Saturday, June 15, 2024

 

  • Stranded Dogs Rescued Amid Southern Chile Flood

    Local authorities said that rescue efforts in Chile’s Bio Bio region continued on Thursday, June 13, in the wake of widespread flooding.The footage here, released by Emergency Services, shows two dogs being rescued in Arauco, a village affected by a new overflow of the Pichilo River.The Bio Bio region was declared a “disaster zone” following the heavy flooding. Credit: Carabineros Region del Bio Bio via Storyful

    2 days ago
  • 'Working Tirelessly': Rescue Efforts Continue in Wake of Chile Flooding

    Local authorities said that rescue efforts in Chile’s Biobio region continued through Thursday, June 13, in the wake of widespread flooding.The footage here, released by the Chilean National Firefighter Operations System, shows a flooded village and ongoing rescue operations.“Our teams have been working tirelessly since the beginning of the emergencies generated by the frontal system,” they said wrote.The Biobio region was declared a “disaster zone” following the heavy flooding. Credit: Sistema Nacional de Operaciones via Storyful

    2 days ago
Offshore windfarm zone off Illawarra coast given green light in bid to ‘power Australia’s clean energy future’


Jordyn Beazley
THE GUARDIAN AUSTRALIA
Fri, 14 June 2024 

An offshore windfarm zone has been approved for an area 20km off the coast of the Illawarra region south of Sydney.Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian


The federal government has given the green light to an offshore windfarm zone south of Sydney, making it Australia’s fourth such zone to be declared.

Announcing the project in the Illawarra on Saturday, the climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, said the move would bring thousands of new jobs and help “power Australia’s clean energy future”.

The zone will be 20km from the coast and exclude areas significant for the little penguin and for southern right whale migration.


It will cover an offshore area of 1,022 sq km – a one-third reduction from the original proposal – and has the potential to generate 2.9GW, or enough power for 1.8m homes.

“The Illawarra has been an engine room of the Australian economy for generations, and now it’s ready to power Australia’s clean energy future,” Bowen said.

Related: Falling short of ambitious emissions targets isn’t failure – but rushing towards 2C of heating is | Katherine Woodthorpe

“Declaring this offshore wind zone brings the Illawarra a step closer to becoming a major provider of the building blocks of the net zero transformation – green power, green hydrogen and green steel – along with thousands of new jobs.”

Since last year, the proposal for a windfarm zone in the Illawarra and the declaration of a zone in New South Wales’s Hunter region has drawn fierce opposition, with some online groups sharing factually incorrect information about the windfarms.

The Coalition has fanned opposition to the project, despite introducing legislation for the development of an offshore wind industry while in government.

The federal Labor MP for Whitlam, Stephen Jones, said the declaration showed the government’s commitment to supporting local jobs and delivering cheaper and more reliable energy for Illawarra businesses and households.

“We want Australia to be a global renewable energy superpower and regions such as the Illawarra have an important role to play in our nation’s energy transformation,” he said.

The zone does not guarantee an offshore windfarm will go ahead, but is the first of five regulatory stages. The stages will include project-specific feasibility and commercial licences and an environmental assessment under national conservation laws.

If an offshore windfarm does go ahead, the turbines could be up to 268 metres high. The government has said the size, arrangement and number of turbines will be determined after the prospective developer undertakes studies.

The government views creating an offshore windfarm industry in Australia as key to helping the country replace ageing coal-fired power plants, and reaching its plan for the energy grid to be made up of 82% of renewable energy by the end of the decade.

The federal Labor MP for Cunningham, Alison Byrnes, said she was pleased the zone had been amended to start further from the coast and exclude significant environmental areas.

“[It’s a] sensible compromise that reflects the majority of community opinion while helping to achieve our shared goals of more renewable energy, more jobs and fewer emissions,” she said.

“There is now an extensive process of studies and approvals that will be required but this is a positive step for a region that wants to secure its industrial future and power it using clean energy.”

Related: ‘People prefer that we’d never close’: Eraring lifeline a mixed blessing for a coal community in limbo

Many welcomed the development on Saturday.

The Climate Council policy and advocacy head, Jennifer Rayner, said the Illawarra would continue to thrive for generations with affordable and clean energy being produced in the region.

“Offshore wind will be an important part of Australia’s clean energy grid because it provides reliable, steady renewable energy right around the clock,” Rayner said.

“This is one of the important ways we’ll power Australia as our ageing and unreliable coal-fired generators close.

“The federal and state governments need to work together to rapidly break through roadblocks that are holding back the delivery of onshore wind projects already supported by communities and investors.”

The University of Wollongong Energy Futures Network director, Ty Christopher, hailed the offshore wind project as a positive step for the region.

“By working together as a community, sharing our concerns for the environment to codesign a clean energy future for the region, we have the ability to deliver positive outcomes for our oceans, our communities and our local economy,” he said.

– with Australian Associated Press
AMERIKA
Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging federal rules to accommodate abortions for workers

Claire Savage And Alexandra Olson
Fri, June 14, 2024

The Associated Press


CHICAGO (AP) — A lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions lacks standing, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled on Friday.

Republican attorneys general from each state, led by Arkansas and Tennessee, sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April, days after the agency published rules for employers and workers to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 2022 law requiring many employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees.

In addition to more routine pregnancy workplace accommodations like time off for prenatal appointments, more bathroom breaks, or permission to carry snacks, the rules say that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Arkansas argued the regulations go beyond the scope of the 2022 law that passed with bipartisan support.

Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, denied the states' request for a nationwide preliminary injunction on the federal rules, which are scheduled to go into effect on Tuesday.

"The States’ fear of overreach by one branch of the federal government cannot be cured with overreach by another," Friday's ruling says.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement provided by a spokesperson that he is “disappointed in the court’s ruling” and "am considering all legal options and remain confident we will ultimately be successful.”

The other states that joined the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.

The EEOC regulations are also being challenged in another federal lawsuit in Louisiana that is still awaiting a ruling. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, along with other religious groups, have filed a separate lawsuit over the abortion provision in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. That case has been consolidated with a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, which also asks the judge to postpone the enforcement of the EEOC rules pending the outcome of the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union and more than 20 labor and women’s advocacy groups, including A Better Balance, a non-profit that spearheaded the 10-year campaign for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act's passage, filed amicus briefs in both cases arguing the EEOC rules should take effect as scheduled, calling them key to the successful implementation of law.


“Today’s ruling in Tennessee v. EEOC is a victory for millions of pregnant and postpartum workers across the country, because it allows the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations to go into effect next week, providing important clarity about how the law works in practice,” said Dina Bakst of A Better Balance.

In their briefs, the groups cited dozens of examples of pregnant workers who have reached out to advocacy groups or filed lawsuits claiming that employers have continued to deny them accommodations in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

“The relief sought in this case is completely overboard and would have harmed literally millions of people,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, referring to the lawsuit in Arkansas. “The law has been in place for a year and employers are violating it in the most egregious way right and left and clearly need guidance.”

The EEOC in its regulations said it was conforming to decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy anti-discrimination laws include abortion.

Abortion rights defenders have also hailed the protection under the EEOC rules as especially critical in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Women in states with strict abortion restrictions increasingly have to travel far to obtain the procedure, needing time off to do so.

____

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
‘Brazen corruption’: Donald Trump is selling policies for a second term to the highest bidders

Richard Hall and Andrew Feinberg
Thu, June 13, 2024

Donald Trump is increasingly shaping and reversing his policies to match the desires of donors (The Independent/Getty)


Donald Trump is no stranger to a quid pro quo — he was impeached for one, after all. But while campaigning for a second term in the White House, he has gone further than perhaps any other candidate in recent history to shape his policies in return for cash.

Trump is not making these bargains behind closed doors or in smoky back rooms, but at fundraisers and events attended by dozens of influential and extremely wealthy people.

On several occasions he has made explicit offers to reward donors by enacting or dismantling policy on their behalf should he win in November, often reversing his own previously held positions.


Democrat Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House committee on oversight and accountability, accused Trump of treating the presidency “as a for-profit business enterprise and money-making venture”.

He told The Independent that the former president was “brazenly offering to sell out US policy to any corporate and billionaire campaign donors ready to make a deal, including telling Big Oil he will sign their executive orders in exchange for a cool one billion dollars”.

“Donald Trump will literally sell out the future of humanity for another billion dollars,” he added.

Donald and Melania Trump arrive at the Florida home of billionaire investor John Paulson (Getty)

The Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit watchdog that focuses on campaign finance laws, called Trump’s actions “brazen, quid pro quo corruption”.

"It is deeply concerning and problematic to see a presidential candidate solicit millions of dollars from wealthy donors in exchange for promised policies or actions that cater to the donors’ wishes,” said Saurav Ghosh, the group’s director of federal campaign finance reform.

Ghosh told The Independent that “years of deregulatory court decisions” have fostered a culture of big money in US elections that allows Trump “to act with impunity, pushing legal boundaries or even breaking them outright”.

Trump’s bargaining began almost the moment he left office, and has continued to this day.

Here are the policies he is selling to donors.
$1bn from oil companies

At a lavish dinner at Mar-a-Lago in April, the former president gathered with around two dozen executives from the biggest oil companies in the country. His campaign was facing a sizeable cash shortfall against his opponent, President Joe Biden, and he was desperate to make up the difference.

As the executives complained about how the Biden administration’s environmental regulations were hurting their business, Trump made a starkly transactional pitch: raise $1bn to send me back to the White House.

If he won, he said he would immediately reverse dozens of Biden’s environmental rules and policies. The $1bn would be a “deal” for the companies, he added, because of the money they would save from deregulation.

The account of the meeting, first reported by the Washington Post, came from several people who attended. Among them were 20 executives from ExxonMobil, EQT Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for the oil industry. It was reportedly organized by oil billionaire Harold Hamm.

Trump speaks to city officials and employees of Double Eagle Energy on the site of an oil rig in Midland, Texas (Getty)

Specifically, Trump vowed to undo a Biden administration freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports “on the first day” of entering office, one attendee told the Post.

The meeting prompted a furious response from Democrats in the House and Senate.

Representative Raskin wrote to the CEOs of nine of the oil companies that attended the meeting to demand answers, calling it an “unvarnished quid pro quo”.

He said that reports that oil companies are working on potential executive orders for Trump “suggest that certain oil and gas companies, which have a track record of using deceitful tactics to undermine effective climate policy, may have already accepted or facilitated Mr Trump’s explicit corrupt bargain”.
The crypto president

Trump once called Bitcoin “a scam" and argued that it threatened the supremacy of the US dollar. A few years later, in desperate need of campaign cash, he is pitching himself to Silicon Valley as “the crypto president”.

Trump used the term to describe himself at a fundraiser hosted by tech investors David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya at the former’s home in San Francisco this month.

Both Sacks and Palihapitiya have spoken publicly about their investments in crypto, and the event was attended by a number of other notable crypto investors, including executives from Coinbase and twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, who own the crypto company Gemini.

Trump has not always been popular in Silicon Valley. In 2020, the tech industry spent big to make him a one-term president. But this time around, there has been a slight yet notable shift among a certain set of crypto-loving tech billionaires.

Trump once called Bitcoin a scam but is pitching himself to Silicon Valley as a crypto champion (Associated Press)

The crypto industry has spent tens of millions of dollars in an effort to influence the 2024 elections, funneling money to help elect lawmakers who will undo regulatory moves by the Biden administration. The industry hopes that deregulation will lead to huge profits for crypto investors.

Trump’s message appeared to land: He came away with $12m in donations from that fundraiser in San Francisco, and the promise of much more.
TikTok flip-flop

As president, Trump spearheaded efforts to ban TikTok.

“As far as TikTok is concerned, we’re banning them from the United States,” the then-president declared to reporters aboard Air Force One in July 2020.

Indeed, he signed an executive order in his last year in office that would have effectively prohibited the video app, which is majority-owned by a Chinese company. But just this month he joined TikTok himself. And more recently he has spoken out against efforts from both the Biden administration and his own party to regulate it.

On March 7, a House committee advanced a bill that would ban the app if it didn’t divest, even as TikTok users flooded congressional lines with thousands of calls urging lawmakers to back off.

That same day, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “if you get rid of TikTok, (then) Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” referring to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

TikTok supporters protest at the hush-money trial of Donald Trump in New York in April (Associated Press)

“I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last election, doing better,” wrote Trump, echoing a baseless conspiracy theory that social media platforms rigged elections against him. “They are a true Enemy of the People!”

What prompted this dramatic change?

Some clues may be derived from the fact that his words came swiftly after a very public rapprochement with Republican mega-donor Jeff Yass. Yass has a $20bn stake in TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, and is the largest donor in this election campaign cycle.

At the request of Yass, Trump spoke at a conference of the influential right-wing Club for Growth, which the former president previously blasted as “Club for No Growth”.

Yass has given $61m to the group since 2010 but it backed Florida’s Ron DeSantis in the Republican primary against Trump.

At the conference, Trump told donors that he and the organization’s president, David McIntosh, are now “back in love”.
West Bank-rolling

Perhaps the most brazen quid pro quo of Trump’s first term came with a giant donation from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, the Republican Party’s biggest funder over the past decade.

According to New York Times writer Maggie Haberman in her book ‘Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America,’ Adelson made a $20m donation to a political action committee to pressure then-president Trump to adopt the highly controversial decision to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

For his second term, Trump may be poised to sell another controversial policy to the Adelson family.

Sheldon died in 2021, but his wife Miriam has continued his cause and may even surpass Yass to become Trump’s biggest patron in this election cycle.

A New York Magazine profile of Miriam, published last month, suggested that Trump’s support for the Israeli annexation of the West Bank was top of her wish list for a second term.

Miriam Adelson listens as Trump addresses an Israeli American Council summit in Hollywood in 2019 (Associated Press)

The West Bank is considered Palestinian territory and would form the basis of a future Palestinian state. Annexing it would be against international law.

By March, Mrs Adelson had not yet opened her checkbook to fund Trump’s campaign. That month, after he won the Republican primary, he invited her to a Shabbat dinner at Mar-a-Lago, according to the magazine, during which his courting of the donor appears to have begun in earnest. He gave an interview to the Adelson-owned newspaper Israel Hayom in which he described himself as “a very loyal person”.

“I’ve been the best president in history to Israel by a factor of ten because of all the things I do. The embassy, Jerusalem being the capital. Then you have Golan Heights … Nobody even thought that was going to be possible. I did that,” he said.

Ten days after the publication of the New York Magazine profile, Politico reported that Adelson would fund a massive political action committee for Trump’s re-election.
Trickle-up tax cuts

During his presidency, Trump implemented sweeping tax cuts for the top 1 per cent of earners and cut the maximum corporation tax rate from 35 per cent to 21 per cent. His cuts were “one factor helping the fortunes of US billionaires grow by a collective $1 trillion during the pandemic, from March 18 to December 7, 2020,” according to the non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Fairness.

The group said that an analysis of donations to Trump found that he was “enabled with a total of almost a quarter billion dollars in campaign contributions from 134 of America’s billionaires during his short, violent political career”.

Trump is looking to replicate that windfall by promising even more tax cuts for the wealthy, should he win a second term. Several billionaire donors backed off following the riot on January 6, 2021 — they are now finding their way back to Trump, largely thanks to that promise.

Speaking at a donor event at the luxury Pierre Hotel in New York last month, Trump warned the wealthy attendees that taxes would go up unless he wins in November because Biden has vowed to let his tax cuts expire at the end of 2025.

“You’re going to have the biggest tax increase in history,” he said. “So whatever you guys can do, I appreciate it.”

The comments are part of a pattern of offers to wealthy donors from Trump. Donate to me, he says, and I’ll make you richer.

Speaking at Mar-a-Lago in December last year, Trump drew laughs as he described the audience as “rich as hell” before declaring: “We’re gonna give you tax cuts!”

Money has always played a role in presidential campaigns, but the scale and brazenness of Trump’s policy firesale could have a dramatic impact on future elections. If it works, the US government could become even more in thrall to the billionaire class.



AMERIKA

Religious conservatives are coming out hot against IVF. Trump is in trouble

Eric Garcia
Fri, June 14, 2024 at 12:21 p.m. MDT·4 min read

On Wednesday, the day before former president Donald Trump paid a visit to Capitol Hill, Senators Katie Britt of Alabama and Ted Cruz of Texas were on the floor debating their legislation to protect access to IVF.

The two Republicans — one a rising star in the party who is the youngest female Senator, the other a firebrand conservative who is trying to rebrand himself as a consensus builder as Texas gets purpler — proposed the legislation in response to Democrats teeing up their own vote on legislation. Cruz and Britt were trying to make the argument that Republicans like them aren’t against the fertility treatment, all while avoiding voting for a Democrat-led law.

But just as Britt and Cruz were speaking, the Southern Baptist Convention voted on a resolution that denounced IVF. Their denunciation was based on the practice — normal during IVF treatment — of creating multiple embryos that could be potentially used in the future but many of which could be destroyed.

Democrats only began talking about IVF after an Alabama Supreme Court ruling classified frozen embryos as children under state law. That Alabama ruling mentioned Dobbs v Jackson, the US Supreme Court ruling that killed Roe v Wade, which came because of Supreme Court justices that Trump nominated and Cruz voted to confirm.

The whole episode shows how almost two years after the Dobbs case, Republicans have still not figured out how to talk about abortion — and there are few signs they will figure it out soon.

As Inside Washington reported on Thursday, Trump talked with congressional Republicans about abortion when he appeared on Capitol Hill, but only spoke in platitudes. Representative Nancy Mace, a pro-Trump Republican, said that Trump talked about exceptions for rape and incest and the life of the mother, but apart from that was low on specifics.

In April, he gave a mealy-mouthed, meandering statement on Truth Social where he refused to support a national abortion ban and essentially said the issue should be left to states. That infuriated some conservatives.

Similarly, Trump tried doing an abortion two-step earlier this week when he delivered a pre-recorded address to a forum held by the Danbury Institute, which denounces abortion as “child sacrifice.” The former president notably did not use the word “abortion” in his address at the conference. But one of the speakers there, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Dr Albert Mohler, said that IVF had caused “the alienation of reproduction from the conjugal setting” and wanton destruction of babies.

Such open hostility toward IVF from the second-largest denomination in the United States — behind only Roman Catholicism — shows that Democratic attacks about Republicans don’t come out of thin air. They are rooted in explicit opposition from a denomination that counts many Republicans as its congregants.

But Trump has not given Republicans marching orders about how to discuss the issue.

Indeed, Kevin Hern, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, the largest subgroup in the House GOP, told The Independent that Trump did not bring up IVF at all when he spoke to Republicans. That’s a misstep, because party members need some instruction in how to talk about it. The Republican Study Committee has explicitly endorsed the Life Begins at Conception Act, which says that the right to life is guaranteed in the US Constitution “at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization,” which would also endanger IVF. So other Republicans claiming they support the treatment at the same time is extremely confusing.

For the record, the RSC is not a fringe group. House Speaker Mike Johnson led the group at one point and he is a co-sponsor of the Life Begins at Conception Act.

Republicans still find themselves lost at sea when it comes to talking about IVF or abortion rights. This gives Democrats an opening even in states where they have not been competitive in a long time. In Florida, the state supreme court allowed for a six-week abortion ban to go into effect — but also allowed for a ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution to move forward. Democrats hope this can help them knock off Senator Rick Scott, who has never lost a race in Florida since he ran for governor but failed to flip a single seat as National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman last cycle, largely in response to Dobbs.

Scott, a self-funded businessman and an ally of Trump, announced a seven-figure ad buy talking about his support for IVF and the fact his daughter is undergoing IVF treatments.

The ad announcement came after he voted against the legislation to protect IVF on Thursday.


Senator runs campaign ad about his daughter’s IVF — 24 hours after voting against it

SHAMELESS

Eric Garcia
Fri, June 14, 2024 

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) has touted his support for IVF despite voting against legislation that would have protected access to it. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images) (Getty Images)

A Republican Senator has spent seven figures on a campaign ad touting his support for in vitro fertilization — despite the fact that on Thursday, he voted against legislation that would have protected access to treatments.

Senator Rick Scott of Florida is running for re-election in Florida. He faces a somewhat competitive race against former Democratic congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell.

On Friday, he announced an ad touting his support and his personal connection to IVF. In the ad, he notes how he is a grandfather of seven grandchildren.

“But sometimes families need help,” he said. “Millions of babies have come into this world through IVF, in vitro fertilization. In fact, our youngest daughter is receiving IVF treatments right now hoping to expand her family.”

Each of my 7 grandkids is a precious gift from God. But sometimes families need help.

You can count on this grandpa to always protect IVF.

Watch my latest campaign ad👇 pic.twitter.com/UEf5ByrFeo

— Rick Scott (@ScottforFlorida) June 14, 2024

The ad is the Scott campaign’s second as part of a seven-figure statewide ad buy, according to the Scott campaign.

But Scott, along with almost every other Republican voted to block the passage of the Right to IVF Act, Democrats’ legislation to protect access to the fertility procedure. Only two Republican senators — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — joined the Democrats to vote on the bill.

Scott and the 48 other Republican senators signed a letter saying they supported IVF and criticized Democrats, who they said are fearmongering about IVF.

“Senate Democrats have embraced the Summer of Scare Tactics — a partisan campaign of false fearmongering to mislead and confuse the American people,” the letter read. “In vitro fertilization is legal and available in every state across our nation. We strongly support continued nationwide access to IVF, which has allowed millions of aspiring parents to start and grow their families.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has staged a series of votes on legislation on everything from protecting access to contraception to access to IVF. Scott told The Independent last week that Schumer did so for campaign purposes and that his efforts at legislation “have no chance of passing”.

Senators Katie Britt of Alabama and Ted Cruz of Texas had proposed their own legislation on IVF, which Democrats opposed as insufficient.

“I think what you see is Democrats continuing to fearmonger on this very issue,” Britt told The Independent.

The vote comes after Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are classified as children, which led to three of the largest IVF centers in the state pausing coverage. This was seen as a result of the overturn of Roe v Wade. The end of federal abortion rights led many to worry that access to contraception and to fertility treatments could be impacted, as they have been in Alabama.

Katie Hawkinson contributed to reporting



Couples ask judge to find Alabama law that provides legal immunity to IVF providers unconstitutional

Associated Press
Fri, June 14, 2024

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Couples whose lawsuits against fertility providers led an Alabama court to rule that frozen embryos could be considered children have asked a judge to toss out a new state law that provides legal immunity to in vitro fertilization providers.

The couples asked the judge to declare that the law — which was hastily approved by state lawmakers to protect IVF services in the state — as unconstitutional. It is the latest development in the legal saga that drew international attention and sparked concerns over the availability of IVF.

Three couples had filed wrongful death lawsuits against a fertility clinic and hospital over the accidental destruction of their frozen embryos when someone opened the storage container. The Alabama Supreme Court in February ruled the the couples could pursue lawsuits for the death of their “extrauterine children." That led three large fertility clinics to cease services because of liability concerns raised by the ruling treating the embryos the same as a child or gestating fetus under the wrongful death statute. Facing public pressure to get IVF services restarted in the state, lawmakers approved lawsuit protections for clinics. Clinics reopened soon after its approval.

The new statute, which took effect immediately, shields providers from prosecution and civil lawsuits “for the damage to or death of an embryo” during IVF services. Civil lawsuits could be pursued against manufacturers of IVF-related goods, such as the nutrient-rich solutions used to grow embryos, but damages would be capped to “the price paid for the impacted in vitro cycle.”

The couples asked the judge to declare the new immunity law unconstitutional. They said it violates the Alabama Constitution which says it is state policy to recognize the “rights of unborn children, including the right to life." They also argued the new law violates their due process and equal protection rights.

“Bottom line: IVF healthcare professionals should bear liability for medical negligence under the Alabama Medical Liability Act just like all other healthcare professionals," lawyers for two of the couples wrote in a motion filed Monday.

The defendants in the case have cited the new law in arguing the lawsuits should be dismissed. A judge has yet to rule on the requests. Any decision in the case is likely to be appealed back to the state Supreme Court.

The Alabama case continues to unfold amid a national debate over IVF.

Democrats in Congress, attempting to draw an election-year contrast with Republicans, have championed legislation to guarantee access to in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments. Southern Baptist delegates this week expressed alarm over the way in vitro fertilization is routinely being practiced, saying it often results in the “destruction of embryonic human life.”

The Republican-controlled Alabama Legislature sidestepped proposals that would address the legal status of embryos created in IVF labs. Some state Democrats argued that action would be needed to permanently settle the issue.



Trudeau, Modi meet for first time since Canada publicly accused India of Sikh leader's assassination

CBC
Fri, June 14, 2024

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Apulia, Italy on Friday, June 14, 2023. (Narendra Modi/X - image credit)


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi have met for the first time since Trudeau publicly accused Modi's government of involvement in the assassination of a Canadian Sikh activist.

Modi posted a photo to his 98 million followers on X, formerly Twitter, of the two leaders shaking hands on Friday on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Italy.

"Met Canadian PM @JustinTrudeau at the G7 Summit," he wrote.


No formal bilateral meeting between the two leaders was scheduled.

A spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office said the two leaders had an "interaction on the margins of the G7."

"The Prime Minister congratulated Prime Minister Modi on his re-election and the leaders had a brief discussion on the bilateral relationship," Ann-Clara Vaillancourt said in a media statement. "Of course there are important issues between our two countries right now. You can appreciate that we won't be making any further statements at this time."

Earlier on Friday, Trudeau and Modi were both around the same G7 table during an outreach session. They were positioned about six seats away from one another, according to video footage.

India was one of the countries invited to observe this year's annual summit of the leading advanced democratic economies. It is not a member of the G7.

Modi held a series of bilateral meetings with world leaders at the summit, including British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but does not have a meeting scheduled with Trudeau on Friday, according to Trudeau's public itinerary.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, is welcomed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at the G7 in Borgo Egnazia, near Bari in southern Italy, Friday, June 14, 2024.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, left, is welcomed by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at the G7 in Borgo Egnazia, near Bari, in southern Italy, on Friday. (Luca Bruno/The Associated Press)

The last time Trudeau met with Modi in person was during the fraught G20 summit in India in September 2023. That same month, after returning from the trip, Trudeau rose in the House of Commons and accused India's government of involvement in the brazen shooting of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

Earlier this month, Trudeau congratulated Modi on his re-election win.

"Canada stands ready to work with his government to advance the relationship between our nations' peoples — anchored to human rights, diversity and the rule of law," he said at the time.

A few days later, Modi responded on X, thanking Trudeau for the congratulatory message.

"India looks forward to working with Canada based on mutual understanding and respect for each others concerns," he wrote.

Modi government has denied allegations

Nijjar was brazenly shot and killed by masked gunmen in his pickup truck in June 2023 in the parking lot of a Sikh temple in Surrey, B.C.

Nijjar was a supporter of a Sikh homeland in the form of an independent Khalistani state. He had been deemed a "terrorist" by India's government and accused of leading a militant separatist group — a claim his supporters denied.

"Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the government of India" and Nijjar's killing, Trudeau said.

Four Indian nationals — Karan Brar, Kamalpreet Singh, Karanpreet Singh and Amandeep Singh — were arrested last month and charged in connection with Nijjar's killing.

Modi's government has denied ordering killings in Canada. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar initially called Canada's allegation "absurd" and accused Canada of harbouring violent extremists.

Report warned of India's political meddling in Canada

The allegations hurt an already shaky bilateral relationship between India and Canada that got even rockier last week.

A bombshell report written by an all-party committee of Canadian parliamentarians about foreign interference said India is the second biggest foreign threat to Canadian democracy after China.

The report contained the starkest warnings yet about India's attempts to meddle in Canadian politics.

"India seeks to cultivate relationships with a variety of witting and unwitting individuals across Canadian society with the intent of inappropriately exerting India's influence across all orders of government, particularly to stifle or discredit criticism of the Government of India," the report said.

The heavily redacted report also said there's intelligence that suggests "India has an active proxy, who has proactively looked for ways to further India's interests by monitoring and attempting to influence politicians."

One note says the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has information indicating an Indian proxy claimed to have "repeatedly transferred funds from India to politicians at all levels of government in return for political favours, including raising issues in Parliament."

In a media briefing on Wednesday ahead of the G7, India's Foreign Secretary Vinay Mohan Kwatra did not say whether Modi and Trudeau would have a bilateral meeting at the summit.

"I think the main issue with regard to Canada continues to be the political space that Canada provides to anti-India elements, which advocate extremism and violence, and we have repeatedly conveyed our deep concerns to them, and we expect them to take strong action," he told reporters.

One expert said Friday that the leaders' meeting may be a sign that relations between India and Canada are improving.

"That they spoke given what has happened over the past year suggests that there is progress in repairing the relationship," said Tristen Naylor, an assistant professor of history and politics at Cambridge University.

Roland Paris, a former foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and an international affairs professor at the University of Ottawa, said relations between the two countries are "strained for obvious reasons."

"It's also important for Canada to keep the channels of communication open with India because India remains an important partner in other areas," he told CBC News in an interview before the summit.

Modi Seizes Center Stage at G-7 to Ambush Biden, Trudeau

Brian Platt and Josh Wingrove
Sat, June 15, 2024 



(Bloomberg) -- Narendra Modi seized a window to end his diplomatic purgatory with the US and Canada.

The Indian prime minister arrived at the Group of Seven meetings bruised by disappointing election results and facing an outcry over a pair of assassination plots allegedly backed by his government.

Yet Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the host of the summit, gave Modi prominent placement during Friday’s events and the Indian leader took full advantage, striding over for encounters with two leaders whose governments have accused his own of murder plots.

Modi was placed at center stage for the family photo, a perch that allowed him to dart over to US President Joe Biden for a brief chat. He also shared a photo of a similar greeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Canada has accused India of killing a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil, while the US has leveled allegations of a failed attempt on another dissident in its country. India has generally downplayed the allegations, and in the US case chalked up the plot to rogue elements of the government.

But Modi’s invitation to the summit is a sign of India’s role in the emerging economic race between the G-7 and its rivals, particularly China. Biden and Trudeau meeting with him, however briefly, casts doubt on how long the outcry over the assassination allegations will linger.

The US has said its position on the alleged plots hasn’t changed.

“We’ve made our views known on this issue, and it will be a continuing topic of dialogue between the US and India, including at very senior levels,” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, one of Biden’s top foreign affairs aides, said Wednesday.

A US official said Friday that Biden and Modi only spoke briefly.

On Saturday, a grim-faced Trudeau was repeatedly asked about his interaction with Modi but did not want to engage.

“I’m not going to get into the details of this issue,” he told reporters in southern Italy. “There are important, sensitive issues that we need to follow up on, but this was a commitment to work together in the coming times to deal with some very important issues.”

Meanwhile, the Indian prime minister looked to be thoroughly enjoying himself at the summit. Meloni posted a clip of her and Modi, laughing cheerfully behind her.

Canadian police recently arrested four Indian nationals over last year’s killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was gunned down in a Vancouver suburb. The case is now before the courts and could take years to wind to a conclusion.

Modi’s government reacted furiously when Trudeau first accused India last September of orchestrating the assassination, rejecting the claim as baseless and expelling Canadian diplomats. Trudeau has long called on Modi to cooperate with the investigation, with the hope of moving forward constructively.

Indian officials have never walked back their initial denials, but there are signs that behind the scenes, Canada and India are now cooperating more fully on sharing information about the case.

That may have helped provide an opening for a conversation between the two leaders.

The last time Trudeau crossed paths with Modi in person was at the G-20 in New Delhi last year, and it was a very tense meeting because Canadian officials had spent weeks privately presenting evidence to India’s government of a hit job on Canadian soil. Trudeau at the time was largely iced out by Modi at that summit and then had his departure delayed after his plane broke down.

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.


Photo Gallery: Trudeau at the G7 summit in Italy

The Canadian Press
Fri, June 14, 2024 










































Photo Gallery: Trudeau at the G7 summit in Italy

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives in Grottaglie, Italy on Wednesday, June 12, 2024., to attend the G7 Summit. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick
The Canadian Press

Pope Francis met with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday at the G7 summit, where the pontiff warned leaders about the dangers of artificial intelligence and counselled them to centre humanity in its development.

Trudeau met with Francis before his address Friday afternoon. The prime minister was expected to speak to him about advancing reconciliation and advocate for the return of Indigenous artifacts held in the Vatican Museum.

Trudeau was in a working session on migration in the morning while leaders will hold a working luncheon on the Indo-Pacific and economic security.

The first day of the summit was dominated by news that the leaders will deliver a US$50-billion loan to Ukraine using interest earned on profits from Russia's frozen central bank assets as collateral.

Canada, for its part, has promised to pitch in up to $5 billion toward the loan.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 14, 2024.

The Canadian Press
Climate Dealmakers Brace for China Showdown Over Money at COP29

John Ainger
Thu, June 13, 2024 


(Bloomberg) -- With just five months to go before the COP29 climate summit, the biggest fights are set to be over how to channel trillions of dollars from developed nations to emerging markets — and how China fits into the equation.

Negotiators representing more than 190 countries convened in Bonn, Germany, this week for a meeting that typically sets the tone for the annual talks. While the atmosphere was more positive than last year — where the controversial appointment of an oil executive to lead COP28 overshadowed discussions — the gathering also made clear the scale of the challenge facing Azerbaijan, a relatively small player on the international stage that stepped in to host COP29 at the last minute.

The key goal of November’s summit in Baku is to agree on a new post-2025 goal for raising money to speed up the green transition in developing nations and protect them from more extreme weather. The world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable states are loathe to accept anything less than trillions, with some pushing for up to $1 trillion a year coming from public funds. Meanwhile, developed countries are trying to broaden the donor base to ease pressure on their strained budgets.

“Trillions will be needed,” said Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands. “We need an overhaul of the international financial system to address the persistent inequities that punish rather than support the most vulnerable.”

Analysts estimate that between $1 trillion and $6 trillion a year will be required to meet the Paris Agreement’s most ambitious goal to keep global temperatures in check. Negotiators in Bonn suggested any climate finance deal would likely resemble an onion, with a headline figure of what’s needed, including from the private sector, and an amount that will come from the public coffers of developed nations. Further layers could include contributions from countries that haven’t previously been donors, like China, and multilateral development banks.

This year’s climate talks are taking place against a less-than-ideal backdrop. COP29 will kick off just days after the US presidential election, and negotiators are already bracing for the possibility of a Trump victory. Wars in Ukraine and Gaza have pit the world’s biggest economies against each other. It’s also unclear how cooperative China, currently the world’s biggest emitter, will be as it faces fresh trade restrictions on green technologies from both Washington and Brussels.

Still, “there is a unanimous understanding that the current status quo is not viable,” Yalchin Rafiyev, the lead negotiator for Azerbaijan, said in an interview. “The current flow of finance is not sufficient. This is a moment of truth for the international community.”

Disputes over money come down to a fundamental tension that underpins global climate negotiations: What do the countries most responsible for climate change — those that industrialized first and added billions of tons of carbon to the atmosphere — owe the nations that are now paying the price in weather damages.



Attempts by developed countries to shift some of the burden to developing countries like China at COP29, would "severely undermine the effectiveness of global cooperation on climate change," Lin Jian, a spokesman for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said Thursday at a press briefing in Beijing.

Developing countries and small island states say the likes of the US and the European Union have so far fallen way short of the mark. A commitment made by rich countries to deliver $100 billion of public finance per year by 2020 — a fraction of what’s needed to protect billions of people — was only met two years later. India is leading calls for that figure to be 10 times higher as part of the new post-2025 “New Collective Quantified Goal.”

“If money makes the world go round, today’s unequal financial flows are sending us spinning toward disaster,” United Nations General Secretary Antonio Guterres said last week. “Climate finance is not a favor. It is fundamental to a livable future for all.”

But developed nations don’t want another albatross like that hanging around their neck, according to one European negotiator, who requested anonymity to discuss details of sensitive talks. China’s economy has grown so much in the last three decades that it needs to contribute, as does Saudi Arabia, whose production of fossil fuels significantly adds to global warming, the person said.

“China will always be a member of the Global South and the developing world,” President Xi Jinping said in a video speech to a UNCTAD event Wednesday, repeating a frequent argument that the nation shouldn't be ranked alongside industrialized economies.

The China question will likely to be one of the toughest to navigate, according to Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Hub at the Asia Society Policy Institute in Washington. The uncertainty of the November election, bitterness over trade measures and loss of the close personal connection between former US and China envoys John Kerry and Xie Zhenhua, who both stepped down last year, could make progress difficult.

“There is a way to get China to play a role, but traditional donors still need to pay their fair share,” Li said. “The climate finance issue is particularly thorny and the politics this year are very challenging.”

For Li, whether Azerbaijan provides the leadership needed is the wildcard for COP29. The nation has so far given few clues on the path it sees to delivering the enormous sums of money required. Rafiyev said officials have gone back to the drawing board on its signature initiative to place a levy on producers of oil, gas and coal amid pushback on the proposal in its current form.

Mukhtar Babayev, the Azeri minister set to preside over COP29, has expressed optimism that countries will ultimately reach a comprehensive climate finance deal. “Details will come later,” he said in a June 4 interview in Baku. “Now it’s time to talk.”

--With assistance from Jess Shankleman, Jing Li and Lucille Liu.

(Updates with China foreign ministry spokesman comment in ninth paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
The UK Green Party struggles to be heard in an election where climate change is on the back burner

THEY HAVE CHANCE AT FOUR SEATS 
REFORM UK HAS NET ZERO CHANCE

Jill Lawless
Thu, June 13, 2024 





BRIGHTON, England (AP) — There’s lots of talk of change in Britain’s election campaign, but little talk about climate change.

The U.K.’s July 4 vote to choose a new government comes after one of the wettest and warmest winters on record, part of trends that scientists attribute to global warming. But discussion of climate and the environment has taken a back seat to Britain’s sluggish economy, high cost of living and creaking health care system — and whether, as polls suggest, the governing Conservatives’ time is up after 14 years in power.

That frustrates the Green Party, which is battling a political system that makes it hard for small parties to win seats in Parliament, and a political climate that discourages expensive, long-term environmental promises.

“I think they are very wrong, the other parties, to ignore climate change and the big investment that’s needed,” said Sian Berry, one of 574 Green candidates running in England and Wales for the 650-seat House of Commons – and one of the few with a good chance of winning. The party held just one seat in Parliament before the election.

“I think people these days do recognize that to solve climate change is not something you do on the side, it has to be part of all your policies,” Berry said over the sound of screeching seagulls in the seaside city of Brighton on England’s south coast.

The governing Conservatives boast that Britain is a leader in embracing renewable energy and cutting the carbon emissions that fuel climate change. U.K. greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by half from 1990 levels, mainly because coal has largely been eliminated from electricity generation.



But environmentalists say the U.K. has recently gone into reverse.


Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who is battling to close a polling gap with the opposition Labour Party, has criticized “unaffordable eco-zealotry,” approved new North Sea oil drilling and pledged to build more gas-fired power plants, while insisting the U.K. can still meet its goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Labour leader Keir Starmer has scrapped the party’s pledge to invest 28 billion pounds ($36 billion) a year in green projects if elected, replacing it with a smaller commitment. He blames the parlous state in which the Conservatives have left the public finances.

The lack of action alarms climate scientists, more than 400 of whom wrote to the political parties to warn that any leader “who does not make stronger climate action a priority for the next five years and beyond will place the prosperity and well-being of the British people at severe risk.”

The Green Party embraces that message, but faces a struggle to be heard, and to convince voters that it’s not just about the environment. The party’s 44-page election manifesto, released on Wednesday, includes policies on housing, health care, education, employment and defense as well as green issues.

Its pledges are expensive, including 24 billion pounds a year to insulate homes and 40 billion pounds a year invested in the green economy. The party is upfront about the tax increases needed to pay for them, including a carbon tax, a wealth tax on the very rich and an income tax hike for millions of higher earners.

The Greens’ challenge is that while research suggests climate ranks among voters’ top five priorities, it often comes well behind everyday issues like housing costs or healthcare waiting lists.

War in Ukraine and surging migration also have elbowed the green agenda aside in Britain and beyond. Green parties lost ground in countries including France and Germany in elections for the European Parliament this month, amid a surge for the far right.

In the town of Dartford, southeast of London, 27-year-old construction worker Harry Colville said he thinks climate change is important, but “I’m more worried about my life right now. More about the near future for myself.”

Emma Jade Larsson, who is about to graduate in medical neuroscience from the University of Sussex in Brighton, said she understands why the cost of living is a top concern.

“Food banks are becoming more and more of a need in this country,” she said. “A lot of people are going through really difficult times right now. So I do understand the focus on it, but I think there is also definitely a need to focus on more than one issue at this moment, and look after people now but also people to come.”

Unlike many European countries, the U.K. does not use a system of proportional representation. Its first-past-the-post electoral system, in which the candidate who gets the most votes in a constituency wins, favors the two big parties. The Greens got just 2.7% of votes cast in the 2019 election.

Even so, Greens have won hundreds of seats on local councils, and are targeting up to four seats in Parliament, including Berry’s constituency of Brighton Pavilion. Part of a city renowned for its pebbly beach, independent streak and vibrant alternative culture, it was represented for 14 years by Britain’s first -- and so far only -- Green lawmaker, Caroline Lucas.

When Berry visits the steep streets of Brighton’s Round Hill district, many of the Victorian houses have Vote Green signs in their windows.

Roger Ballance, a university worker who has voted both Labour and Green in the past, said the Greens “present a different side, it’s refreshing.”

“You need diverse voices in Parliament," he said. "If it’s just binary, it lets both of them be way too narrow in their political thinking.”

Matt Brown is skeptical that Britain’s politicians are grasping the scale of the environmental challenge. He’s new projects director at the Brighton Energy Cooperative, which installs rooftop solar panels on schools, businesses, soccer stadiums and other businesses.

It’s a growing business, but Brown says “it’s literally a drop in the ocean."

“We need gigawatts and gigawatts of power. We need to generate it in a renewable manner, and we need to do it now,” he said.

“I would like to see the upcoming government grab the issue by the horns,” he added. "We’re staring down the barrel of a gun, and we need to do something about it.”

__

Associated Press journalists Kwiyeon Ha in Brighton and Laurie Kellman in Dartford, England contributed to this story.

Jill Lawless, The Associated Press













16 / 16

The UK Green Party struggles to be heard in an election where climate change is on the back burner

The UK election and climate change: Where do political parties stand on 6 key issues?

Rosie Frost
Fri, June 14, 2024 


The UK election and climate change: Where do political parties stand on 6 key issues?


After one of its warmest and wettest winters on record, a general election has been called in the UK for 4 July.

Climate has been on the back burner when it comes to campaigning so far. There has been a greater focus on the cost of living, healthcare and security from most politicians. Pledges, policies and plans to tackle the climate crisis haven’t been easy to find.

Though the consensus is generally that emissions need to be cut, renewables need to grow and pollution must be reduced, approaches from each of the different parties vary.

We’ve taken a look at six of the most pressing climate issues the UK is currently facing and how some of the biggest political parties plan to respond to them.

6. Reaching the UK’s emissions targets on time

The UK’s independent climate change watchdog, the Climate Change Committee, has warned that the country is not on track to meet its goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 68 per cent before the end of the decade. So what does each party plan to do about it?

Labour: Labour plans to keep the UK’s current target of reaching net zero by 2050. The party wants to “restore the strong global leadership” needed to tackle the climate crisis, aiming to create a new “Clean Power Alliance” which it hopes would bring together a coalition of countries at the cutting edge of climate action.

Conservatives: The party’s full manifesto says it will keep the UK’s 2050 net-zero target but emphasises Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s desire to do this without additional costs for households. It calls this an “affordable and pragmatic” transition without any new green levies or charges.

Liberal Democrats: The Lib Dems say they will “take the action needed now” to reach net zero by 2045. That includes meeting the UK’s commitment under the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions by at least 68 per cent by 2030.

Green Party: The Green Party has said it wants to reach net zero by 2040 at the latest, ideally more than a decade ahead of the current 2050 target. The party aims to reach this goal “as fast as is feasibly possible” while leading global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. It has pledged to spend £40 billion (€47.5 billion) a year for this transition to a green economy.


5. Transitioning away from fossil fuels


Countries pledged to move away from fossil fuels at COP28 in Dubai last year. It’s time for action, but the UK is still largely dependent on oil and gas. In 2022- the latest year with the most complete data - fossil fuels accounted for 78.4 per cent of primary energy consumed in the country.

Labour: Labour is backing a windfall tax on oil and gas companies - increasing it by three percentage points - until at least 2029.

Though the party will honour existing oil and gas licenses in the North Sea, it won’t approve any new projects. No new coal licenses will be granted either and it says it will ban fracking for good.

Conservatives: Like Labour, the Conservatives are also backing a windfall tax on oil and gas companies until at least 2029. But the party’s manifesto says rejecting new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea would put “200,000 jobs and billions of pounds of tax receipts at risk”, leaving the UK more dependent on foreign powers for imported gas.

Liberal Democrats: The Lib Dems have promised to help people with the cost of living and energy bills by implementing a “proper” one-off windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies. The party’s manifesto says it will maintain the ban on fracking, introduce a new ban on coal mines and bring an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

Green Party: The Green Party says it will cancel recent fossil fuel licenses including the one for the controversial Rosebank project - the biggest undeveloped oil and gas field in the North Sea. It will also end all new fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK and remove all oil and gas subsidies.

The party also wants to introduce a carbon tax on fossil fuel imports and domestic extraction that is based on the greenhouse gas emissions produced when the fuel is burned.

Britain's Labour Party leader Keir Starmer speaks on stage at the launch of The Labour party's 2024 general election manifesto. - AP Photo/Jon Super

4. Ambitious renewable energy policies


To reach these net-zero targets and transition away from fossil fuels, most parties agree that renewable energy needs a major boost. But they’re divided over onshore wind projects, nuclear power and the future of oil and gas.

Labour: The Labour Party wants to make Britain a “clean energy superpower” pledging £8 billion(€9.5 billion) over five years to a new publicly owned Great British Energy Company. It claims it wants to “cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030”.

It wants to double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. The party’s manifesto also includes pledges to invest in hydrogen and wave energy. Nuclear power will be part of the mix too with plans to extend the life of existing plants and speed up the construction of existing projects.

Despite promises not to approve new oil and gas projects, Labour leader Kier Starmer has emphasised that oil and gas will be part of the UK’s energy mix for “decades to come”.

Conservatives: The Conservative party has said it will accelerate the rollout of renewables. This includes promises to treble offshore wind. Solar will also be boosted with 70 additional gigawatts by 2035. Historically under the Tories, there has been little ambition for onshore wind with just one project currently under construction in England.

The party has also pledged to fast-track the approval of small modular nuclear power stations.

But the manifesto stresses that energy security is the priority and that means more licensing for oil and gas production in the North Sea as well as new gas power stations.

Liberal Democrats: The Lib Dems say they will speed up the deployment of solar and wind with the aim of ensuring 90 per cent of the country’s electricity comes from renewables by 2030.

The party has promised to remove restrictions on new solar and wind power put in place by the Conservatives. In particular, it wants to support investment and innovation in tidal and wave power.

Green Party: The Greens are planning a massive rollout of renewable energy. That includes a push for 80 gigawatts of offshore wind, 53 gigawatts of onshore wind, and 100 gigawatts of solar by 2035.

They back the expansion of offshore wind like most parties but, unlike others, they want to see more growth in onshore wind and solar power projects which have been controversial. In total the party hopes that 70 per cent of UK electricity will come from wind by 2030.

The party also wants to phase out nuclear power entirely which it says is “unsafe and much more expensive than renewables”. It says the development of nuclear power stations is “too slow given the pace of action we need on climate”.

Super election year: What are candidates in the UK, US and Australia planning on the climate?

3. Cutting emissions from home heating

Ensuring homes are more energy efficient is one of the biggest climate challenges the UK faces. The country has the worst insulted homes in Europe.

Labour: Labour’s manifesto promises to double money for insulting UK homes, offering grants and low-interest loans for improvements like insulation, low-carbon heating and solar panels. It says it will also ensure that all privately rented homes meet energy efficiency standards by 2030.

Conservatives: The Conservatives have made a pledge to introduce a new energy efficiency voucher scheme that would be open to every household in England. This would provide funding for improved insulation and other additions like solar panels. It doesn’t give much more detail like a launch date or budget for said scheme.

Liberal Democrats: A 10-year emergency upgrade programme would see the Lib Dems bring in free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes. The party has also promised incentives for others to install heat pumps that cover the “real costs”.

They also want to ensure that all new homes are zero-carbon, including by fitting them with solar panels.

Green Party: The Greens say they will push for a plan led by local authorities to insulate existing homes, provide clean heat and adapt buildings to more extreme climate conditions.

This includes £29 billion (€34.4 billion) over the next five years for home insulation, £4 billion (€4.7 billion) over the next five years to insulate other buildings to a high standard and £9 billion (€10.7 billion) over the next five years for low-carbon heating systems such as heat pumps for homes and other buildings.

Green Party supporters carry placards at their General Election Manifesto launch. - AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth

2. Cleaning up the UK’s waterways

The UK’s lakes, beaches and rivers are facing a sewage spill crisis that has outraged the public. In the last year, the number of sewage discharges has skyrocketed by 54 per cent and many parties have made pledges to clean up waterways in their manifestos.

Labour: Labour has said it will put failing water companies under special measures. It promises regulators will be given new powers to block bonuses for “executives who pollute our waterways”.

The party’s manifesto also pledges to bring criminal charges against water firms that persistently break the law. It says it will impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing while ensuring independent monitoring of sewage spills.

Conservatives: The Conservative Party has said it will continue working with regulator Ofwat to hold water companies accountable - including banning bonuses for bosses if there is a serious criminal breach. It has also pledged to use fines from water companies to invest in river restoration projects.

Despite an increasing problem with spills, however, the party’s manifesto claims that 90 per cent of bathing waters were classified as ‘good’ or ‘excellent last year, up from 76 per cent in 2010.

Liberal Democrats: The Lib Dems have revealed plans to replace the current industry watchdog Ofwat with a “tough new regulator” called the Clean Water Authority. It would be given the power to ban bonuses for water company bosses, force companies to publish data on sewage spills, remove the licences of firms that are performing badly, make water companies put local environmental experts on their boards and set legally binding targets for sewage spills.

“Through a tough new regulator, we will make sure water companies put the environment and their customers first instead of lining the pockets of their shareholders,” Lib Dem leader Ed Davey said.

Green Party: The Greens want to end the sewage crisis by bringing water companies back into public ownership. Many campaigners and environmentalists blame the current situation on escalating issues that started with their privatisation in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher.

The party’s efforts to ensure the protection of nature also include a pledge to introduce a new Rights of Nature Act that would give rights to nature itself.

May breaks global temperature record for 12th month in a row. Will La Nina bring cooler weather?


'Sounding the alarm': World likely to temporarily pass 1.5C limit by 2028, UN weather agency warns


1. Reducing emissions from transport

Transport emissions are tough to tackle and the UK is no exception. A ban on petrol and diesel cars was pushed back by the Conservative government last year and each party has its own thoughts on the best way to decarbonise transport.

Labour: Labour is planning to reinstate the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. It says in its manifesto that this would provide “certainty for manufacturers”. The party also wants to accelerate the move to electric vehicles by investing in the rollout of charging points and support buyers of second hand cars by standardising information about the condition of batteries.

It has also pledged to end “30 years of privatisation” bringing railways back into public ownership.

Conservatives: Rishi Sunak announced last September that he would be pushing back a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to 2035. What this announcement didn’t include was an obligation for manufacturers to ensure that 80 per cent of car sales are electric by 2030 which will continue despite the ban being pushed back.

Liberal Democrats: The Lib Dems also plan to restore the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. This is complemented by ways of making it “easier and cheaper” for drivers to switch, including the rapid roll-out of charging points and the introduction of grants.

The party’s manifesto also promises investment in active travel and public transport like boosting bus services and freezing rail fares, the electrification of Britain's railways and plans to reduce the climate impact of flying.

Britain's Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader, Rishi Sunak, delivers a speech to launch the Conservatives' general election manifesto. - Benjamin Cremel, Pool Photo via AP

Green Party: The Greens want to stop new petrol and diesel car sales as early as 2027 and end the use of petrol and diesel vehicles on UK roads by 2035. They plan to do this with an extensive vehicle scrappage scheme and major funding for the rollout of electric vehicle charging points.

The Green Party’s plan also includes boosting investment in public transport, £2.5 billion (€3 billion) a year for new cycleways and footpaths, and subsidies that would include free bus travel for under 18s. And it wants to bring Britain's railways back into public ownership.

The party manifesto also includes promises to introduce a frequent flyer levy, ban domestic flights that take less than three hours, add VAT to jet fuel, and stop all airport expansion. An economy-wide tax on carbon-producing activities would also impact airlines.