RNC's voter contact app rolls out Spanish version

The Republican National Committee is celebrating the rollout of a Spanish-language version of its preferred voter contact app Campaign Sidekick, a move that the GOP hopes will help it continue to make inroads with Hispanic voters.

With the update, the RNC’s door-to-door walk books and call scripts will now be available in Spanish, which it hopes contributes to getting more accurate data in those communities. The RNC says it spearheaded the effort to get a Spanish language feature for the app.

The RNC has already made investments in reaching Hispanic voters this cycle by establishing community centers to help GOP staff build relationships with Hispanic voters. This month, it also launched a “Republican Civics Initiative” to help immigrants prepare for naturalization tests.

The app update rollout comes as the RNC is launching a “weekend of action” to mark 100 days until the midterm election.

“The RNC has invested millions into our data and ground game infrastructure – from our dozens of community centers across the country to reaching voters at their doorstep and speaking their language, the RNC has revolutionized how we engage with minority communities,” RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. “Republicans know that the challenges Americans face and the values we share transcend our differences, and that’s a message resonating with more voters every day.”

According to the National Republican Congressional Committee, 102 Hispanic candidates have filed to run for the House as Republicans this year. Republicans see pushing women, minority, and veteran candidates as key to its success in flipping control of key districts.

The most recent success Republicans celebrated is Rep. Mayra Flores (R-Texas), who won a special election this summer in the traditionally Democratic-held Rio Grande Valley.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House to launch updated COVID-19 booster campaign in September

The White House is moving ahead with plans to launch a COVID-19 booster campaign in September using a vaccine modified for the omicron subvariants sweeping the country, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said Friday.

The updated vaccine will specifically target the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of omicron which are currently circulating and fueling a new increase in hospitalizations. The announcement marks an acceleration, as the reformulated vaccine was not expected to be ready for distribution until at least October. 

At the same time, the FDA said it is not considering authorizing a second booster of the original formulation of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for otherwise healthy individuals under the age of 50.

Currently, only people aged 50 and older as well as immunocompromised people over the age of 12 are eligible for a second booster shot.

The FDA said the accelerated time frame is possible because both Pfizer and Moderna indicated that they anticipate the modified vaccines being available as early as September. Earlier on Friday, the Biden administration announced a purchase of 66 million doses of the updated Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

The Moderna purchase comes on top of an order placed last month for 105 million doses of Pfizer’s updated vaccine.  

Combined, the two agreements with Moderna and Pfizer would make available to the U.S. approximately 171 million “bivalent” vaccine booster doses for the fall and beyond, should they be authorized and recommended, which would not be enough for every single American, officials said. 

The agency told manufacturers in June that new COVID-19 booster shots should be tailored to target omicron’s BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants as well as the original strain in order to give people the broadest possible protection.

According to the FDA, currently available vaccines have helped reduce the most serious outcomes caused by COVID-19, but the effectiveness of primary vaccination wanes over time against certain variants, including omicron. The first booster doses helped restore that protection, but the effectiveness is also waning. 

The BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants account for the majority of new infections in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The variant has been able to evade certain immune defenses in people who were infected previously or received the vaccine.

Still, uptake of even a first booster dose has been lagging, an indication that not everyone will want an updated booster this fall. 

In announcing the September date, the FDA urged people who are eligible but haven’t yet received a booster to get one. People can still get a booster now as well as a variant-specific shot in the fall. 

Yet health experts have mixed opinions about the benefit of waiting until the fall when coronavirus infections are rising across the country.

Some have also expressed concern about the messaging, and that the administration is overselling what the shots will actually be able to do.

“I’d love to see the data on this bivalent vaccine’s efficacy against infections & preventing serious disease. We’re rushing toward Fall vaccines and perhaps flying blind,” tweeted Lawrence Gostin, a public health law professor at Georgetown University.

Still, Gostin said he was pleased the administration was being proactive.

Source: TEST FEED1

Washington, DC, most in shape area in the nation, study says

Story at a glance


  • The fittest state in the country isn’t a state at all, as Washington, D.C. was ranked the most in shape part of the country in a recent report from RunReview.org. 

  • Part of the reason Washington, D.C. ranked so well is because of the relatively low rate of heart disease and diabetes among residents. 

  • The city isn’t perfect though and fell short of the national average for residents undergoing wellness checks last year. 

The nation’s capital is home to the most in shape people in the country, according to a study from RunReview.org.  

Massachusetts and Colorado come in a close second and third place for most in shape states and territories.  

Meanwhile, West Virginia came in last place, beating out Arkansas and Mississippi for the most out of shape state in the country, according to the report. 


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.


Report crafters used federal data on six different metrics to determine all 50 states, and Washington, D.C.’s, fitness rankings. Those metrics included rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, exercise, wellness checkups and the number of gyms available per 100,000 people.  

The jurisdictions considered to be in the best shape tended to have low rates of obesity, heart disease and diabetes as well as more gyms available.  

Washington, D.C. came in first place since it has the lowest rate of diabetes, 7.5 percent, and for having the country’s second lowest obesity rate at 24.3 percent.  

The capital also came in first for most gyms with 20.1 per 100,000 residents, the report states.  

But Washington D.C. isn’t perfect. Only 71.8 percent of D.C. residents got an annual wellness checkup last year which falls below the national average of people who get wellness checkups, 74.9 percent.   

But in some states, there was little or no relationship between residents’ health status and lifestyle indicators, which the report states underscores that “demographic differences, local infrastructure and other factors,” also influence health.  

Here are the top 10 most in shape states and territories:  

  1. Washington, D.C.  
  1. Massachusetts 
  1. Colorado  
  1. Connecticut  
  1. New Hampshire 
  1. New Jersey 
  1. Vermont 
  1. Rhode Island  
  1. Montana  
  1. Oregon 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

RETIREES USING THE INTERNET GET A BOOST TO COGNITIVE FUNCTION

EATING MORE COLORFUL FOODS MAY REDUCE RISK OF COGNITIVE DECLINE

STUDY SUGGESTS THIS GAME COULD DELAY THE PROGRESSION OF DEMENTIA

EARNING A BACHELOR’S DEGREE COULD ADD AN AVERAGE OF THREE YEARS ONTO YOUR LIFE, STUDY FINDS

Source: TEST FEED1

In landmark ruling, Michigan Supreme Court says definition of ‘sex’ in discrimination law includes sexual orientation

Story at a glance


  • The definition of sex in a decades-old Michigan discrimination law includes sexual orientation, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

  • The ruling is the result of a 2020 case involving two Michigan businesses that denied services to patrons based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

  • While the decision was celebrated by some, others said the court was reinterpreting state law in an overextension of its duty.

In a landmark decision, Michigan’s Supreme Court has ruled that a state law against sex discrimination also protects individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

In an opinion published Thursday, Justice Elizabeth Clement, writing for the court’s majority, ruled that the definition of sex in Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), a decades-old state law prohibiting sex-based discrimination, also includes sexual orientation.

“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily constitutes discrimination because of sex,” Clement wrote. Therefore, denying an individual “full and equal enjoyment” of goods, services and public accommodations because of their sexual orientation is a violation of the ELCRA.

The ruling is the result of a 2020 case involving two Michigan businesses that had denied services to clients because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.


Rouch World, an outdoor event space roughly 10 miles north of Michigan’s border with Indiana, had refused to allow a lesbian couple to hold their wedding onsite. Uprooted Electrolysis, which provides permanent hair removal services, would not serve a transgender woman.

In a lawsuit against the state following customer complaints and an investigation by Michigan’s Department of Civil Rights, both businesses argued that they were entitled to deny services to LGBTQ+ people because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Only the instance of alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation made its way to the state Supreme Court.

On Thursday, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) celebrated the court’s ruling. In December, Whitmer filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the language of the ELCRA prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“For too long, LGBTQ+ Michiganders had been left out of our state’s civil rights protections,” Whitmer said Thursday. “No longer. Because of this ruling, nobody can legally be fired from their job or evicted from their home because of who they love.”

“Today, Michigan is more free and fair than it was yesterday,” Whitmer said.

Support for the court’s ruling was not unanimous. In a dissenting opinion on Thursday, Justice Brian Zahra wrote that while he believes the majority opinion is “a victory for a good many Michiganders,” he also believes that his colleagues overextended their power as Supreme Court justices.

“This court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be,” Zahra wrote. “But this is exactly what a majority of this court has done here.”

Zahra argued that when the ELCRA was passed in 1976, the public’s understanding of the word “sex” was much more narrow than it is today. The law as written does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, according to Zahra, because the ELCRA was not passed to protect sexual behavior.

“Context and intent matter when interpreting statutes,” Zahra wrote. “When read in context it becomes eminently clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word ‘sex’ in 1976 did not include sexual orientation.”

Source: TEST FEED1

The world must condemn Burma’s execution of freedom fighters

The international community must emphatically condemn the egregious executions last weekend of four Burmese democracy advocates by the country’s ruling junta.

Kyaw Min Yu (also known as Ko Jimmy), Phyo Zeya Thaw, Hla Myo Aung, and Aung Thura Zaw were hanged because of their unwavering support for freedom. It had been 34 years since rulers of Burma, now known as Myanmar,had summarily executed any of their own citizens — and it was under a military regime then, too.

Amid challenges to democracy and human rights around the world, this horrific attack on freedom fighters in Burma must not go unanswered. The international community cannot remain silent as the military junta in control of the country threatens even more outrages. The Burmese people need to know that the democratic world stands behind them.

It has been 18 months since Burma’s decade of transition to democracy was thwarted by a military coup d’état, and it’s becoming more evident with each passing day that the situation in the country is becoming ever more dire. Burma must not fall off the international community’s priority list. The Burmese people need our support now. And that means that the Biden administration, Congress, the media and civil society all have roles to play.

Sadly, the executions are just the latest atrocities committed by this oppressive regime to silence the Burmese people. Since the coup, almost 15,000 individuals across Burma have been arrested. About three-quarters of them are still detained, and over 2,000 have been killed, including women and children. 

“The military’s campaign of repression is an outright rejection of human dignity and the rule of law, conditions which modern nations recognize are critical for human beings to flourish,” Bush Institute Executive Director Holly Kuzmich said in a statement condemning the military’s actions. “That’s why, despite threats to their well-being, the Burmese people continue their pursuit of democracy.”

At the Bush Institute, we’ve engaged 79 young leaders across Burma since 2014 through our Liberty and Leadership Program (LLP) — part of our work to support democracy activists around the globe. We know firsthand that the young people of Burma want to be free, and we believe that when democracies thrive, we all thrive. Since the coup, our LLP young leaders have been at the forefront of peaceful opposition, organizing protests and coordinating efforts to share what is truly happening on the ground.

Burma was well along the path to democracy before the February 2021 coup. Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy was in power after five decades of military rule. Young people were excited and tantalized by their first taste of freedom. But then the brutal, military-led campaign against the Rohingya population in the country started to chip away at this progress, and it all came to a screeching halt when the military seized power once again.  

Freedom is something that’s easy for us to take for granted in the United States. But it’s not an option for so many in our world. For the people of Burma, free speech is effectively silenced, media is censored and repression of minority ethnic groups continues without any possibility of recourse. The Burma they knew just a couple of years ago is no more.

The family members of the four executed pro-democracy activists are still waiting for information regarding their loved ones. This is the epitome of cruelty, and it’s unacceptable. 

The situation in Burma is worsening. If we do nothing, I fear what these authoritarian leaders will do next. How far will they go? How far will democratic nations allow them to go?

The Biden administration and Congress must take effective, strong and coordinated action to hit members of the junta where it hurts most — their wealth. The media should use their platforms to keep Burma at the forefront of our attention, and civil society organizations should continue supporting those who need it the most during this time.

Peaceful opposition to the junta has shown the world that the Burmese people long for democracy, and they’ll do everything they can to restore their voice in government. But the military is not backing down either, and their tactics are becoming increasingly sinister. 

The United States and other democracies have an opportunity to stand with the people of Burma in their quest for freedom. By doing this, we can signal to authoritarian leaders across the world that we will not tolerate their actions. We can demonstrate that the desire for freedom is universal, and we will always walk alongside those who pursue it.   

Michael Bailey is senior program manager of Leadership Programs at the George W. Bush Institute.

Source: TEST FEED1

Abortion rights activist fundraises over $1M thanks to Gaetz's body-shaming comments

Story at a glance


  • Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) publicly criticized abortion while describing abortion rights activists as overweight and unattractive. 

  • He then took to Twitter and used a photo of activist Olivia Julianna to further lambaste abortions. 

  • Julianna responded to Gaetz’s criticisms by fundraising over $1 million for abortion funds across the U.S. 

An abortion rights activist was body-shamed by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and she took the insult as an opportunity to fundraise, garnering over $1 million in donations to abortion funds. 

On July 23, Gaetz spoke during the Turning Point Action Summit in Florida and lambasted abortion access, saying women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions.  

He continued by describing abortion activists as overweight, unattractive and very unlikely to need an abortion.  

Gaetz then took to Twitter to further address the issue, posting a photo of 19-year-old activist Olivia Julianna. Julianna, however, was quick to respond.  

“Am I not a little too old for you Matt? I know you have a thing for targeting teenagers but 19 is on the cusp don’t you think?” 


America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 


That’s in reference to a federal investigation the congressman is currently facing after reports surfaced alleging that he may have committed several crimes, including the sex trafficking of a minor. He also may have violated the Mann Act, which bars the transportation of prostitutes between states or countries. Gaetz has denied all charges. 

The spat between Gaetz and Julianna resulted in the activist receiving hateful messages on social media. But she took the opportunity to fundraise for Gen-Z for Change, a nonprofit advocating for abortion rights, climate change and other political issues, and where Julianna is a political strategist. 

Within less than a week, she has raised $1.5 million for the Gen-Z for Choice Abortion Fund. The money will be split evenly among 50 local abortion funds across the U.S. 

In a statement posted to her Twitter account, Julianna revealed she has struggled with eating disorders and body images issues her entire life and that Gaetz’s comments on women were, “reprehensible, disgusting and outright despicable.” 

“But I am glad he directed his bigotry in my direction. We have now turned hatred into health care, and people across the country will be able to get access to abortion services because of it.” 

Liza Fuentes, senior research scientist at Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights policy and advocacy group, said that Julianna’s fundraising is a historic feat. On Twitter, Fuentes explained that the National Network of Abortion Funds distributed $9.4M in 2020 — and Julianna raised 10 percent of that within a matter of days. 

“This means that a bunch of people who would simply have not gotten their abortions now will.” 

When asked to comment on Julianna’s fundraising feat, Gaetz’s office told Changing America that, “With Roe v. Wade overturned, America is now a pro-life nation. No amount of solicitations will change that.” 

One of the recipients of Gen-Z for Change’s fundraising will be the Tampa Bay Abortion Fund, who publicly thanked Julianna and the thousands of donors who donated in the past few days. The group highlighted that Florida currently has a 15-week abortion ban in place, which could result in many people needing to take time off work, manage childcare and pay for gas and lodging if they need an abortion beyond what the state’s law permits. 

Abortion procedures alone can cost up to $750, but some states allow insurance providers to cover the expense. However, as more and more states enact restrictive abortion laws, the cost of a wanted abortion will rise as people resort to traveling out-of-state to get the care they need. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Big Oil companies post record profits

ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell posted record profits in the second quarter of 2022 as companies announced earnings this week. 

The profits come as the world saw both extremely high prices of oil and gasoline. 

Exxon said Friday that between April and June of this year, it made  $17.9 billion, up from about $5.5 billion during January through March.

Chevron, meanwhile, made $11.6 billion up from around $6 billion last quarter.

Shell made 11.5 billion, up from 9.1 billion the previous quarter.

The profits come amid consistently high fuel prices spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This year, prices of U.S. crude oil peaked in March, which was in the first quarter, but remained above $100 per barrel for several weeks. 

 U.S. gasoline prices spiked in June and have fallen in recent weeks.

Democrats have criticized the companies’ high profits as Americans contended with high fuel prices.  President Biden has been among those to criticize oil companies, specifically calling on refiners to produce more oil in June.

At the time, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth pushed back, saying that there weren’t easy fixes to supply challenges and criticized the administration over rhetoric that he said was vilifying the industry.

This week’s profit announcements drew new criticism from the left, particularly as the companies also said they would buyback more shares of their stock as a way of giving money to shareholders. 

“While you were feeling pain at the pump, Shell, Exxon, and Chevron raked in $46 BILLION in profits over the last three months and said they would spend up to $47 billion on stock buybacks after spending $18.8 billion so far this year. Yes, it’s time for a windfall profits tax,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). 

Source: TEST FEED1

Microchip subsidy sleight-of-hand

Microchip lobbyists have been doing their best P.T. Barnum impressions for months, pushing for billions of dollars in subsidies without which the future of American microchip manufacturing is, apparently, doomed. But as Barnum reputedly said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” While domestic chip manufacturing may merit a little congressional attention, what we’re seeing is a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that has exacerbated a larger problem in our state capitals.

The latest incarnation of the CHIPS Act just made it through Congress before the August recess. The legislation authorizes $54 billion for computer chip subsidies, with $39 billion earmarked for commercial microchip manufacturing. The rationalizations run the gamut from national defense fearmongering to vague threats of supply chain disruptions if the United States doesn’t reclaim its position as a leading computer chip manufacturer.

The argument that holds more water is the importance of computer chips for national defense. Without domestic manufacturing of critical components during an extended conflict, the U.S. might risk exhausting precision weapon stockpiles and have greater difficulty replacing destroyed delivery systems. The fact that recently captured Russian weapon systems in Ukraine are filled with commercially made Western computer components – as well as evidence that Russians are repurposing home appliance computer chips to fill the gap caused by Western sanctions – highlights this concern.

So, it’s clear that the United States needs domestic manufacturing capacity for military-focused chips. But here’s where the sleight-of-hand appears: Just because some domestic production is necessary doesn’t mean all of the proposed semiconductor subsidies are justified.

The most important chips that go into U.S. military hardware are application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), which are already custom-made by domestic defense contractors. Some foreign-produced commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components are used as well, but the Pentagon is already working with suppliers to ensure the uninterrupted domestic supply of critical components during a conflict.

Before we can question the mismatch between military-relevant production and the proposed commercial subsidies, the lobbyists distract us with declarations about how important computer chips are for modern goods and services. They suggest that subsidizing domestic commercial production will ensure that the U.S. economy will be protected against supply shortfalls.

This is false. There’s no guarantee that domestic semiconductor production would be reserved for American customers. The recent rise in gas prices provides a perfect example of why.

In March, President Biden authorized the largest-ever release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, ostensibly to increase domestic supply and push down uncomfortably high prices. But oil purchasers aren’t restricted in what they do with it, and some was exported to foreign markets. Computer chip producers will similarly sell them to the highest bidder, regardless of who the customer is.

Much like oil producers, chip makers don’t want to flood the market and decrease the prices they can charge, meaning they’ll avoid overbuilding commercial manufacturing facilities. This means that subsidies aren’t likely to substantively increase the overall supply of computer chips.

To the extent that subsidies do lead to more chips, global consumers will benefit from relatively lower prices. But counterintuitively, Congress’s best policy would be to watch appreciatively – and passively – as GermanyJapanSouth Korea and others throw untold billions at chip manufacturers. This would allow U.S consumers to reap the benefits of subsidized production without having to pay for it.

Much of this is true of other corporate giveaways, but the semiconductor frenzy has another harmful twist.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, which set the stage for CHIPS Act subsidies, requires that state and local governments offer their own subsidies as a pre-condition for the Commerce Department to approve federal grants. The initial versions of the CHIPS Act stipulated that federal grants would be used solely to reimburse state and local governments that had offered their own subsidies. That may help explain why Texas promised Samsung almost $1 billion, Ohio promised Intel over $2 billion and New York last month passed legislation to provide $10 billion in semiconductor subsidies.

Some of those state policymakers may be terrified to see that they might have to pick up the check. That’s because the latest version of the CHIPS Act says nothing about reimbursing state and local governments. Instead, it appears primed to provide chip manufacturers federal grants worth up to $3 billion, on top of the state and local subsidies.

Rather than requiring local subsidies, Congress should forbid them. State and local politicians already waste an estimated $100 billion every year in a dog-and-pony subsidy show. The academic research shows that there’s little benefit and likely a lot of harm caused by this wasteful spending.

Even if there’s a reasonable argument for moderate, national defense-focused programs, that doesn’t warrant subsidizing an entire industry. And it’s the responsibility of the federal government, not the states.

Michael D. Farren is a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Source: TEST FEED1

We can’t ignore the devastation of deadly heat — for nature or ourselves

The deadly heat waves blasting the U.S. and Europe are raising fresh concerns about the risks of rising global temperatures to people. There are also risks of rising temperatures for nature, which is already under siege from multiple directions. Many will remember the shocking wildfires that killed or displaced nearly 3 billion animals during Australia’s “Black Summer” two years ago, but the truth is our rapidly warming planet also poses many other, more under-the-radar threats to the natural world that have dire implications for all life on Earth, including us.

The U.S. government has the know-how and the means to address combined climate and nature crisis, if our leaders will only muster the political will to do what is necessary. Specifically, Congress and the Biden administration must take bold and immediate action to accelerate the decoupling of our economy from fossil fuels, incentivize behavioral shifts toward less consumption — including healthier, more sustainable diets and more sustainable, efficient energy use — as well as protect and restore nature. And they need to do it right now.

So far, we’ve experienced an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming above preindustrial temperatures — and the examples of the devastation that the increasing average and extreme temperature events have already wrought are everywhere. As our oceans have heated up, coral reefs that sustain a bewildering diversity of species of fish have experienced mass die-offs. Meanwhile, the melting Arctic ice has forced polar bears to seek new hunting grounds, resulting in a tripling of human-wildlife conflict as polar bears spend more time in coastal villages searching for food. More heartbreaking stories are surfacing, like the one from just a few days ago of a starving and horrifically emaciated polar bear that sought help from humans after getting its tongue stuck in an old tin can. Although this seems like a bizarre example, the number and ways in which species and ecosystems are imperiled by rising temperatures goes on and on. And it’s only going to get worse.

According to a recent report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), up to14 percent of the tens of thousands of species assessed by the report are likely to face a high risk of extinction at 1.5 degrees of warming, a grim milestone we are now almost guaranteed to reach. And if we allow warming to rise from 1.5 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius, up to 29 percent of species will be at risk. Already, the population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians and reptiles monitored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living Planet Report have seen an alarming average drop of 68 percent — in less than a single person’s lifetime. And that’s due almost entirely to human activity.

Dramatic changes like these in species extinctions, ranges and populations can lead to irreversible changes in the services nature provides for us such as basic food production, water provision, carbon storage, erosion control, nutrient cycling, fisheries production, forestry and other natural resources. And those irreversible changes in species can drive conflict among and within nations, as happens when fish migrate out of warming waters into cooler waters — creating newly fish-rich and fish-poor areas. By 2030, 23 percent of transboundary fish stocks will have changed their historical range, providing a recipe for chaos and conflict as fishing fleets follow. 

As this example illustrates, we’re not just the culprit behind these environmental disruptions, we’re also a victim of them. Increasing temperatures and degradation of soil quality reduces food production. Droughts like the one in the western U.S., wildfires, decreasing air and water quality, the loss of natural barriers to buffer coastal and river flooding, and more all conspire to endanger human lives and livelihoods. Oh, and were you looking forward to beating the heat with a dip in the ocean? Well, our warming oceans are also forcing sharks to roam into cooler, coastal waters, potentially contributing to the recent uptick in shark attacks.

My aim is not to needlessly frighten, but rather to jolt people — most importantly, our elected leaders — out of complacency. It is within our government’s power to restore nature, slow climate change and help Americans — and America’s wildlife species — adapt to the climate impacts that are already here, if we act now.

First, the U.S. government needs to aggressively throw its support behind measures that would help decarbonize our economy. Among other things, that means investments in and incentives for widespread clean energy adoption, which would reduce harmful emissions and create more American jobs in the process. To that end, Congress should pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes $369 billion in climate spending. Critically, this legislation also invests over $60 billion into disadvantaged communities, including many that will feel the effects of the climate crisis first and most deeply. If enacted into law, the programs in this bill could help cut U.S. emissions by 40 percent by 2030 — not enough on its own to get us where we need to be, but it still a historic step in the right direction.

The Inflation Reduction Act also includes $5 billion in grants for measures such as forest conservation and urban tree planting, as well as $2.6 billion for protecting and restoring coastal habitats — all of which draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and help people adapt to climate change by providing shade to lower local temperatures by as much as 8 degrees, filtering water and reducing pollution, buffering against storm surges and much more.

For these reasons, the “America the Beautiful” initiative launched last year, which calls for the administration to collaborate with communities, Native nations and businesses to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, is also essential for our future. Critically, it recognizes the sustainable management of working, private lands and waters by America’s hard-working farmers, ranchers, foresters and fishers, who contribute substantially to the long-term economic and environmental prosperity we all seek.

A stable climate and stable wild places across the U.S. and the world are not nice-to-haves, they are must-haves for people. We have brought the climate and nature to this crisis point, and we are the only ones capable of pulling them — and civilization — back from the brink. For our elected leaders, I have but one question: What do you want your legacy to be? The choices you make in the coming weeks, months and years will shape the future for your descendants and the planet they call home. Choose wisely.

Rebecca Shaw, Ph.D., is World Wildlife Fund’s chief scientist.

Source: TEST FEED1

White House's Bedingfield to stay on as communications director

White House communications director Kate Bedingfield will stay on in her role after initially announcing she would leave this summer, a source confirmed to The Hill.

The White House had said earlier this month that Bedingfield would step down after working on the 2020 campaign and in the administration. Last week, President Biden tested positive for COVID-19 and Bedingfield was asked to stay on until he tested negative.

Once Biden tested negative earlier this week, the president asked if she’d consider staying on longer. Bedingfield agreed, the source said, and she had already been thinking about extending her time at the White House.

There is no timetable for Bedingfield to depart in the coming weeks or months, the source said.

NBC News first reported on Bedingfield’s change in plans.

The outlet reported that Bedingfield sent a memo to White House staff saying that she was excited about the “awesome — if admittedly last-minute! — development. … The work is too important and too energizing and I have a lot of gas left in the tank.”

Bedingfield is a longtime Biden aide who worked with him during his time as vice president. She quickly became one of Biden’s most trusted advisers and helped catapult him to the White House in a senior role on the 2020 campaign.

She joined the White House as communications director, a job she has held since January 2021.

Her impending exit had raised questions about the communications strategy within the White House and whether there would be a shift as the administration grappled with high inflation, rising gas prices, the war in Ukraine and the Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe v. Wade.

Source: TEST FEED1