Elections

Donald Trump has attacked the President Biden’s climate and energy policies with gusto, but many of his criticisms are simply untrue.As the South Carolina Republican primary approaches, former President Donald J. Trump, the front-runner, is increasingly hammering President Biden with inaccurate statements on energy issues.Mr. Trump — who has called climate change a “hoax,” “nonexistent” and “created by the Chinese” — rolled back more than 100 climate and environmental protections during his administration, while promoting the development of fossil fuels. He has claimed, falsely, that windmills cause cancer, that energy efficient buildings have no windows and that solar rooftops leave older people without air-conditioning in the summer.This month, Mr. Trump has repeated many of his false claims, sometimes with new twists. Here is a closer look at three of Mr. Trump’s recent climate and energy assertions.WHAT WAS SAID:“I will end Joe Biden’s war on American energy, cancel his ban on exporting American natural gas, beautiful, clean natural gas.”— Donald J. Trump at an event in North Charleston, S.C. on Feb. 14This is false. In January, President Biden announced that he would temporarily pause approvals for permits for new liquefied natural gas export terminals until the Department of Energy conducts a study on the economic, security and climate implications of increased exports. This is not a ban; the United States continues to export more natural gas than any other nation. Even with the pause in approving new terminals, the country is still on track to nearly double its export capacity by 2027 because of projects already permitted and under construction.Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk testified to Congress that the review would take “months,” not years, to complete.WHAT WAS SAID:“We are a nation whose leaders are demanding all electric cars, despite the fact that they don’t go far. They cost too much, and whose batteries are produced in China with materials only available in China when an unlimited amount of gasoline is available inexpensively in the United States, but not available in China.”— Donald J. Trump at an event in Conway, S.C., on Feb. 10This is misleading. There’s a lot here. But let’s start with this: No administration can mandate how many cars sold in the United States must be all-electric.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

These movies go beyond examining a relationship to reveal the glories, discontents and more about romance.Romance and love are oddly tricky to capture authentically in a documentary. So much of what fosters real connection — as opposed to, say, “Bachelor”-style performative love — happens away from cameras. Plus, every love story is a bit of an experiment, and the observer effect applies: being filmed tends to change the results.But you can capture something about romance in a documentary. I don’t mean the kind that ends in disaster and a true crime documentary. I mean the movies that reveal something to us about the highs and lows, the glories and discontents, and above all something ineffable about love itself, transcending just romance.You probably have your own favorites, and your list might include one of mine: “Fire of Love” (2022, Disney+), Sara Dosa’s swooner about the volcanologists Katia and Maurice Krafft. United in love of one another and, perhaps just as much, love of volcanoes, they perished together in a volcanic explosion in 1991. Their shared interest was a fundamental part of their lives, which made me think of several documentaries about artistic couples, like Daniel Hymanson’s heartbreaking “So Late So Soon” (2021, rent on major platforms) and Zachary Heinzerling’s acclaimed “Cutie and the Boxer” (2013, Vudu), both of which delve into complex relationships that weave together creativity and partnership.Other documentaries tap into the power of love to sustain us across tragedy and hardship. I think of this year’s Oscar-nominated “The Eternal Memory” (Paramount+), directed by Maite Alberdi, about a couple navigating one partner’s deteriorating memory. Or Jonas Poher Rasmussen’s “Flee” (2021, Hulu), in which, on the verge of marriage, an Afghan refugee tells his story of traumatic displacement; his soon-to-be husband has become the only place of safety he can find, but he’s still reticent to trust any home at all. Or there’s “Time” (2020, Prime Video), Garrett Bradley’s gutting film about Fox Rich’s fight to free her husband, Rob, from a 60-year prison sentence. (This was a co-production of The New York Times.)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

At least two people were killed and four others wounded when a gunman opened fire at a bustling intersection in central Israel on Friday afternoon, the Israeli authorities said.Avi Bitton, an Israeli police commander, said that the attack took place at a bus stop near the town of B’nei Re’em at around 12:30 p.m. The gunman was shot by an armed civilian on the scene and appeared to have acted alone, the Israeli police said, calling it an act of terrorism.Six victims of the attack were taken to hospitals in central Israel where two of them were pronounced dead, according to the Israeli emergency service Magen David Adom.The Israeli authorities did not formally identify the attacker or comment on his condition. The Israeli news media reported that the gunman was a Palestinian from East Jerusalem.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel condemned the attack and extended his condolences to the victims.“This attack reminds us that the entire country is on the front line,” he said in a statement.There was no immediate claim of responsibility for Friday’s shooting.Israel has been on high alert since the Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7. In late November, at least three people were killed when Palestinian gunmen who the Israeli authorities said were affiliated with Hamas’s armed wing opened fire at a Jerusalem bus stop.On Friday, Hamas praised the shooting near B’nei Re’em and called it “a natural response” to the war that Israel’s military is waging against the armed group in Gaza.Johnatan Reiss More

Aleksei A. Navalny, an anticorruption activist who for more than a decade led the political opposition in President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia, died Friday in a prison inside the Arctic Circle, according to the Russian authorities. His death was announced by Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service, which said that Mr. Navalny, 47, lost consciousness on Friday after taking a walk in the prison where he was moved late last year. He was last seen on Thursday, when he had appeared in a court hearing via video link, smiling behind the bars of a cell and making jokes.Footage from the Russian news outlet SOTA shows Aleksei Navalny laughing and making jokes behind bars during his last court appearance via video link.SOTAVISION, via ReutersLeonid Volkov, Navalny’s longtime chief of staff, said he was not yet ready to accept the news that Mr. Navalny was dead. “We have no reason to believe state propaganda,” Volkov wrote on the social platform X. “If this is true, then it’s not ‘Navalny died,’ but ‘Putin killed Navalny,’ and only that. But I don’t trust them one penny.”Mr. Navalny had been serving multiple sentences that would most likely have kept him in prison until at least 2031 on charges that his supporters say were largely fabricated in an effort to muzzle him. Despite increasingly harsh conditions, including repeated stints in solitary confinement, he maintained a presence on social media, while members of his team continued to publish investigations into Russia’s corrupt elite from exile.Mr. Navalny was given a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence in February 2021 after returning to Russia from Germany, where he had been recovering from being poisoned with a nerve agent the previous August. In March 2022, he received a nine-year sentence for embezzlement and fraud in a trial that international observers denounced as “politically motivated” and a “sham.” And in August 2023, he was sentenced to 19 years in prison for “extremism.”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

State Senator Scott Wiener hopes to spur redevelopment in the struggling downtown core by eliminating a major environmental hurdle.Not long ago, it would have sounded preposterous: A San Francisco Democrat asking to peel back California’s treasured environmental protections in the heart of the city.It would have been like painting the Golden Gate Bridge gray or cheering on the Los Angeles Dodgers. It just would not have flown.But as California grows more desperate for housing and San Francisco struggles to revive its city core, State Senator Scott Wiener says one thing must go: environmental review.Mr. Wiener on Friday will propose one of the broadest rollbacks of the once-vaunted California Environmental Quality Act by asking the state legislature to allow most projects in downtown San Francisco to bypass the law for the next decade.Empty buildings could more easily be demolished to build theaters, museums or college campuses, Mr. Wiener said. Office towers could more readily be converted to a wide variety of housing. The withering mall on Market Street could more quickly become something else — like the soccer stadium that Mayor London Breed has envisioned.“We know we need to make downtown viable,” Ms. Breed, a sponsor of the bill, said. “We can’t let process get in the way.”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

But there are caveats to moving the money into Roth I.R.A.s, and the government still has to issue guidelines about the option.Starting this year, some of the money in 529 college savings accounts can be used for retirement if it’s not needed for education.New rules under the federal law known as Secure 2.0 allow up to $35,000 in a 529 account to be rolled over to a Roth individual retirement account for the beneficiary of the 529 account if certain conditions are met.State-sponsored 529 accounts, named for a section of the tax code, are used to pay for education expenses — mainly college costs. Money deposited in the accounts grows tax free and can be withdrawn tax free to pay for eligible expenses like tuition, housing, food and books.The new Roth option is aimed at parents who may be reluctant to save in a 529 because they worry about having to pay income taxes and a penalty if for some reason the funds aren’t needed for college and they want to withdraw the money.“It is parents’ No. 1 objection to opening a 529,” said Vivian Tsai, chair emeritus of the College Savings Foundation, a group that includes big financial firms that run the state college savings programs. “The barrier is really psychological.” (Ms. Tsai is also senior director and head of relationship management for the education savings unit at TIAA, a large investment firm that manages 529 plans in seven states.)Many families struggle to save for college, and accumulating “too much” money is usually not a problem. “The vast majority of account holders do not save enough,” Ms. Tsai said.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

Most active fund managers beat the market at the start of the year. But history suggests that they’re not likely to keep doing so for long.Over the last 20 years, stock pickers have had a dismal record. Most haven’t come close to beating the overall stock market.But occasionally, there are exceptions. In some periods, stock pickers rule, and the start of this year was one of those times.In fact, it was the best January for actively managed stock mutual funds since Bank of America began compiling data in 1991. It wasn’t just that they turned in handsome returns for investors. The entire stock market did that. The S&P 500 and other stock indexes set records during the month.It was that active stock funds did even better, though not by much, beating various market indexes by less than a percentage point, on average. Still, it was the best single month for these funds — in which managers buy and sell individual stocks whenever they choose to do so — since 2007. That happened to be the best calendar year for stock pickers in decades.There’s no way of knowing how long this streak of outperformance will go on, or why, exactly, it has existed in the first place. But it’s quite possible that it will continue for the balance of the year, and that buying the average actively managed fund will look like a brilliant move. Index funds that mirror the entire market could well lag behind.That said, I think the active fund managers are unlikely to prevail over the long run. The reason is that history shows it’s just too hard to beat the market.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

Union members reached a tentative deal with the California State University system after mounting a strike last month that was the largest by university professors in U.S. history.California State University faculty members and other employees on strike last month in Los Angeles.Frederic J. Brown/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe California State University system and the union representing thousands of professors and lecturers reached a tentative agreement last month to raise wages, ending the largest strike by university faculty members in U.S. history a few hours after it had begun. A ratification vote is being conducted this week.Some faculty members voiced their displeasure with the deal soon after it was reached, saying that the leaders of the union, the California Faculty Association, which represents 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches, could have secured better terms if they had not settled so quickly.If it is ratified, the contract agreement would immediately increase salaries for all faculty members by 5 percent, retroactively to July 1, 2023, with another 5 percent raise scheduled for July 1, 2024, if the state does not cut funding for the university system. The salary floor for the lowest-paid faculty members would immediately rise by $3,000 a year, and paid parental leave would grow to 10 weeks from six.A simple majority of votes is required to approve the contract. Voting began Monday and runs through Sunday; results are expected next week.Union members from Bay Area campuses held a rally last month and formed an enormous “No” on the San Francisco State University campus to trumpet their disapproval.“My belief is that we can get something better,” said Mark Allan Davis, a tenured professor of Africana studies at San Francisco State. He told me that he planned to vote against the contract.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