Elections

The rules, designed to inform investors of business risks from climate change, were rolled back amid opposition from the G.O.P., fossil fuel producers, farmers and others.The Securities and Exchange Commission is expected on Wednesday to approve new rules detailing if and how public companies should disclose climate risks and how much greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but there are fewer demands on businesses than the original proposal made about two years ago.The rules represent a step toward requiring corporations to inform investors of both their climate emissions, as well as the business risks that they face from floods, rising temperatures and weather disasters. An earlier and more all-encompassing proposal faced outspoken Republican backlash and opposition from a range of companies and industries, including fossil fuel producers.The main difference: Under the original proposal, large companies would have been required to disclose not just planet-warming emissions from their own operations, but also emissions produced along what’s known as a company’s “value chain” — a term that encompasses everything from the parts or services bought from other suppliers, to the way that people who use the products ultimately dispose of them. Pollution created all along this value chain could add up.Now, that requirement is gone.In addition, the biggest companies will have to report the emissions they directly produce, but only if the companies themselves consider the emissions “material,” or of significant importance to their bottom lines, a qualification that leaves corporations leeway. Thousands of smaller businesses are exempt, another big change from the original proposal, which would have required all publicly traded corporations to disclose their direct emissions.Also gone from the final rules is a requirement that companies state the climate expertise of members on their board of directors.But the directive for companies to disclose significant risks related to climate change — for example, risks to waterfront properties owned by a hotel chain from rising sea levels and storm surges — survived.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Donald Trump y Joe Biden avanzan hacia una revancha y se espera que Nikki Haley retire su candidatura. Pero los aspirantes presidenciales no eran los únicos en la contienda.Donald Trump y el presidente Joe Biden salieron victoriosos del Supermartes, el día más importante de la temporada de primarias, y solo la estrecha victoria de Nikki Haley en Vermont la ayudó a evitar quedar fuera en las 15 contiendas republicanas. Se esperaba que pusiera fin a su campaña el miércoles.Pero los candidatos presidenciales que han ido avanzando hacia una revancha no fueron los únicos en la votación. He aquí algunas de las otras contiendas importantes que se decidieron el martes.CaliforniaEl representante Adam Schiff, congresista demócrata desde hace mucho tiempo, y Steve Garvey, un novato republicano, pasaron a las elecciones generales en la contienda por el Senado, asegurándose dos pases de salida de la “jungla” de las primarias para competir por el escaño que quedó libre tras la muerte el año pasado de la senadora Dianne Feinstein. Con un electorado dominado por los liberales, Schiff tendrá una ventaja significativa en noviembre.Tres escaños de la Cámara de Representantes de tendencia demócrata quedaron vacantes porque sus titulares se habían presentado para el escaño vacante del Senado: el Distrito 12, representado por Barbara Lee; el Distrito 30, representado por Schiff; y el Distrito 47, representado por Katie Porter. Esas contiendas están aún por decidirse.El que fuera el escaño del expresidente de la Cámara de Representantes Kevin McCarthy en el Distrito 20 también quedó vacante porque renunció a la Cámara. El representante David Valadao, uno de los 10 republicanos de la Cámara que votaron a favor de la destitución de Trump en 2021, también se enfrenta a serios retos en las primarias del Distrito 22. Ambas primarias están aún por definirse.Carolina del NorteWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Many Americans are dreading a Trump-Biden rematch, but no one feels the anguish quite like a Nikki Haley voter.“She would make a great president, and the alternatives are not appealing,” said Patti Gramling, 72, before voting in the South Carolina Republican primary in February in an upscale suburb of Charleston, S.C. “Biden is too old. And I think Donald Trump is horrible.”With Ms. Haley expected to end her 2024 campaign, a crucial new equation is emerging in the electoral math: Where will her voters — and voters like them in key battlegrounds across the country — go in a general election contest between Mr. Trump and President Biden?“The million-dollar question is, will they vote, will they sit it out — or will they vote for Joe Biden?” former Gov. Jim Hodges, a South Carolina Democrat, said of Ms. Haley’s centrist supporters in the state. “A moderate Republican voter in Charleston is not all that different than a moderate Republican voter in the Milwaukee suburbs.”How Republicans Voted on Super TuesdaySee how Republicans in different states voted in the Super Tuesday presidential primary between Donald Trump and Nikki Haley.In recent interviews with nearly 40 Haley supporters across South Carolina’s Lowcountry, primarily conducted in historically more moderate enclaves of the state, many fell into what pollsters call the “double haters” camp — voters who don’t like either expected nominee. But some of them gave a sense of what her voters could do in November. More

The Conservative government, trailing badly in the polls, proposed the second tax cut in four months.Amid lackluster prospects for economic growth, the British government announced it would cut taxes for workers ahead of a general election this year.Jeremy Hunt, Britain’s top financial official, told lawmakers on Wednesday that he would cut National Insurance, a payroll tax paid by workers and employers that funds state pensions and some benefits, by two percentage points. It would take the rate for about 27 million employees down to 8 percent, and follows a two percentage point cut announced less than four months ago. Together, the cuts would save the average employee about 900 pounds ($1,145) a year, Mr. Hunt said. The rate was also cut for self-employed workers.“We can now help families not just with temporary cost-of-living support but with permanent cuts in taxation,” Mr. Hunt, the chancellor of the Exchequer, said in Parliament. “We do this to give much needed help in challenging times. But also because Conservatives know lower tax means higher growth.”Mr. Hunt also announced a sweep of smaller measures, including freezing taxes on alcohol and fuel, proposals to increase productivity in the public sector, and abolishing the tax advantages for foreign earnings of British residents living abroad.The chancellor has been under political pressure from the governing Conservative Party to lower taxes ahead of the general election, which is expected to take place this year, though a date has not been set yet. The party is substantially lagging the opposition Labour Party in the polls.But Mr. Hunt’s ability to offer sweeteners to voters has been constrained by the fact that the British economy is growing slowly — if at all. Stretched public services need money and there are calls to invest more in infrastructure. The chancellor also has to meet his self-imposed budget rules, which gave him even less fiscal room to maneuver.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Representative Adam Schiff and the former M.L.B. player Steve Garvey will face off in November for a U.S. Senate seat.Voting at the Glendale Express Hotel in Glendale on Tuesday.Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York TimesA number of races from Tuesday’s primary election in California remain too close to call, but the most-watched contest is a done deal.Representative Adam Schiff, the lead prosecutor in Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, and Steve Garvey, a former Major League Baseball player, will advance to the general election in November for a full term in the U.S. Senate seat that Dianne Feinstein held for more than three decades before she died last year.As of early this morning, with just under half of the ballots counted, Schiff, a Democrat, had about 33 percent of the vote and Garvey, a Republican, had 32 percent. Representative Katie Porter, an Orange County Democrat, was running a distant third with about 14 percent of the vote, and Representative Barbara Lee, a progressive Democrat from Oakland, was fourth with 7 percent.The results were effectively the same in the special primary being conducted at the same time to fill the last few weeks of the current Senate term, from Election Day in November until the end of the year. In that contest, which attracted fewer minor candidates, Garvey was running ahead of Schiff, 35 percent to 31 percent, with Porter at 16 percent and Lee at 9 percent.California’s election system pits all candidates against one another in the same primary, regardless of party, and the top two vote-getters advance. So the general election could have been a contest between Schiff and another Democrat, Porter or Lee. That kind of intraparty battle for a Senate seat has happened twice before in California.But this time, Garvey’s name recognition as a former star first baseman for the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Diego Padres helped consolidate Republicans behind his campaign — and so did Schiff’s advertising strategy, as my colleague Shawn Hubler reported.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Parents who enjoy an otherwise close relationship with their 33-year-old daughter feel hurt not to have been introduced to a man she met three months ago and with whom she now lives.Our only child is 33 and unmarried. We have a good relationship with her. She lives 30 minutes away from us, and we see her frequently. She met a man three months ago, and he has now moved in with her. The problem: We would love to meet him and become part of their lives together, but she says she is not ready to introduce us yet. We have tried to set up various opportunities to meet him, but she refuses. She says it’s not him, it’s her. She wants the encounter to be “perfect” and is anxious that it won’t be. I feel hurt! We try to avoid talking about him, but he soon becomes the elephant in the room. She says she’s an adult, and it’s her decision. Should we respect her privacy? She seems happy.PARENTSMy guess here — based on a thousand years of watching parents and children at odds — is that your daughter sets great store by your opinion, and she may feel that you have been critical of her in the past. This doesn’t mean you have a bad relationship, but it may account for her delaying the moment of inevitable judgment when you meet the boyfriend. Or she may be uncertain of the new relationship herself and not want to hear your opinions about it yet.I may be wrong, of course, but even so, the smarter move here would be to reframe your question. Not: “How can I strong-arm an introduction from my daughter?” But instead: “How can I support her choices and happiness?” I recommend trying to make her feel safer. Because at the ripe old age of 33, she doesn’t need your permission to date anyone.So, turn down the heat; there is no elephant here! The next time you see her, say: “Honey, introduce us to your boyfriend whenever you feel comfortable. No pressure!” You may also advance your cause by being upbeat and nonjudgmental about other areas of her life — not that you aren’t already. (Just be careful about unnecessary criticism.)Miguel PorlanThanks for Having Me! Sorry in Advance for the Yelp Review.I was at a small dinner party where the hostess served a first course that I despise: cold cucumber soup. I thought I might gag on it. A friend suggested that the hostess should have offered me something else when the issue became obvious. I didn’t think fast enough to claim a food allergy. I felt bad, but what to do?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Jerome H. Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, said policymakers still expect to lower rates in 2024 — but the timing hinges on data.Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, said on Wednesday that he thinks the central bank will begin to lower borrowing costs in 2024 but that policymakers still needed to gain “greater confidence” that inflation was conquered before making a move.“We believe that our policy rate is likely at its peak for this tightening cycle,” Mr. Powell said in remarks prepared for testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. “If the economy evolves broadly as expected, it will likely be appropriate to begin dialing back policy restraint at some point this year.”The Fed next meets on March 19-20, but few investors expect officials to lower interest rates at that gathering. Markets see the Fed’s June meeting as a more likely candidate for the first rate cut, and are betting that central bankers could lower borrowing costs three or four times by the end of the year.The Fed chair warned against cutting rates too early — before inflation is sufficiently snuffed out — noting that “reducing policy restraint too soon or too much could result in a reversal of progress we have seen in inflation and ultimately require even tighter policy.”He also acknowledged that there could be risks to waiting too long, adding that “reducing policy restraint too late or too little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment.”Mr. Powell and his colleagues are trying to strike a delicate balance as they figure out their next policy steps. Policymakers raised interest rates rapidly between March 2022 and July 2023, lifting them to a range of 5.25 to 5.5 percent, where they currently sit. That has made mortgages, business loans and other types of borrowing more expensive, helping to tap the brakes on an economy that otherwise retains substantial momentum.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are set to grill Jay Powell, the Fed chair, about interest rates and the economy, topics that are top of mind for voters and investors alike.Jay Powell, the Fed chair, will begin two days of testimony on Capitol Hill with inflation a hot topic for voters and markets.Richard Drew/Associated PressInflationary pressure and presidential politics President Biden and Donald Trump dominated Super Tuesday, setting the stage for a rematch of the 2020 election. One topic that’s high on the agenda for voters: Inflation.That means all eyes will be on Jay Powell, as the Fed chair makes a two-day appearance on Capitol Hill this week, for any sign of what’s next on rate cuts.Inflation is kryptonite for any politician, and especially for Biden. Trump again pounded the president on high prices, an issue that’s lifting the Republican in polls even as a range of indicators show that the economy is performing strongly.(The White House is putting the blame on corporations that “try to rip off Americans.” Watch for that theme at Thursday’s State of the Union address.)Powell will appear before the House on Wednesday and before the Senate on Thursday. Data published in recent weeks shows that jobs are plentiful, wages are rising and consumers are still spending. Analysts have upgraded their economic forecasts, raising hopes that a soft landing is likely.But market pros see warning signs. Concerns remain that inflation will stick above the Fed’s 2 percent target, forcing the central bank to put the brakes on interest rate cuts that traders expect to begin in June. The futures market on Wednesday is forecasting three to four cuts this year — down from nearly seven just weeks ago — and the more cautious sentiment has helped drag the S&P 500 lower this week.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More