its purchase. 

Oehman’s group has raised about $1 million in donations from the U.S. out of an estimated $30 million raised globally since 2014. 

A key part of Oehman’s meetings in Washington was urging lawmakers and the administration to remain engaged and keep up their support for Ukrainian forces as the fighting rages on. 

“Right now, we have a situation where the Ukrainian armed forces have been at war for three months consecutively. There’s fatigue, there have been serious losses, and people are basically — they have been put to their edge,” he said.

“The victories – relatively speaking – in Kyiv and Kharkiv, they help” raise morale, he added, but called for a doubling-down on military support, through both government and nongovernmental organizations. 

“We try our best to do what we can, as an NGO, to be there and to aid and assist,” he said.

“We think we’re doing a good job, we think our methods are sound, they make sense for many reasons, we’d like to share this with the U.S. administration.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Pedestrian fatalities hit four-decade high. Which states had the most?

The most pedestrian deaths in a single year in four decades were recorded in 2021, averaging out at 20 deaths in the U.S. every day, a new report has found.

An estimated 7,485 people were killed while on foot in 2021, compared to 6,711 in 2020, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA).

Seven states reported an increase of more than 30 percent in the number of people on foot struck and killed in motor vehicle crashes.

“This is heartbreaking and unacceptable. The pandemic has caused so much death and damage, it’s frustrating to see even more lives needlessly taken due to dangerous driving,” said GHSA Executive Director Jonathan Adkins.

“We must address the root causes of the pedestrian safety crisis – speeding and other dangerous driving behaviors, inadequate infrastructure, and roads designed for vehicle speed instead of safety – to reverse this trend and ensure people can walk safely,” he added.

Here are the states that recorded the highest number of pedestrian deaths last year:

California

California saw the most pedestrian deaths, with 958 recorded deaths. The figure marks a 6 percent decrease from 2020 when the state reported 1,026 pedestrian deaths, however, giving the state the largest decrease in the number of deaths on foot in a year’s time.

Florida

The Sunshine State saw a 25 percent increase in deaths on foot in a year at 899 deaths, making it the state with the largest jump in the number of pedestrian deaths.

Texas

Texas increased from 714 pedestrian deaths in 2020 to 825 in 2021, a 15 percent increase.

Georgia

Georgia reported 348 pedestrian deaths, a 23 percent increase over a year span.

New York

The Empire State saw 296 deaths of people on foot, up from 241 the year prior.

Source: TEST FEED1

World Bank slashes growth forecast, warns of stagflation

The World Bank slashed its forecast for global economic growth Tuesday and warned the world could face “a protracted period of feeble growth and elevated inflation” due largely to the fallout from the war in Ukraine.

Economists at the World Bank expect global gross domestic product (GDP) to rise 2.9 percent in 2022, down from the 4.1 percent growth rate the bank projected in January and a 5.7 percent jump in GDP last year. Ongoing interest rate hikes in the U.S. and other major nations would also weigh on developing nations and those with high debt loads as they see borrowing costs rise and economic activity slow.

“Amid the war in Ukraine, surging inflation, and rising interest rates, global economic growth is expected to slump in 2022. Several years of above-average inflation and below-average growth

are now likely, with potentially destabilizing consequences for low- and middle-income economies,” wrote World Bank Group president David Malpass.

“It’s a phenomenon—stagflation—that the world has not seen since the 1970s.”

The U.S. and many other nations have enjoyed a rapid economic rebound from the depths of the coronavirus recession. But policymakers are now scrambling to avoid another damaging downturn as prices climb at the highest annual rates seen since the early 1980s.

The Federal Reserve and central banks around the world are attempting to avoid a repeat of the late 1970s and early 80s: years of sluggish growth and high inflation followed by a deep recession. Back then, the Fed waited far too long to begin raising interest rates as inflation rose and triggered a deep downturn when it shocked the economy through steep and sudden rate hikes.

The Fed is now amid a series of interest rate hikes meant to bring inflation down without derailing the U.S. economy, which has still gained jobs at a rapid rate in the face of rising prices. While Fed Chair Jerome Powell has expressed optimism the bank can strike the right balance, a growing number of economists fear it could be difficult to avoid another period of 70’s-style stagflation.

The war in Ukraine has shocked the global economy, causing food, energy and commodity prices to spiral higher while growth slows. Economists fear that the persistence of the war could cause serious food shortages in developing countries and punishing price increases across the world.

“Subdued growth will likely persist throughout the decade because of weak investment in most of the world. With inflation now running at multi decade highs in many countries and supply expected to grow slowly, there is a risk that inflation will remain higher for longer than currently anticipated,” Malpass said.

Even so, Malpass noted three major differences between the stagflation of the late 1970s and the current moment—all of which break in favor of a softer landing: The value of the U.S. dollar compared to other currencies is far higher, oil prices are much lower, and and central banks are far more serious about fighting inflation now than during the run-up to the 1980s meltdown.

“Reducing the risk of stagflation will require targeted and impactful measures by policy makers across the world,” he wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1