Environment

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Clothes, cookware, floss: Colorado law to ban everyday products with PFAS

      by

      A new law coming into effect in Colorado in July is banning everyday products that intentionally contain toxic “forever chemicals”, including clothes, cookware, menstruation products, dental floss and ski wax – unless they can be made safer.Under the legislation, which takes effect on 1 July, many products using per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances – or PFAS chemicals linked to cancer risk, lower fertility and developmental delays – will be prohibited starting in 2026.By 2028, Colorado will also ban the sale of all PFAS-treated clothes, backpacks and waterproof outdoor apparel. The law will also require companies selling PFAS-coated clothing to attach disclosure labels.The initial draft of state senate bill 81, introduced in 2022, included a full ban on PFAS beginning in 2032. But that measure was written out after facing opposition.Colorado has already passed a measure requiring companies to phase out PFAS in carpets, furniture, cosmetics, juvenile products, some food packaging and those used in oil and gas production.The incoming law’s diluted version illustrates the challenges lawmakers have in regulating chemicals that are used to make products waterproof, nonstick or resistant to staining. Manufacturers say the products, at best, will take time to make with a safer replacement – or at worst, are not yet possible to get made in such fashion.The American Chemistry Council said the bill before its dilution would have created “severe disruption for Coloradoans” as well as undercut “the compromises that were reached in 2022 PFAS legislation”. The council said the original bill would have created “broad, sweeping bans before that law [had] even been implemented”.But the trade group later said that it appreciated “the efforts of Colorado lawmakers to take a more focused approach to the issue”, adding: “Policymakers at both the state and federal levels seem to be recognizing that it is not scientifically accurate to group all fluoro chemistry together and that there are critical, safe uses of this chemistry.”Gretchen Salter – an adviser with Safer States, a group that says Colorado is one of 28 states to adopt policies on PFAS – told the Denver Post in March: “The more we look for PFAS, the more we find. That makes regulating PFAS really tricky because it is in so many things.”But the new law does not account for PFAS that are already in the environment. Colorado recently found that 29 of more than 2,000 water treatment facilities in the state do not meet new federal limits on PFAS levels of four parts per trillion.The ubiquity of “forever chemicals” was illustrated recently by a study that found microplastics in penises for the first time, raising questions about a potential role in erectile dysfunction. The revelation comes after the pollutants were recently found in every human placenta tested in a study, leaving the researchers worried about the potential health impacts on developing foetuses.In Colorado, state senator Lisa Cutter, one of the sponsors of the new law there, has said she still wants a complete ban on PFAS but acknowledges the problems. “As much as I want PFAS to go away forever and forever, there are going to be some difficult pivots,” she told the outlet.They include balancing the potential cost to consumers in making products PFAS-free. Cutter told CBS News that it was “really hard” challenging lobbying groups that “spent a lot of money ensuring that these chemicals can continue being put into our products and make profits”.Cutter said had been accused of stifling innovation and industry. She said she believed companies could be successful while also looking out for the communities they serve.“Certainly, there are cases where it’s not plausible right away to gravitate away from them, but we need to be moving in that direction,” Cutter said. “Our community shouldn’t have to pay the price for their health.” More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      A Global Push Fixed the Ozone Hole. Satellites Could Threaten It.

      by

      A sharp increase in hardware orbiting Earth could mean more harmful metals lingering in the atmosphere, according to a new study.Low-Earth orbit, a layer of superhighway that wraps around Earth’s thermosphere some 200 to 600 miles above our heads, is newly congested.Yet no one knows how the vast increase in satellites orbiting Earth will affect the atmosphere, and therefore life down below. With the rush to send up more and more satellites, a new study proposes that the hole in the ozone layer, a problem scientists thought they had solved decades ago, could make a comeback.“Up until a few years ago, this was not a research area at all,” Martin Ross, an atmospheric scientist at Aerospace Corporation, said of the study, which looked at how a potential increase in man-made metal particles could eat away at Earth’s protective layer.Ever since Sputnik, the first man-made space satellite, was launched in 1957, scientists have thought that when satellites re-enter our atmosphere at the end of their lives, their vaporization has little impact. But new satellites — much more advanced, but also smaller, cheaper and more disposable than previous satellites — have a turnover that resembles fast fashion, said the lead author of the study, José Pedro Ferreira, a doctoral candidate in astronautical engineering at the University of Southern California.Almost 20 percent of all satellites ever launched have re-entered Earth’s atmosphere in the last half-decade, burning up in superfast, superhot blazes.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

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Wisconsin Republicans block PFAS cleanup until polluters are granted immunity

      by

      Wisconsin Republicans are withholding $125m designated for cleanup of widespread PFAS contamination in drinking water and have said they will only release the funds in exchange for immunity for polluters.The move is part of a broader effort by Republicans in the state to steal power from the Democratic governor, Tony Evers, the funding’s supporters say, alleging such “political games” are putting residents’ health at risk.“People really feel like they’re being held hostage,” said Lee Donahue, mayor of Campbell, which is part of the La Crosse metropolitan area and has drinking water contaminated with astronomical levels of PFAS. “It’s ridiculous, and some would argue that it’s criminal, that they are withholding money from communities in dire need of clean drinking water.”PFAS are a class of chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products water-, stain- and heat-resistant. They are called “forever chemicals” because they don’t naturally break down, and they persist in the environment and accumulate in humans’ and animals’ bodies. The compounds are linked to cancer, decreased immunity, thyroid problems, birth defects, kidney disease, liver problems and a range of other serious illnesses.The Environmental Protection Agency this year established limits for several of the most common PFAS, including levels at four parts per trillion (ppt) for the most dangerous. PFAS are contaminating water for more than 350,000 Wisconsin public water system users, often at levels far exceeding the limits. Many more private wells have contaminated water. In Madison, the state capital, levels in water sources were found as high as 180,000ppt.In Campbell, where more than 500 wells have tested positive for PFAS at levels up to thousands of times above federal limits, many suspect high rates of cancer and other serious ailments that have plagued the town’s residents stem from the dangerous chemicals.In the face of the crisis, bipartisan budget legislation that created the $125m pot of money for cleanup was approved by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by the governor in mid-2023. The funds are supposed to go to the Wisconsin department of natural resources.Previously, money approved during budgeting processes was released to the state agency. Since Evers ousted the Republican Scott Walker in 2018, the GOP-controlled legislature has claimed the joint finance committee (JFC) it controls can add stipulations to how the money is spent, or refuse to release money approved in the budget.That gives Republican leadership more control over how Evers’s administration spends and governs, and the GOP is using that legal theory to withhold the PFAS-cleanup funding.“It is definitely a power grab,” said Erik Kanter, president of Clean Wisconsin, which is lobbying on PFAS issues.Meanwhile, Republicans separately floated a piece of legislation that provided a framework for how the $125m would be spent on PFAS cleanup, but it included what Kanter called a “poison pill”: it exempted PFAS polluters from the state’s spill laws that are designed to hold industry accountable for the contamination it causes.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEvers vetoed the legislation because of the spill law exemption. The department of natural resources then proposed to GOP legislators that it would spend the $125m as outlined in the Republican legislation, but industry would not be exempt from the spill laws. The legislature has so far rejected that proposal, and it is now on break for the rest of 2024.“At this point in time it looks like the JFC is not going to release those dollars,” Kanter said. “That money has been sitting there for almost a year and nobody has gotten any help because of political games in the legislature.”The Evers administration announced in late May that it would sue the committee for withholding the funds and make a constitutional separation of powers claim. It charges the JFC’s withholding is “an unconstitutional legislative veto”. Republican leadership did not immediately return a request for comment.In the meantime, communities such as La Crosse continue to struggle, Donahue said. The city and county have so far spent nearly $1m trying to determine the feasibility of tapping into a neighboring aquifer and continue to monitor it to ensure the PFAS plume contaminating their drinking water source does not migrate.“What do we do?” Donahue asked. “We can’t afford to wait another year for help.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Drill, baby, drill … if you haven’t passed out from heatstroke

      by

      Hello!More than a dozen Donald Trump supporters collapsed at his rallies amid record high temperatures in the south-west in recent days – presumably missing Trump’s promise at the gatherings to gut Biden’s environmental policies and “drill, baby, drill”. So what would a Trump administration mean for those who hope the world can limit global heating and the climate crisis? We’ll take a look after the headlines.Here’s what you need to know …1. Hunter Biden convicted of gun chargesHunter Biden, the president’s son who has become a bete noire for Republicans, was found guilty of three charges relating to buying a gun while being a user of crack cocaine. Rightwing politicians and media have accused Hunter and his father of various corrupt acts, but a Republican-led House committee spent a year investigating the pair and failed to come up with any corruption charges. The judge will now decide on Hunter Biden’s punishment: the crimes are punishable by up to 25 years in prison, although a lesser sentence is expected.2. Trump awaits his fateTrump was interviewed by probation officers on Monday, ahead of his sentencing in July. The probation interview typically serves to prepare a report on a convicted individual, which will then be considered by the judge when issuing sentence – which in this case could, in theory, include a prison sentence. Trump was convicted of 34 felony crimes related to him falsifying business records to cover up hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, the adult film actor who claims they had an affair. He is due to be sentenced on 11 July.3. A warning for Republicans?Ohio’s sixth district went to Trump by 29 points in 2020 – but in a special election on Tuesday night, Republican candidate Michael Rulli triumphed by just nine points, which could suggest a lack of enthusiasm among voters. Elsewhere, Trump-endorsed candidates won primary elections in Nevada and South Carolina, including Nancy Mace, a congresswoman involved in the effort to remove Kevin McCarthy as House speaker: Mace had faced a vengeance-led challenge from a McCarthy-backed candidate, but won comfortably.Trump supporters drop in extreme heat waiting for their climate-denying kingpinView image in fullscreenLast week Trump and his campaign managed to send 17 supporters to the hospital after people wilted in 100F heat at his rallies in Arizona and Nevada. At the Phoenix event, Trumpers were forced to line up outside a megachurch venue for hours in the hot sun, and the stricken received only a brief mention from their leader, with Trump suggesting that people will not “be so thrilled” about waiting outside.The south-west is being blasted by record-breaking heat, with temperatures of 45C (113F) in the last week. Half of Arizona and Nevada were under heat warnings over the weekend, and given that extreme heat is accepted to be a consequence of the climate emergency, we might have expected a presidential candidate to talk up environmental efforts to limit global heating.Nah.“[Biden has] got windmills all over the place, every time you see a windmill going up you need tremendous subsidy, now it kills your birds, it ruins your landscape, ruins your value, if you have a house and you can see a windmill your house is worth half,” Trump told the crowd in Phoenix.He added: “We’re going to drill, baby, drill.”My colleagues Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor, who cover the environment, have previously reported on the Trump team’s plans to increase fossil fuel production in “a frenzy” of oil and gas drilling, while sidelining government climate scientists. In Phoenix, Trump repeated his pledge to scrap key parts of Biden’s climate plans, including rebates for people who buy electric vehicles. And just last week it emerged that Trump had promised lucrative tax favors to fossil fuel executives if they gave his campaign $1bn.Biden, for his campaign, has touted the Inflation Reduction Act, which invested a record $278bn in moving towards renewable energy sources, and in March claimed: “I’m taking the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world.”But Oliver and Nina Lakhani also reported that Biden is weakening some of his previous climate plans – delaying a regulation to reduce emissions from gas power plans, and relaxing rules about how much carbon cars can emit.Both sides, then, could be doing more. But it’s worth taking into account one analysis that found a second Trump presidency could lead to an additional 4bn tons of US emissions by 2030.By the way: Trump has never been a fan of windfarms, and in May he said would scrap offshore wind projects on “day one” of his presidency. Part of Trump’s reasoning seems to be his incorrect belief that wind turbines cause cancer, while he has previously claimed – also wrongly – that wind turbines lead to whale deaths by making them “batty”.Of course, this wasn’t the first time Trump has expressed an interest in aquatic life, because …Shark!View image in fullscreen… the presidential hopeful has a fascination with, and loathing of, sharks. Trump has previously tweeted that he ranks sharks alongside the “losers and haters of the world”, while Stormy Daniels, the porn star whose silence Trump bought (and was convicted of fudging business accounts to pay for), has said Trump is “obsessed with sharks”. Daniels said he went as far to say: “I hope all the sharks die.”Clearly sharks were still on Trump’s mind this week. In Vegas, he went on a typically meandering monologue, musing whether it would be better to stay on board a sinking electric boat or to jump into shark-infested waters.“You know what I’d do if there was a shark, or you get electrocuted?” Trump asked the crowd. “I’d take electrocution every single time.” Please, please watch the full video.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWho had the worst week: Jesus ChristView image in fullscreenRiding high after his Easter resurrection, things took a turn for the worse for the Son of God this week when he was compared – and not for the first time – to Donald Trump.“The Democrats and the fake news media want to constantly talk about ‘President Trump is a convicted felon’,” Marjorie Taylor Greene told a crowd. “Well, you want to know something? The man that I worship is also a convicted felon. And he was murdered on a Roman cross.”Trump has previously encouraged the comparison to Jesus.Out and about: El PasoView image in fullscreen“A gut punch.” “Political theater.” “Nonsensical.”That was the reaction from advocates in El Paso the day after Joe Biden announced a clampdown on asylum. Many worried about how the order would affect migrants fleeing violence, poverty and persecution in their home countries.I spoke with them as part of an incredibly well-timed immigration reporting workshop in El Paso, a historically liberal city in west Texas, where Spanish and English are spoken interchangeably and the border is a line many cross daily for work, school or to grab a bite.Many were skeptical. Juan Acereto Cervera, an adviser to the mayor of Juárez, the Mexican city across the border from El Paso, said the policy would do little to stop people from seeking a better life elsewhere.“Nothing’s going to stop the migration, nothing,” he said.That is the conundrum Biden faces as he tries to address an issue that poses both a serious policy challenge and a serious political threat to his re-election campaign.– Lauren Gambino, political correspondent, El Paso, TexasBiggest lie: Charlie KirkView image in fullscreenJoe Biden’s acceptance of the legal process in his son Hunter’s criminal case, and a promise that he wouldn’t pardon him, stands in contrast to how Trump reacted after his conviction of 34 felonies – which the former president has frequently and falsely claimed was orchestrated by the Biden administration.It also provides an example against the Republican-pushed claim that the elder Biden can, and does, rig the courts against Trump. Wouldn’t he have saved his own son?Of course not, say Trump allies, who have started to push a new conspiracy about the Hunter Biden conviction.“This is a fake trial trying to make the justice system appear ‘balanced’,” said Charlie Kirk, the leader of conservative youth group Turning Point USA. “Don’t fall for it.” More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Chemical Makers Sue Over Rule to Rid Water of ‘Forever Chemicals’

      by

      Industry groups said the E.P.A. had exceeded its authority in requiring the drinking-water cleanup. The chemicals, known as PFAS, are linked to cancer and health risks.Chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks.The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans.The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard, put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses.The E.P.A.’s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had “significantly underestimated the costs” of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said.PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people’s blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country.Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A.At a public address ahead of the filing on Monday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality, defended the Biden administration’s stringent standards. “Everyone should be able to turn on the tap and know that the glass of water they fill is safe to drink,” she said.At the same event, E.P.A. officials said the new standard was based on the best available science and was designed so that it “would be robust enough to withstand litigation.”The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. States and local governments have successfully sued some manufacturers of PFAS for contaminating drinking water supplies,President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law, passed in 2021, sets aside $9 billion to help communities address PFAS contamination. The E.P.A. said $1 billion of that money would be set aside to help states with initial testing and treatment. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump vows to ‘drill, baby, drill’ despite rally attendees wilting in extreme heat

      by

      Dozens of Donald Trump’s supporters have been requiring medical help at his rallies in the scorching US south-west but it seems lost on him that his plans to reverse climate policies and “drill, baby, drill” for fossil fuels will only worsen extreme weather, campaigners say.A total of 24 people at a Trump rally in Las Vegas on Sunday required medical attention due to the heat, according to the Clark county fire department, with six taken to hospital for treatment. The hospitalizations come after a further 11 people needed to be admitted to hospital for heat exhaustion as they waited for Trump to speak at a rally in Phoenix on Thursday.Trump himself noted the severe heat during his speech on Sunday, with the Las Vegas rally starting around noon when the temperature was about 90F (32C) and climbed to around 102F (38C). The rally was held in a park with little shade, although organizers provided water and cooling tents, and allowed attendees to hold shading umbrellas.“It’s 110, but it doesn’t feel it to me,” said Trump, who wore a suit jacket and signature red baseball cap. “I’m up here sweating like a dog. They don’t think about me. This is hard work.”Trump then said: “I don’t want anybody going on me. We need every voter. I don’t care about you. I just want your vote. I don’t care.” He later said he was joking about not caring about his own voters and complained the media would criticize him for this.Record-breaking heat enveloped much of the US south-west last week, with temperatures soaring beyond 110F (43C) in areas stretching from California to Arizona. Roughly half of Arizona and Nevada were under an excessive heat alert, even though the official start of summer is still a week away, with Las Vegas hitting 110F on Friday and Phoenix reaching 113F (45C).Scientists have found that heatwaves are moving more slowly and lasting longer due to the climate crisis, which is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies last year concluded that the searing heat experienced in Europe and the US would have been virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused global heating.Trump has vowed to accelerate oil and gas production, already at record levels, in the US, however, repeating the mantra “drill, baby, drill” at rallies. The former president and newly convicted felon aims to undo Joe Biden’s policies aimed at lowering carbon emissions, which he has called “insane”, and has directly sought $1bn in campaign donations from oil and gas executives in order to fulfill this agenda as president.“Donald Trump is openly telling people that he’s only out for himself,” said Alex Glass, a campaigner at Climate Power, a climate advocacy group. “He’s making promises to big oil executives who are fueling the climate crisis while people are passing out at his rallies from very real, very dangerous heatwaves that he says are caused by a hoax.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe dangers of worsening heatwaves did not give pause to Trump’s backers sweltering in Las Vegas, however. “This is a dry heat – this ain’t nothing for Las Vegas people,” said Michael McDonald, Nevada’s Republican party chair, who added that it “symbolizes for the rest of the United States we will walk through hell” to elect Trump.“You know what? It’s worth it,” Camille Lombardi, a 65-year-old retired nurse from Henderson, in suburban Las Vegas, who was seeing Trump in person for the first time, told AP. “Too bad it wasn’t indoors, but that’s OK.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Slap in the face’: outrage after New York governor halts congestion pricing

      by

      An 11th-hour decision to halt a plan to charge a fee for cars entering the heart of New York City has provoked outrage from environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers, potentially scuppering hopes of congestion pricing taking hold in any US city in the near future.New York City was, on 30 June, primed to be the first American city to toll drivers in its traffic-clogged centre, with cars entering Manhattan south of 60th Street set to be charged $15 a day in a plan heralded as a landmark moment in tackling air pollution, helping curb carbon emissions and providing a funding boost for New York’s sprawling yet beleaguered public transit system.Yet on Wednesday, New York’s governor Kathy Hochul said she had come to the “difficult decision that implementing the planned congestion pricing system risks too many unintended consequences”, adding that she had ordered her administration to “indefinitely pause” the system.Hochul cited concerns over the plan’s cost to low-income people who drive into Manhattan at a time of relatively high inflation, although a political calculation has also shaped the governor’s thinking, with suburban districts near to New York City rife with car-owning voters expected to be closely contested in November elections.But supporters of the plan say that New York has missed a crucial opportunity to follow cities around the world, such as London and Stockholm, that have managed to enact congestion pricing in a successful way, with lawsuits now expected to try to force through the scheme.“I’ve been in touch with a lot of urban planners and city officials around the country and I can’t remember these people being as furious as they have been in the last 24 hours,” said David Zipper, a transportation expert and senior fellow at the MIT Mobility Initiative.“New York is America’s biggest city, with the lowest levels of car ownership and highest share of transit ridership – you’d expect to see congestion pricing there first. Los Angeles and Boston were looking to New York, this could’ve spread nationwide, and yet Hochul has decided that low-income residents matter less than a few grumpy suburbanites. It’s deflating and it’s a slap in the face.”The decision is “disastrous to both the city and the broader economic region since the benefits of free-flowing traffic and faster commutes outweigh the costs”, said Rich Geddes, an infrastructure expect at Cornell University.“Some cite concerns about equity associated with congestion pricing, but traffic congestion itself disproportionately hurts the poor, with city buses and other public transportation stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.”Hochul herself was until recently a vocal backer of congestion pricing, which would’ve generated around $1bn a year in revenue destined for upgrades to the accessibility and signaling in New York’s creaking subway system, as well as a fleet of new electric buses.“Fewer cars means safer streets, cleaner air and more room to maneuver for pedestrians and bicyclists,” the governor said just two weeks ago. “In that way, expanded train service or an extra subway stop can actually change the trajectory of someone’s life. That’s powerful. That’s what cities are meant to do.”In December, at a rally in support of congestion pricing, Hochul said, somewhat ironically, that “leaders are called upon to envision a better future, be bold in the implementation and execution, and be undaunted by the opposition”.Transportation is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, although advocates for the plan have largely focused on its more immediate benefits – cutting air pollution that worsens conditions such as asthma in city residents, as well as freeing up space in New York’s famously clotted streets. Around 700,000 vehicles enter the lower half of Manhattan each day, often at a crawl – the average travel speed is now around 7mph, down from around 9mph 15 years ago.Around half of New York City households do not have a car, with 85% of commuters to Manhattan using the city’s network of subways, trains and buses to get there. It’s estimated that only 1.5% of all commuters under the plan would pay the full $15 fee.“We cannot allow a vocal minority of drivers who don’t qualify for exemptions and discounts to dictate our policy decisions,” said Jerry Nadler, a Democrat whose House of Representative district includes central Manhattan.The decision was celebrated by opponents, however, who have pointed to worries over congestion pricing’s financial impact as well as concerns that it would simply displace pollution to places near Manhattan, such as the Bronx.Some of the fiercest criticism of the plan came from neighboring New Jersey, with the state’s governor suing in an attempt to halt it. “Jersey families, their wallets and the environment won big,” said Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat who claimed that commuters from the state would be hardest hit. “As I always say, don’t mess with Jersey.”In New York, lawmakers are now faced with a budget hole in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which each day moves more people by subway alone than passengers on all flights across the entire US but will not be able to undertake planned upgrades if the $1bn not be replaced by a new payroll or business tax.There seems no immediate solution to this. Liz Krueger, a state senator and chair of the senate finance committee, said Hochul’s decision is “reckless” and a “staggering error”. She added: “The legislature certainly will not be rushing to raise taxes on hard-working New York City residents and small businesses.”Zipper said the episode should not feed into a “myth” that Americans have a unique love affair with cars compared to other countries. “It’s more like a forced marriage, which is to our detriment, because it prevents us from seeing how better urban life could be,” he said. “It’s frustrating.” More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican governors gather to attack Biden’s climate agenda

      by

      Republican governors gathered in the fossil-fuel rich state of Louisiana on Monday to rail against the Biden administration’s climate agenda and lay out plans to “unleash American energy”, alarming community advocates and climate experts.“President Biden has done nothing but attack American energy,” said the Louisiana governor Jeff Landry, who led the Wednesday press conference.Landry was joined by by Republican governors from Alaska, Georgia, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Virginia.Hours before the presser, the group sent a joint letter to Biden requesting pro fossil-fuel rules and regulations, including an “end [to] regulatory overreach that unnecessarily restricts domestic energy production”, speeding the approval of federal drilling permits, and ending the pause on new liquefied natural gas export licenses. The letter does not mention that US oil and gas production has soared under President Biden, reaching record levels in 2023.The meeting was held at the Chalmette oil refinery, which a September Environmental Protection Agency report found was out of compliance with federal benzene regulations. In 2020, fires at the facility caused releases of sulphur dioxide, sending foul odors across the region.The event was convened by the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee, which, documents show, has accepted funding from the US’s largest fossil-fuel trade organization, the American Petroleum Institute.The group is the policy arm of the corporate-backed Republican Governors Association (RGA), the main campaign arm tasked with electing Republican executives across the country, which has taken funding from Chevron, Exxon, Koch Industries and other fossil-fuel companies, and also has financial links to Leonard Leo, a key figure behind the conservative effort to move the judiciary to the right.At the press conference, the governors said pro-fossil fuel policies would benefit ordinary Americans. Governor Mike Dunleavy of Alaska said: “What we’re talking about here is … developing an energy policy for the single mom with three kids.”And Louisiana’s Landry said that “if the federal government took its foot off of the neck of American energy, we could absolutely lower the costs of everyday goods” – suggesting boosting oil and gas would lower inflation.But experts say boosting extraction in the US would not depress gas prices because fuel prices are set globally.Fossil fuel expansion would also be a “death sentence” for frontline communities worst affected by toxic industrial pollution, said the environmental justice activist Sharon Lavigne.“He is not for human lives,” Lavigne, who founded the local grassroots organization Rise St James, said of Landry.Since taking office earlier this year, Landry has appointed oil, gas and coal executives to Louisiana’s environmental posts, while targeting the state’s climate taskforce for possible elimination as part of a broader reorganization plan. He has repeatedly claimed to be fighting for “energy independence” – a term he repeated on Monday. Yet the US remains net exporter of oil and gas, meaning the nation already produces more energy than it consumes.Jackson Voss, who works on climate policy for the Louisiana-based environmental group Alliance for Affordable Energy, also noted the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries contribute more to toxic air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions than any other industry in Louisiana. The state also brings in less than 10% of its revenue from oil and gas.“Oil and gas benefits a great deal from Louisiana, through subsidies, through deregulation, through its attorney general challenging national policy,” he said. “But in terms of the benefits of getting back to Louisiana? I’d say they’re fairly minimal.” More