Dire climate report, skies soon full of smoke. Will Idaho lawmakers do anything?


Darin Oswald/doswald@idahostatesman.com

Bryan Clark
Mon, June 6, 2022

A report released last month by the International Energy Agency detailing global carbon emissions is dire. Last year, the world released 36.3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That was an increase of more than 2 billion tons from 2020, the largest absolute increase in CO2 released ever. Part of that was the bounce-back from pandemic-induced emissions declines, but the IEA pointed particularly to an increase in coal use as the main driver of increasing emissions.

As the New York Times noted, global temperatures have already risen about 1.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The espoused goal of the Paris Climate accords is to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees. Day by day, as we fail to face this problem head-on, that goal recedes from our grasp.

The Paris accords set a target of 2050 for carbon neutrality in order to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, but it assumes we will make steady progress toward that goal along the way. The U.S. is making little, though there are some bright spots in the report.

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar continue to be adopted quickly, both in the U.S. and around the world. Combined with nuclear power, they now make up a larger portion of global energy production than coal, the report noted.

But those bright spots remain vastly inadequate to the scale of the problem.

If there is a defining characteristic of our current political era, it is paralysis in the face of real problems.

The filibuster in the U.S. Senate has led to more than a decade of paralysis in federal policy — and it’s not even clear whether that’s good or bad. If the Senate had not been twiddling its thumbs all this time, would it have made the problem worse by expanding oil and gas production or cutting renewable energy programs?

At the state level, it’s even worse. Lawmakers have done nothing, and the Republican majority shows no signs of taking the matter seriously.

As our politics is consumed by fights about porn in libraries and transgender athletes and other engineered controversies, the world is lurching ever closer to a tipping point beyond which our children’s and grandchildren’s future begins to look untenable. There is little question we will be remembered as the most irresponsible generation in history.

As Kelcie Moseley-Morris of the Idaho Capital Sun reported in January, the effects of climate change on Idaho agriculture could be quite dramatic. Hotter temperatures are expected to make potato and onion storage more difficult, leading to more spoilage. Maybe just use refrigeration? That’s going to be hard since lower snowpacks will mean less water to generate hydropower — or to grow potatoes in the first place.

Our current drought may be nothing compared to what’s coming, and the time for the Legislature to prepare for it was 10 years ago.

It’s easy to forget this generational, species-level crisis when our politics is centered on manufactured outrage. But it won’t be long until our skies are again clogged with smoke to remind us of the consequences of our inaction.

Will we ignore those skies again this year?

Boris Johnson Badly Wounded but Narrowly Survives Jubilee Coup

Almost 75% of all Tory MPs not dependent on his patronage voted against him. 

Philippe Naughton
Mon, June 6, 2022


One of Boris Johnson’s predecessors as Tory leader once described the Conservative Party as “an absolute monarchy moderated by regicide.” When the king or queen is no longer a winner, then out come the knives.

Johnson, the tousle-headed Old Etonian classicist, narrowly survived his own ‘Et tu, Brute?’ moment on Monday after securing the votes of 211 of 359 Conservative lawmakers in a no-confidence vote triggered by backbench anger at his scandal-ridden leadership.

“The result of the ballot held this evening is that the parliamentary party does have confidence in the prime minister” said Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, which represents the interests of Tory backbenchers, as he announced the results to lawmakers.

Make no mistake, however: Johnson is mortally wounded, despite officially surviving the Tories’ jubilee coup. Caesar was stabbed 23 times in that fateful meeting of the Roman Senate on March 15, 44 A.D. On June 6, 2022, Johnson was stabbed 148 times; 41 percent of Tory lawmakers voted against him. He clings to power, but the die is cast.

Scotland Yard Accused of Massive ‘Cover Up’ to Save Boris Johnson’s Job

Born Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson in New York in 1964, Johnson’s first stated ambition as a child was to be “world king.” He never quite managed that but did manage to climb the greasy pole of British politics after a career in journalism, serving two terms as mayor of London and correctly judging the mood of the disaffected working class in the 2016 vote on U.K membership of the European Union.

Since assuming the top job in 2019, he has done his very best to demean the nation’s highest office, suspending parliament without consulting Queen Elizabeth to get his Brexit legislation through, and then partying through lockdown at Downing Street despite passing laws stopping ordinary citizens from even burying their dead in a civilized manner. It was that scandal, dubbed “Partygate,” which has done him the most damage.

Brady called the no-confidence vote early Monday morning after confirming that 15 percent of the Tory parliamentary party—54 Members of Parliament (MPs)—had sent in letters triggering a contest. The clinching factor for some of those objectors appeared to be that Johnson and his wife had been so loudly booed as they arrived at St. Paul’s Cathedral last Friday to celebrate Queen Elizabeth’s platinum jubilee.

Of the 14 prime ministers the queen has dealt with through her 70-year reign, starting with Winston Churchill, Johnson is widely thought to be her least favorite, disrespectful of national institutions and an inveterate liar to boot.

Having Johnson booted out the day after her jubilee weekend might have been the perfect jubilee present for the 96-year-old monarch. But even though she missed much of the celebrations for health reasons, she still looks like a good bet to welcome her 15th prime minister before the end of her historic reign.

In an interview with BBC News, Johnson described the voting numbers as an “extremely good, positive, decisive result” that would allow the government to “move on and focus on the stuff that matters.”

But few would agree. Johnson's performance was markedly worse than that of his predecessor, Theresa May, when she faced a confidence vote in December 2018. May was supported by two-thirds of Tory MPs but was forced from office only months later.

The saving grace for Johnson, if we can come back to the Caesarean analogy, is that this remains an assassination attempt without a clear assassin. No clear successor to Johnson has yet emerged; the frontrunner, former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, is an unlikely Brutus.

Rory Stewart, the former diplomat, adventurer, and Tory MP who now serves as a fellow at Yale, pointed out that most of those who voted for Johnson were on the government's payroll—parliamentary secretaries, junior ministers, and ministers.

He tweeted: “Remove the 'payroll' vote—and look at the free vote from backbenchers. Almost 75% of all Tory MPs not dependent on his patronage voted against him. This is the end for Boris Johnson. The only question is how long the agony is prolonged.”

Boris Johnson may have won, but the vultures are circling

Boris Johnson won Monday's no confidence vote with 211 to 148 votes 

Camilla Tominey
Mon, June 6, 2022

 ANDY RAIN/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

When Boris Johnson once joked that he had discovered “there are no disasters, only opportunities for fresh disasters”, he appeared to be channelling Churchill’s quote about an optimist finding opportunity in every difficulty.

While there is no doubt the Prime Minister is a glass-half-full kind of politician, the bruising nature of Monday's 211 to 148 confidence vote will have taken the trademark spring from his step.

Winning by a majority of just 63, short of his 80-seat general election majority, represents one of the worst ever confidence "victories" for a sitting prime minister, calling his authority into serious question.

And those who best know Mr Johnson understand that while he may have won this particular battle, he is not going to willingly lead the Conservatives into a war he cannot win.

Having defied the odds to secure the London mayoralty - not once but twice - before triumphing in the EU referendum and going on to deliver the Conservatives’ biggest mandate in 40 years at the last general election, losing simply isn’t something “Big Dog” does. It is why he pulled out of the 2016 leadership race and why it still rankles that he didn’t get a first at Oxford.

Until Monday, it was suggested that the Prime Minister would have to be dragged out of Downing Street “kicking and screaming”, but if he fears this “win” will soon translate into a “loss”, then he is unlikely to give himself the opportunity for a fresh disaster.

As Sir Winston’s biographer, Mr Johnson needs no lessons in voters’ penchant for punishing even those who have delivered world peace. A cost of living crisis already stands in the way of possible victory come 2024 - now he must add a mutinous and divided party into the mix.

An optimist’s 12-month reprieve is a pessimist’s death sentence, not least when we all know a week is a long time in politics.

The rebels may not have landed the fatal blow they intended, but history shows losing the confidence of even a minority of MPs can prove mortally wounding.

Jacob Rees-Mogg may argue that “just one vote is enough”, but it wasn’t long ago that he declared it a “terrible result” that a third of Theresa May’s MPs had voted against her in 2016. “Under all constitutional norms she ought to go and see the Queen urgently and resign", he insisted.

Theresa May resigned months after she won her own confidence vote in December 2018

 - Stefan Rousseau

Six years on and Mr Johnson on Monday found himself in the unenviable position of not even having enough publicly declared supporters by the time the voting began at 6pm. He was 33 votes short of the 180 needed to save his premiership.

By comparison, Mrs May went into her confidence ballot safe in the knowledge that she could guarantee victory (albeit short-lived).

As the Downing Street spin machine went into overdrive to fortify the Prime Minister’s fanbase on Monday, it must have worried No 10 that so few Tories were willing to give their patronage on the record.

The Prime Minister sitting with Mike Tindall on Sunday as he watched the Platinum Pageant in London - the day before the confidence vote - CHRIS JACKSON

The Cabinet and payroll might have rallied (although Priti Patel’s tweet of support was conspicuous by its absence), but the numbers suggest the MPs who did secretly "back Boris" were unwilling to admit to it.

Even the so-called “greased piglet” is going to struggle to let that one slip, no matter how Teflon-coated he may be.

Mrs May, Sir John Major and most famously Margaret Thatcher all found to their cost that once Conservatives smell blood, a slow and painful death normally ensues.

Whether Mr Johnson can successfully apply a tourniquet appears to rely on several factors.

While his approval ratings may be at an all time low - even among ConHome readers - pollsters have been at pains to point out that his unpopularity is not unusual for a midterm Prime Minister. Downing Street could argue that a YouGov survey suggesting more than half of Tory voters (53 per cent) want to keep him as PM - not to mention the fact that Labour is only six points ahead - shows this result has finally burst the Westminster bubble. Cue much more talk of this “drawing a line” under partygate (despite the ongoing Privileges Committee investigation) and “focusing on what really matters to people.”

Lack of viable alternative only thing keeping PM in place

If, like the local elections, the two imminent by-elections are not as catastrophic as CCHQ is frantically briefing then that could also help. (Seriously heavy defeats could prompt the 1922 Committee to change the rules on not holding another confidence vote for 12 months).

A reshuffle seems unlikely following such a show of ministerial loyalty but a policy blitz – including a reverse ferret on the universally despised Health and Social Care Levy – could help win over the growing number of Tories upset by the Government’s tax-and-spend approach to the cost of living crisis.

A speech, laying out his vision for how Britain might “take advantage of our news freedoms, cut costs and drive growth,” as he stated in his begging letter to colleagues, would not go amiss either.

As it stands, the only thing really keeping the Prime Minister in place right now is the lack of a viable alternative. The vultures, however, are circling. It is going to take a unique amount of doggedness to bring this disobedient party to heel.

 

Boris Johnson wins no-confidence vote, stays on as U.K.’s prime minister

Eric Stober and Sean Boynton 

© AP Photo/Matt Dunham

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson leaves 10 Downing Street to attend the weekly Prime Minister's Questions at the Houses of Parliament, in London, Wednesday, May 25, 2022.

Boris Johnson narrowly won a no-confidence vote Monday and will remain as the U.K.'s prime minister, despite more than 40 per cent of his party's MPs voting against him.

Johnson received support from 211 Conservative MPs — just 30 more ballots than the 180 needed to survive the vote. Every Tory MP cast a ballot. Forty-one per cent of the caucus, or 148 MPs, voted against the prime minister.

He still called the result "decisive" and claimed it proved more of his party's MPs support him now than they did when he was elected in 2019. He added he is not interested in holding a snap election.

"I think it's a convincing result, a decisive result and what it means is that as a government we can move on and focus on the stuff that I think really matters to people," he told reporters.

The margin was tighter than the one Johnson's predecessor Theresa May received when a no-confidence vote was held on her leadership in 2018, when 37 per cent of MPs voted against her. She resigned six months later.

Johnson was then elected prime minister in a landslide vote that was the party's biggest election win in decades.

Monday's vote comes after it was discovered he and his staff held several parties in 2020 and 2021 against the COVID-19 restrictions in place.

‘I take full responsibility’: British PM Boris Johnson answers to Partygate after new independent report

At least 54 Tory legislators had called a no-confidence vote, according to the party, clearing the 15-per cent threshold needed to trigger it.

Johnson's Downing Street office said that the prime minister welcomed the vote.

"Tonight is a chance to end months of speculation and allow the government to draw a line and move on, delivering on the people’s priorities,” it said.

Video: U.K.’s Johnson says he takes responsibility for lockdown breaches following Sue Gray report

Yet the result pointed to a deep divide within the party that critics said left Johnson politically wounded at a critical moment, as the country works to rebuild the economy from the COVID-19 pandemic amid inflation and impacts from Russia's war in Ukraine.

"At a time of huge challenge, it saddles the U.K. with an utterly lame duck PM," said Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, a vocal critic of the U.K. government who has pushed for Scotland's independence from the U.K.

The Opposition Leader, Keir Starmer of the left-of-centre Labour Party, took advantage of the results to promote his "united" party to voters.

The next national election is not expected until 2024, but a pair of by-elections is scheduled for the end of this month.

Conservatives may lose those special elections, which were called when incumbent Tory lawmakers were forced out by sex scandals. Polls give the Labour Party a lead nationally.

Johnson has been able to dodge scandals and gaffes as prime minister and in previous jobs, including mayor of London, which range from offensive comments about Muslim women to shutting down Parliament during heated Brexit negotiations.

But concerns came to a head after an investigator's report late last month that slammed a culture of rule-breaking inside the prime minister's office in a scandal known as ``partygate.''

Video: U.K.’s Boris Johnson apologizes after getting fined for attending party during COVID-19 lockdown

Civil service investigator Sue Gray described alcohol-fueled bashes held by Downing Street staff members in 2020 and 2021, when pandemic restrictions prevented U.K. residents from socializing or even visiting dying relatives.

Gray said the ``senior leadership team'' must bear responsibility for ``failures of leadership and judgment.''

Johnson was also fined 50 pounds ($78) by police for attending one party, making him the first prime minister sanctioned for breaking the law while in office.

The prime minister said he was "humbled" and took "full responsibility," but insisted he would not resign.

—With files from Reuters and the Associated Press

British Mothers Miss Out on Almost £70,000 in Decade After Birth



David Goodman
Mon, June 6, 2022, 

(Bloomberg) -- British mothers lose out on almost £70,000 ($88,000) in wages in the 10 years after having a baby, according to new research.

In a report published Monday, the Social Market Foundation said a woman who had her first child in 2010-11 has on average suffered a total pay cut of £66,434 over the following nine years, compared to the amount she would have earned if she remained childless.

The SMF said the findings, which do not take into account the additional spending faced by parents, show the penalty inflicted by the high cost of child care with mothers unable to work as much as they want to. Britain has some of the most expensive early years care in the world, typically costing families more than 7% of their income.

Poorer households pay and even higher share, while lower-paid women also see a bigger drop in their earnings after giving birth, the SMF said. The group has launched a commission with UK MPs to analyze the impact of poor child-care provision on wages and poverty, and examine ways to improve the system.

“With child-care costs prohibitive, many either have to stop working, or work reduced hours, in order to look after children,” said Scott Corfe, SMF Research Director. “This means derailed career paths, missed promotion opportunities, and tens of thousands of pounds of foregone earnings over the course of a decade.”

The headline figure is based on a typical career progression, which saw women aged 25-35 benefit from an earnings increase of around a third over the 2010s. In contrast, someone who became a mother at the start of the decade was earning 10% less.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Gupta Brothers Accused of Defrauding South Africa Arrested in UAE



Antony Sguazzin and Renee Bonorchis
Mon, June 6, 2022

(Bloomberg) -- Two members of the Gupta family have been arrested in the United Arab Emirates, the biggest step yet in South Africa’s fight to bring to account the kingpins accused of orchestrating the looting of its state companies.

Rajesh and Atul Gupta were detained by UAE law-enforcement authorities and discussions are taking place on the way forward, South Africa’s Justice Ministry said in a statement on Monday.

A judicial inquiry into state graft spanning more than three years detailed close links between the brothers and former President Jacob Zuma, with numerous witnesses alleging that they worked hand-in-hand to siphon money out of state transport, power and arms companies and jointly decided who was appointed to the cabinet. The government has said at least 500 billion rand ($32 billion) was stolen during Zuma’s nine-year rule.

The Gupta brothers and Zuma have always denied the allegations.

The arrests come a year after the UAE ratified an extradition treaty with South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration first asked the Emirati authorities to extradite members of the Gupta family in 2018, and the US imposed restrictions ranging from visa bans to asset freezes on them the following year. The UK followed suit last year and Interpol placed the two brothers on its most-wanted list in February.

Corruption scandals involving the Guptas and people linked to them are blamed for damaging indebted state power utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. and rail and ports company Transnet SOC Ltd. McKinsey & Co. has paid back money to both companies after working on contracts with Gupta-linked companies. The US-based consultancy has denied intentional wrongdoing.

South African authorities filed charges against the Guptas in 2018 in connection with a questionable tender to undertake a feasibility survey on a dairy project in the central Free State province, in which a company they controlled was paid 21 million rand.

In December 2015, the Guptas were accused of playing a part in Zuma sacking then-Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene, and replacing him with little-known lawmaker Des Van Rooyen, a move that caused the rand to crash. Van Rooyen was removed four days later and replaced by Pravin Gordhan, who had formerly served in the post, after an outcry from business, the public and members of the ruling African National Congress.

Ramaphosa won’t comment on the arrests, his spokesman Vincent Magwenya said by text message.

“We’ve always said that fighting corruption in SA requires resilience, that if the rule of law is allowed to take its course, those implicated will eventually get their day in court,” said Stefanie Fick, executive head of accountability for the non-profit Organization Undoing tax Abuse. “It seems like that day is around the corner for the Gupta kingpins.”

CDC raises monkeypox alert to level 2, recommends masks during travel

Anders Hagstrom
Mon, June 6, 2022
The CDC raised its alert level for monkeypox to level 2 on Monday, recommending that travelers wear masks, among other health measures.

While not on the level of COVID-19, monkeypox has spread across the globe out of Africa since March. Monkeypox symptoms begin as relatively flu-like but soon expand to the swelling of lymph nodes and a rash across the body and face. Ultimately, painful lesions form on rash areas, leaving severe scarring.

"Cases of monkeypox have been reported in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, and Australia," the CDC wrote in its alert.

"Some cases were reported among men who have sex with men. Some cases were also reported in people who live in the same household as an infected person," it added.

MONKEYPOX CONTINUES TO PUZZLE SCIENTISTS AS IT SPREADS TO MORE COUNTRIES

As of June 3, there have been 21 recorded monkeypox cases in the U.S. connected to the current outbreak, according to the CDC.

Test tubes labeled 'Monkeypox Virus Positive' are seen in this illustration taken on May 22, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

The disease may have gone undetected in Western countries under the guise of an STI, according to Dr. Amesh Adalja. There are a number of STIs that have similar symptoms to monkeypox.

"What's likely happened is an endemic infectious disease from Africa found its way into a social and sexual network and then was greatly aided by major amplification events, like raves in Belgium, to disseminate around the world," Adalja told NBC News.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gives an opening statement during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing to examine the federal response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and new emerging variants at Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S. January 11, 2022. Greg Nash/Pool via REUTERS

Exclusive-Biden to waive tariffs for 24 mths on solar panels hit by probe -sources


U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden return to the White House in Washington

Sun, June 5, 2022
By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Joe Biden will declare a 24-month tariff exemption on Monday for solar panels from four Southeast Asian nations after an investigation froze imports and stalled projects in the United States, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The move comes amid concern about the impact of the Commerce Department's months-long investigation into whether imports of solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are circumventing tariffs on goods made in China.

Biden's action would allay companies' concerns about having to hold billions of dollars in reserves to pay potential tariffs, one source familiar with the White House's plans said.

"There is going to be this safe harbor timeout on the ... collection of duties, and that's at the heart of what's going to save all of these solar projects and ensure that they are going forward," the source said.

Biden also will invoke the Defense Production Act to drive U.S. manufacturing of solar panels and other clean energy technologies in the future, with the support of loans and grants, the sources said.

State governors, lawmakers, industry officials and environmentalists have expressed concern over the investigation, which could have led to retroactive tariffs of up to 250 percent.

The issue created a unique dilemma for the White House, which is eager to show U.S. leadership on climate change, in part by encouraging use of renewable energy, while respecting and keeping its distance from the investigation proceedings.

Using executive action and invoking the DPA, which gives presidents some authority over domestic industries, allows Biden to take advantage of the tools available to him without stepping on the Commerce Department inquiry.

A second source said Biden's proclamation, relying on authority from a 1930 trade law, would apply only to the four countries and run in parallel with the investigation.

Depending on its outcome, tariffs could be levied on panels imported after the 24-month period, but the threat of retroactive payments would be off the table, the source added.

"If you bring the stuff in during that 24-month period, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, there will not be those additional duties," the second source said.

The investigation essentially halted the flow of solar panels that make up more than half of U.S. supplies and 80 percent of imports.

It had a chilling effect on the industry, according to clean energy groups, some of which asked Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to dismiss it. Raimondo has said she had no discretion to influence it.

"The president’s action is a much-needed reprieve from this industry-crushing probe," Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said in a statement.

"During the two-year tariff suspension window, the U.S. solar industry can return to rapid deployment while the Defense Production Act helps grow American solar manufacturing."

Announced at the end of March, the investigation could take 150 days or more to complete.

Biden has previously invoked the DPA to tackle a shortage of infant formula in the United States, ramp up domestic output of key minerals for electric vehicle batteries, and fight the COVID-19 pandemic through tests and vaccine production.

"It is a tool to do what we obviously desperately need to do, which is rapidly grow the domestic manufacturing capacity" of solar panels," the second source familiar with the matter said.

The administration was "very focused on making sure there's reliable and resilient supply chains at this critical moment for our energy sector, for our ability to support our consumers and to tackle the climate crisis," he added.

Ramping up renewable energy such as solar is crucial to Biden's goal of cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% by 2030, versus 2005 levels, as well as decarbonizing the U.S. power grid by 2035.

The Commerce Department inquiry has prompted 19 state governors, 22 U.S. senators, and dozens of members of the House of Representatives to express concern in letters to Biden.

"Initiation of this investigation is already causing massive disruption in the solar industry, and it will severely harm American solar businesses and workers and increase costs for American families as long as it continues," said one letter signed by senators including Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, and Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Additional reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

Biden takes aggressive executive action to protect solar industry expansion

Ben Adler

·Senior Editor

Mon, June 6, 2022, 

The Biden administration announced a set of executive actions to boost the domestic deployment of solar power on Monday morning.

The White House announced it is taking steps under the Defense Production Act to increase domestic production of clean energy technologies such as solar panels and their components, as well as directing the federal government to develop plans to buy domestically produced solar products. It is also delaying for two years any imposition of tariffs on solar panels from four countries in Southeast Asia that supply the vast majority of photovoltaic cells to the United States.

“Just on the strength of the president’s vision, the clarity of his vision, and this nation’s commitment to a clean energy future, we’ve seen the private investment and private commitment to growing domestic solar manufacturing capacity triple — or be on pace to triple — by 2024,” said a senior administration official on a Monday morning press call. “But we know that’s not enough, and that’s why the president is taking bold action today.”

President Biden gestures during a speech on June 3 in Rehoboth Beach, Del. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

The overarching purpose of these moves is to build up a domestic manufacturing supply chain for solar panels without impeding the booming business of installing solar panels. Increasing U.S. installation of solar power is a key element of the president’s plan to combat climate change, but an ongoing Commerce Department investigation has been threatening to block solar deployment, as it could result in heavy tariffs being applied to solar panels and their parts imported from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam. The solar installation industry has issued dire predictions about the effect these tariffs would have on U.S. jobs, and Biden’s move has the industry breathing a sigh of relief.

Some American solar panel manufacturers have complained that they are undercut on price by imports from those countries — which they say are actually produced by Chinese companies benefiting from Chinese government subsidies that violate trade agreements. The combination of a two-year grace period for U.S. solar installers to keep importing those products while simultaneously building up the domestic solar manufacturing industry is meant to bolster the U.S. industrial sector and U.S. energy security, so that the American solar industry can keep up with growing demand without relying on products from an adversarial nation.

The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) immediately issued a statement praising the measures on Monday.

“We applaud President Biden’s thoughtful approach to addressing the current crisis of the paralyzed solar supply chain,” said SEIA president and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper. “The president is providing improved business certainty today while harnessing the power of the Defense Production Act for tomorrow. Today’s actions protect existing solar jobs, will lead to increased employment in the solar industry and foster a robust solar manufacturing base here at home.”

Westlands Solar Park, near the town of Lemoore in the San Joaquin Valley of California, is the largest solar power plant in the U.S. and could become one of the largest in the world. (Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The administration also garnered praise from environmental activists, who had been fretting that the impending tariffs would stop the ongoing solar expansion, though some also argued that the ambitious and aggressive use of executive authority should not be limited to just one clean energy industry. (The wind energy industry, which Biden also seeks to boost, is currently fearing a proposal in Congress that could make it more difficult to build offshore wind farms.)

“Today’s executive action by the Biden administration to help unlock the potential of clean energy is what we need more of to address the climate crisis, create a better future for our communities, support domestic manufacturers, and aid our allies abroad by weakening the fossil-fueled war in Ukraine,” said Anusha Narayanan, climate campaign director at Greenpeace USA. “This announcement demonstrates President Biden’s ability to ramp up the transition to renewable energy. Now he needs to go even further by invoking the Defense Production Act across all clean energy sectors, declaring a climate emergency, and addressing the root of the climate crisis by beginning an immediate and equitable phaseout of domestic fossil fuel production.”

Solar power is central to Biden's plan to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change by 50% by 2030 and to reach zero net emissions by 2050. The administration wants solar to go from just 4% of U.S. electricity generation currently to nearly half of the U.S. electricity portfolio by 2050. To get there, it would have to double by 2025 the rate at which solar is being installed and double it again by 2030.

Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., catch an elevator to go to the Senate Chamber to vote.

 (Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

While the executive actions announced Monday may help with solar deployment, the large subsidies for rooftop solar purchases in Biden’s proposed budget reconciliation package remain stuck in the Senate due to opposition from Republicans and Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

Auxin Solar, the San Jose, Calif.-based solar manufacturer that filed the complaint with the Commerce Department that raised the specter of new tariffs on imported solar panels, was sharply critical of the administration's delay in any potential tariffs.

"President Biden is significantly interfering in Commerce’s quasi-judicial process," Auxin Solar CEO Mamun Rashid said in a statement shared with Yahoo News. "By taking this unprecedented — and potentially illegal — action, he has opened the door wide for Chinese-funded special interests to defeat the fair application of U.S. trade law. Since filing this case, Auxin has been well under way to scaling up. If the President will follow through on his stated intent to support the U.S. domestic industry — including grants to scale and produce upstream inputs like cells and wafers — Auxin is ready, willing, and able to meet that challenge."

Don’t give me truth: The pitfalls of fighting misinformation

June 6, 2022

Michael Bröning is Director of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in New York and a member of the basic value commission of Germany’s Social Democratic Party.

Confronted with the disastrous consequences of fake news, online hatred and misleading information, governments are increasingly embracing the role of arbiters of objective reality, establishing formal rules to combat “misleading information” and the spread of inflammatory fake news.

But when authorities are in charge of objectivity, who will object to the authorities?

In Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, India, Sweden and South Africa, the fight against “hate speech” is now enshrined in law. South Korea’s parliament has called for a panel of experts to separate “truthful history” from conspiracy theories — and overly critical readings — of the country’s past. And in the United States, President Joe Biden’s administration announced the establishment of an interagency “Disinformation Governance Board,” targeting “disinformation that threatens the security of the American people.”

International organizations have followed suit. The European Union passed a new Digital Services Act, enabling members to take down political propaganda or hate speech. And in the U.N., there’s a notable shift from saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war — as pledged by the U.N. Charter — to targeting the ever-spreading info wars. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has repeatedly warned of an “epidemic of misinformation” and has launched initiatives to “cut through the noise to deliver life-saving information and fact-based advice.”

Clearly, in times where Russian state propaganda presents naked aggression as a fight against “Nazism,” extremists distribute racist manifestos online and former President Donald Trump has returned to social media, the impulse to defend what is true is understandable.

And yet, there are good reasons to curb the enthusiasm when enlisting governments in the fight against misinformation.

Part of the problem is a simple truth — the truth is never simple.

Facts, data and even scientific consensus are frequently more multidimensional, conflicting and less static than government boards or official communiqués can allow for.

And as information requires context and interpretation, the notion of a government-sanctioned scientific truth is in fact anything but scientific. After all, the foundation of rational truth-finding is the conviction that even absolute certainties can and should be questioned. In the words of John Stuart Mill, it is only by raising questions “comprehensively, frequently and fearlessly” that “living truth” can be prevented from turning into “dead dogma.”

This abstract problem, however, has a tangible political dimension.

In a world of contesting political ideals, the line between disinformation, misinformation and merely inconvenient truths is incredibly difficult to draw; and the premise that political authorities are best positioned to draw this line and dispassionately identify reality misreads the nature of politics. This would essentially reverse the ideal of speaking truth to power which, in turn, would have the almost inevitable consequence of stifling legitimate opposition, silencing necessary criticism and ultimately emboldening authoritarian tendencies — especially given many governments’ dubious track records in permitting dissent.

Essentially, asking politics to define the demarcation line between fact and fiction all too frequently amounts to entrusting the care of the sheep to the wolf.

And democratic governments should be concerned as well, as even well-meaning attempts to bolster politics through the enlistment of ostensibly objective science can have unintended negative consequences. All too often, rather than insulating the former, they politicize and ultimately delegitimize the latter — with devastating repercussions for the political climate, social cohesion and a rational debate. For example, the blurred line between government authority and the role of science in the fight against COVID-19 is reason for pause.

In an ever-changing world, the truth won’t benefit from political ex cathedra stipulations but rather from open debate and the unhindered interplay of competing views.

Given the alarming rate at which press freedoms are shrinking around the world, guaranteeing and defending this open exchange of ideas is a more urgent task for well-meaning governments than assuming the impossible role of universal adjudicator of reality.

Freedom of opinion is the operating system of democratic societies. It’s not only the result but also a prerequisite of democracy.

In a world now steeped in misinformation, don’t give me truth. Give me debate.

The post Don’t give me truth: The pitfalls of fighting misinformation appeared first on Politico.

Russian forces left roughly 100 liters of 'high-quality vodka' at the Chernobyl nuclear plant before they retreated, Ukrainian workers say


Chernobyl, UKRAINE: A rescue worker sets flag signalling radioactivity in front of Chernobyl nuclear power plant during a drill organized by Ukraine's Emergency Ministry 08 November 2006. Employees and rescue workers improved their reactivity in case of a collapse of the sarcophagus covering the destroyed 4th power block.S

ERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty ImagesMore

Taiyler Simone Mitchell
Mon, June 6, 2022, 8:26 PM·2 min read


Russian forces seized the Chernobyl nuclear plant on the first day of the Ukrainian invasion.


Hundreds of workers were held hostage during the occupation until the pullout in March.


Workers are now left to clean up the mess Russian troops left behind — including vodka and feces.

Ukrainian workers who are cleaning up the Chernobyl nuclear plant following the Russian troop withdrawal have found "high-quality vodka," The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

Hundreds of workers were held hostage at the plant for weeks after Russian forces took over on February 24 — the start of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war on Ukraine.

"When the invasion started, the front guards got a call to fall back because a huge flow of Russian troops were coming," said Julia Bezdizha, a spokeswoman for the plant, told The Journal. "They fled mainly because it was very dangerous to stay and engage in heavy combat because of the heavy radiation."

The Russian troops began their withdrawal in late March after having been affected by "significant doses of radiation," Ukrainian authorities previously said.

Russian soldiers were reported to have dug up trenches and navigated the plant without protective gear.

Radiation exposure can lead to varying short and long-term health effects — including acute radiation syndrome, cancer, and mental distress — according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

"We believe very soon [the Russians] will feel the consequences of radiation that they have received. Some of them will feel it in months, some of them in years," Yevhen Kramarenko, head of the State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management, said at a press conference in April. "But anyway, all of the servicemen who were there will feel it at some point."

He added that it's unclear how radiation levels have changed nearby after the site — including its radioactive soil — was tampered with.

In addition to leaving behind around 100 liters of high-quality vodka, the Russian troops left a large mess at the plant, per The Journal.

Ukrainian workers found human feces, smashed computer screens, and spray-painted walls throughout the plant, according to The Journal.

"The poop was the icing on the cake," Aleksandr Barsukov, the deputy director of the Chernobyl Ecocenter, told The Journal.

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Russian forces left piles of excrement in every office of the Chernobyl nuclear plant before they retreated, Ukrainian workers say

Chernobyl nuclear plant

Taiyler Simone Mitchell
Mon, June 6, 2022


Ukrainian soldiers sit on top of a military vehicle parked outside the hotel in Prypiat, Ukraine on February 4.

Volodymyr Tarasov/Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Image

Russian forces began their withdrawal from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster site in March.


But Ukrainian workers are now discovering what they left behind — including human feces.


"The poop was the icing on the cake," the deputy director of the Chernobyl Ecocenter, said.

Russian forces may have evacuated the Chernobyl nuclear plant, but they destroyed the premises leaving behind mounds of defecation in each office, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.

Hundreds of Ukrainian workers were held hostage for weeks throughout the Russian occupation. Now workers are moving to clean up the site following the Russian troops' withdrawal in late March after being affected by "significant doses of radiation."

Aleksandr Barsukov, the deputy director of the Chernobyl Ecocenter, told The Journal that they have found spray-painted conference rooms, smashed computer screens, and 100 liters of high-quality vodka.

"The poop was the icing on the cake," Barsukov said.

Chernobyl, the site of the 1986 Soviet nuclear disaster, was seized on the first day of the war for a total of five weeks.

After disturbing the soil, soldiers "panicked at the first sign" of radiation illness, which "showed up very quickly," Ukrainian state power company Energoatom told The Guardian. The outlet reported that the panic led to the troops pulling out of the region.

"When the invasion started, the front guards got a call to fall back because a huge flow of Russian troops were coming," said Julia Bezdizha, a spokeswoman for the plant, told WSJ. "They fled mainly because it was very dangerous to stay and engage in heavy combat because of the heavy radiation."

Russian forces had also seized Europe's largest nuclear plant, Zaporizhzhia, at the start of the war. The occupation of the plants had some concerned about a nuclear reaction and increased radiation levels.

The exact impact on Russian soldiers is currently unknown, but troops were reported to have dug trenches in radioactive soil and moved about the plant without protective gear.

Radiation exposure can impact an individual's health in many different ways — including acute radiation syndrome, cancer, and mental distress — according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yevhen Kramarenko, head of the State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management, said at a press conference in April that it's unclear how radiation levels in the area have been impacted by the Russian forces.

But, he adds, "we believe very soon [the Russians] will feel the consequences of radiation that they have received. Some of them will feel it in months, some of them in years."

"But anyway, all of the servicemen who were there will feel it at some point," Kramarenko continued.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war against Ukraine began on February 24 and is ongoing.

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Fact check: Abortion-related deaths continued after Roe v. Wade, but occurred less often

Sudiksha Kochi, USA TODAY

Mon, June 6, 2022, 

The claim: Roe v. Wade marked the end of women dying from abortions

After a Supreme Court draft opinion leaked that signaled a potential reversal of Roe v. Wade, debates about the future of abortion access ignited nationwide.

Some online claim that the watershed ruling did more than just establish a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

"Roe wasn't the beginning of women having abortions," reads text in an image left-wing page Occupy Democrats shared to Facebook May 9. "Roe was the end of women dying from abortion."

The post generated over 30,000 interactions and 20,000 shares in less than a week. Similar posts amassed thousands more interactions on Facebook and Instagram.

But the claim is false.

Experts told USA TODAY abortion-related deaths still occurred after Roe v. Wade was decided, though such outcomes are rare. This declining trend in abortion mortality began before the 1970s, but the Roe decision was a key contributor to that trend.

Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks

USA TODAY reached out to Occupy Democrats and other social media users who shared the claim for comment.

Abortion-related deaths still occurred after Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows abortion-related deaths still occurred in subsequent years but in low numbers.

The CDC defines legal induced abortions as those a licensed clinician performs within state law and illegal abortions as those performed in any other cirumstances.

Fact check:Photo of Ginni Thomas with expensive wine is from 2018, not after Roe v. Wade leak

Abortion deaths for both categories dropped sharply in the mid-1970s and have remained low since, but they still occur, according to CDC data. From 2011 to 2018, the CDC reported two to six deaths per year in legal abortions and one total death in an illegal abortion.

In terms of rate, the latest data showed 0.41 deaths per 100,000 abortions from 2013 to 2018.

The Roe decision was a key driver in this decrease, said Mary Faith Marshall, director of biomedical ethics at the University of Virginia, told USA TODAY.

"Abortion became part of care provided under an accredited health care system with safety standards," Marshall said. "Clinicians had to be trained to perform abortion procedures in a formal way."

Women were also protected in their right to get abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, which reduced their risk of mortality, Marshall said.

A very small number of abortion-related deaths still occur today due to rare complications and demographics who can't afford medical care, Amanda Jean Stevenson, a sociologist at the University of Colorado, told USA TODAY in an email.

Declining trend in abortion mortality before Roe vs. Wade

Even before Roe v. Wade, the number of abortion-related deaths was steadily declining, Dr. Karen Meckstroth, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told USA TODAY in an email.

A 1978 study found that "deaths from abortion declined more rapidly than deaths from other causes associated with pregnancy and childbirth" between 1940 and 1975. This was attributed to various factors, such as increased availability of legal abortion and more effective contraception, according to the study.

Fact check: False claim about 'domestic supply of infants' and draft Supreme Court abortion opinion

Abortion mortality decreased when antibiotics such as penicillin became widely available in 1945, which increased the safety of the procedure, Dr. Lisa Harris, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, told USA TODAY in an email.

Abortion-related deaths also declined as a result of states repealing and changing anti-abortion laws, proving wider access to safe procedures. Meckstroth said that by the end of 1970, four states had repealed their anti-abortion laws, and 11 states had changed them.

Our rating: False

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that Roe vs. Wade marked the end of women dying from abortions. Abortion-related deaths still occurred after the landmark decision, though there was a sharp decline. This downward trend in abortion mortality began before 1973, and Roe contributed to it, experts said.

Our fact-check sources:

• Mary Faith Marshall, May 13, Phone interview with USA TODAY

• Lisa Harris, May 16, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• Suzanne Bell, May 13, Phone interview with USA TODAY

• Carol Joffe, May 13, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• Belsie Gonzalez, May 13, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• Saifuddin Ahmed, May 13, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• Mary Ziegler, May 13, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• Amanda Jean Stevenson, May 13, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• Paula Lantz, May 13, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• Karen Meckstroth, May 13, Email exchange with USA TODAY

• CDC, accessed May 16, Abortion Surveillance -- United States, 1993 and 1994

• CDC, Nov. 27, 2020, Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2018

• CDC, Nov. 26, 2021, Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2019

• Britannica, accessed May 16, Roe v. Wade

• USA TODAY, May 9, What the end of Roe v. Wade could mean in a nation without child care aid or family leave

• The Washington Post, May 29, 2019, Planned Parenthood’s false stat: ‘Thousands’ of women died every year before Roe

• Department of Health, Education and Welfare (via Glenn Kessler), September 1978, Cates Abortion Mortality1940 To1976 AJOG 1978

• USA TODAY, May 3, What happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned? What we know about Supreme Court's leaked draft

• PolitiFact, Oct. 13, 2021, Deaths from abortions still happen, but they declined sharply after Roe v. Wade

• FDA, accessed May 13, FDA's Approval of the First Oral Contraceptive, Enovid

Thank you for supporting our journalism. 

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Fact check: False claim abortion-related deaths ended after Roe ruling