Business
Column: Republican states would rather keep poisoning children with lead than pay for a fix
Here are a few things we know about lead in drinking water:
◆ There is no known safe level. More than a decade ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ceased setting minimum acceptable standards for children’s blood lead levels.
That was because scientific studies couldn’t identify any concentration that didn’t have “deleterious effects” on children’s health. The only proper approach, the CDC said, is prevention “to ensure that no children in the U.S.” face any exposure to lead.
Lead exposure causes damage to the brain and kidneys and may interfere with the production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the body.
— Environmental Protection Agency
◆ Removing all the sources of lead exposure is expensive, but over the long term a sound investment, for it eliminates long-term effects that lead to massive healthcare costs, cognitive deficits and higher crime rates.
◆ Children in low-income and minority neighborhoods are the most seriously affected, because their families have few options to avoid exposure. The lead crisis in Flint, Mich., erupted as a national scandal in 2011, but it was the tip of the iceberg.
◆ Industry has been opposing abatement programs for decades — in California, for instance, three companies that produced and promoted lead paint for homes fought a 19-year legal battle to evade the costs of residential abatement. They finally reached a $305-million settlement with several counties and cities in 2019.
That brings us to the latest initiative by the Republican attorneys general of 15 red states, aimed at stifling a lead abatement initiative of the Biden administration.
Led by Kansas Atty. Gen. Kris W. Kobach, they’ve taken aim at a proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to order the removal of some 9 million lead water lines across the country. The rule conforms with an action plan Biden issued in 2021 aimed at replacing 100% of the lead water lines serving homes in the U.S.
You may remember Kobach’s name from his adventures waging various right-wing culture battles, all of which he lost — often at the expense of the localities that followed his lead as Kansas secretary of state. These included failed efforts to enact draconian anti-immigration ordinances.
In 2018, Kobach suffered a mortifying defeat at the hands of a federal judge who overturned a Kansas law he championed that required proof of citizenship to vote. The judge further held him in contempt for repeatedly flouting courtroom procedure.
Kobach lost races for governor in 2018 and the U.S. Senate in 2020, but managed to win a race for attorney general in 2022. From that perch he has been pressing his new cause — exposing Kansans to lead in their drinking water.
In a comment letter to the EPA, Kobach and his colleagues call the proposed rule “unworkable, underfunded, and unnecessary.” They also say the benefits “may be … entirely speculative.”
They suggest it’s an infringement of states’ rights, which is an argument that has seldom been heard since the Civil War.
The Kobach cabal, which encompasses the attorneys general of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming, further asserted that private homeowners would “bear the brunt of the costs.”
With one exception, all these claims are false. The one true assertion is that the mandate is underfunded. Estimates of the cost of meeting the EPA’s proposal run from about $45 billion to $60 billion.
Biden’s 2021 infrastructure bill allocated $15 billion for the purpose — but he originally proposed $45 billion, which was pared down in congressional negotiations.
As for the rest, obviously the rule isn’t “unworkable.” The EPA proposes to give localities and utilities 10 years to complete the mandated replacements, averaging 10% of the work per year. The red states say that’s an unreasonably “tight timeline.” But the rule makes municipalities with especially numerous lead pipes, such as Chicago, Cleveland, New York and Detroit, eligible for extensions.
The technology and engineering necessary for the job are well understood. Newark, N.J., replaced its more than 23,000 lead water lines via a three-year, $170-million program that commenced in 2019, all at no direct cost to homeowners — despite what Kobach et al. claimed. Green Bay, Wis., completed the replacement of its 2,000 lead lines in 2020, after a five-year effort that also required no out-of-pocket spending by homeowners.
Is it “unnecessary”? Are the benefits “speculative”? Surely not.
The adverse health impacts of lead in drinking water are absolutely indisputable. The EPA’s proposed rule spelled them out, with citations to the relevant scientific data.
“Lead exposure causes damage to the brain and kidneys and may interfere with the production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the body,” the proposal stated. “The most susceptible life-stages are the developing fetus, infants, and young children…. Because they are growing, children’s bodies absorb more lead than adults do, and their brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to its damaging effects. As a result, even low-level lead exposure is of particular concern to children.”
As for the special vulnerability of children in low-income communities to these conditions, a 2021 study in JAMA Pediatrics found that children in those communities are nearly 2.5 times as likely to have elevated blood lead levels compared with those in low-poverty areas.
Another 2021 study found that Black infants suffered a 50% higher average loss of IQ points attributable to blood lead than white or Hispanic infants, costing them an estimated loss in lifetime earnings of more than $47,000.
These considerations should make the eradication of lead from drinking water a major goal for a party that claims to be devoted to the health and welfare of children, even before infancy. But actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Republicans tell us that they care a lot more about money than about children.
Let’s start with the lead water pipe rule that the new EPA proposal aims to replace. The old rule was promulgated by the EPA under Trump. It was issued on Jan. 15, 2021, five days before Trump left office.
The Trump rule left in place a preexisting standard of 15 parts per billion of lead in water that had been the trigger for lead pipe removal. That was three times the level deemed the maximum allowable in Canada and the European Union, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported.
The Trump rule also extended the deadline for pulling out lines in the most heavily contaminated systems to 33 years, from 14. The NRDC estimated that the weakened standards would leave more than 5.5 million people exposed to heavily contaminated drinking water for decades to come.
The Biden administration suspended the Trump proposal upon taking office. That won support from the attorneys general of eight states, including California and the District of Columbia, who rightly labeled exposure to lead “a public health issue of paramount importance.”
The proposal being challenged by the Republican attorneys general is its replacement. It accepts no compromise in pulling the most dangerous sources of lead poisoning out of the ground.
No one disputes that eliminating lead from drinking water is an expensive undertaking. But if Kobach and his colleagues are really concerned that the EPA rule is an “unfunded mandate,” as they label it in their comment letter, there’s an obvious solution: They should turn their political influence to persuading their congressional delegations to funding it.
Those 15 states have 30 senators among them (all but three Republicans) and 118 House members (83 of whom are Republicans). That would be a good start at getting billions more appropriated to cover removal of every lead pipe in the country. If they truly care about the children, what are they waiting for?
Business
Scott Bessent, Trump’s Billionaire Treasury Pick, Will Shed Assets to Avoid Conflicts
Scott Bessent, the billionaire hedge fund manager whom President-elect Donald J. Trump picked to be his Treasury secretary, plans to divest from dozens of funds, trusts and investments in preparation to become the nation’s top economic policymaker.
Those plans were released on Saturday along with the publication of an ethics agreement and financial disclosures that Mr. Bessent submitted ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing next Thursday.
The documents show the extent of the wealth of Mr. Bessent, whose assets and investments appear to be worth in excess of $700 million. Mr. Bessent was formerly the top investor for the billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros and has been a major Republican donor and adviser to Mr. Trump.
If confirmed as Treasury secretary, Mr. Bessent, 62, will steer Mr. Trump’s economic agenda of cutting taxes, rolling back regulations and imposing tariffs as he seeks to renegotiate trade deals. He will also play a central role in the Trump administration’s expected embrace of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.
Although Mr. Trump won the election by appealing to working-class voters who have been dogged by high prices, he has turned to wealthy Wall Street investors such as Mr. Bessent and Howard Lutnick, a billionaire banker whom he tapped to be commerce secretary, to lead his economic team. Linda McMahon, another billionaire, has been picked as education secretary, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is leading an unofficial agency known as the Department of Government Efficiency.
In a letter to the Treasury Department’s ethics office, Mr. Bessent outlined the steps he would take to “avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest in the event that I am confirmed for the position of secretary of the Department of Treasury.”
Mr. Bessent said he would shutter Key Square Capital Management, the investment firm that he founded, and resign from his Bessent-Freeman Family Foundation and from Rockefeller University, where he has been chairman of the investment committee.
The financial disclosure form, which provides ranges for the value of his assets, reveals that Mr. Bessent owns as much as $25 million of farmland in North Dakota, which earns an income from soybean and corn production. He also owns a property in the Bahamas that is worth as much as $25 million. Last November, Mr. Bessent put his historic pink mansion in Charleston, S.C., on the market for $22.5 million.
Mr. Bessent is selling several investments that could pose potential conflicts of interest including a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund; an account that trades the renminbi, China’s currency; and his stake in All Seasons, a conservative publisher. He also has a margin loan, or line of credit, with Goldman Sachs of more than $50 million.
As an investor, Mr. Bessent has long wagered on the rising strength of the dollar and has betted against, or “shorted,” the renminbi, according to a person familiar with Mr. Bessent’s strategy who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his portfolio. Mr. Bessent gained notoriety in the 1990s by betting against the British pound and earning his firm, Soros Fund Management, $1 billion. He also made a high-profile bet against the Japanese yen.
Mr. Bessent, who will be overseeing the U.S. Treasury market, holds over $100 million in Treasury bills.
Cabinet officials are required to divest certain holdings and investments to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. Although this can be an onerous process, it has some potential tax benefits.
The tax code contains a provision that allows securities to be sold and the capital gains tax on such sales deferred if the full proceeds are used to buy Treasury securities and certain money-market funds. The tax continues to be deferred until the securities or money-market funds are sold.
Even while adhering to the ethics guidelines, questions about conflicts of interest can still emerge.
Mr. Trump’s Treasury secretary during his first term, Steven Mnuchin, divested from his Hollywood film production company after joining the administration. However, as he was negotiating a trade deal in 2018 with China — an important market for the U.S. film industry — ethics watchdogs raised questions about whether Mr. Mnuchin had conflicts because he had sold his interest in the company to his wife.
Mr. Bessent was chosen for the Treasury after an internal tussle among Mr. Trump’s aides over the job. Mr. Lutnick, Mr. Trump’s transition team co-chair and the chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, made a late pitch to secure the Treasury secretary role for himself before Mr. Trump picked him to be Commerce secretary.
During that fight, which spilled into view, critics of Mr. Bessent circulated documents disparaging his performance as a hedge fund manager.
Mr. Bessent’s most recent hedge fund, Key Square Capital, launched to much fanfare in 2016, garnering $4.5 billion in investor money, including $2 billion from Mr. Soros, but manages much less now. A fund he ran in the early 2000s had a similarly unremarkable performance.
Business
As wildfires rage, private firefighters join the fight for the fortunate few
When devastating wildfires erupted across Los Angeles County this week, David Torgerson’s team of firefighters went to work.
The thousands of city, county and state firefighters dispatched to battle the blazes went wherever they were needed. The crews from Torgerson’s Wildfire Defense Systems, however, set out for particular addresses. Armed with hoses, fire-blocking gel and their own water supply, the Montana-based outfit contracts with insurance companies to defend the homes of customers who buy policies that include their services.
It’s a win-win if the private firefighters succeed in saving a home, said Torgerson, the company’s founder and executive chairman. The homeowner keeps their home and the insurance company doesn’t have to make a hefty payout to rebuild.
“It makes good sense,” he said. “It’s always better if the homes and businesses don’t burn.”
Torgerson’s operation, which has been contracting with insurance companies since 2008 and employs hundreds of firefighters, engineers and other staff, highlights a lesser-known component of fighting wildfires in the U.S. Along with the more than 7,500 publicly funded firefighters and emergency personnel dispatched to the current conflagrations, which have burned more than 30,000 acres and destroyed more than 9,000 structures, a smaller force of for-hire professionals is on the fire lines for insurance companies, wealthy individual property owners or government agencies in need of additional hands.
Their presence isn’t without controversy. Private firefighters hired by homeowners directly have drawn criticism for heightening class divides during disasters. This week, a Pacific Palisades homeowner received backlash for putting a call out on X, the social media site formerly named Twitter, for help finding private firefighters who could save his home.
“Does anyone have access to private firefighters to protect our home in Pacific Palisades? Need to act fast here. All neighbors houses burning,” he wrote in the since-deleted post. “Will pay any amount.”
“The epitome of nerve and tone deaf!” someone replied.
In 2018, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West credited private firefighters for saving their $60-million home in the Santa Monica mountains during a wildfire. But those who serve wealthy clients make up only a small fraction of nonpublic firefighters, according to Torgerson.
“Contract firefighters who are hired by the government are the vast majority,” he said. The federal government has been hiring private firefighters since the 1980s to support its own forces. According to the National Wildfire Suppression Assn., there are about 250 private sector fire response companies under federal contract, adding about 10,000 firefighters to U.S. efforts.
Some private firefighting companies, including Wildfire Defense Systems, are known as Qualified Insurance Resources and are paid by insurance companies to protect the homes of their customers. Wildfire Defense Systems refers to its on-the-ground forces as private sector wildfire personnel.
Wildfire Defense Systems only works with the insurance industry, but other privately held firefighting companies contract with industrial clients such as petrochemical facilities and utility providers. Wildfire Defense Systems declined to disclose company revenue or what it charges for its services.
Allied Disaster Defense, a company that has sent personnel to the fires in Los Angeles, offers services to both property owners and insurance companies. Its website says its services will “enhance the insurability of properties” and “contribute to reduced claims.”
The website also has a page dedicated to services for private clients, which include emergency response and assistance with insurance claims for “high net-worth and celebrity” customers. The company does not list prices for its services and has nondisclosure agreements with its private clients.
Several other private firefighting companies are based in California, including Mt. Adams Wildfire, which contracts with government agencies, and UrbnTek, which serves Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego among other areas. Along with spraying fire retardant on trees and brush to stop an advancing fire, the company offers “a double layer of protection by wrapping a structure with our fire blanket system.”
Torgerson, a civil engineer with 34 years in emergency services, said he has been struck by the speed of the current wildfires. While typically it takes two to 10 minutes for a fire to sweep through a home, he said, the Palisades fire is traveling at higher speeds.
“It’s moving so fast, it’ll likely take one to two minutes for these fires to pass over the properties,” he said.
He said his company responded to all 62 of the wildfires that threatened structures in California in 2024 and didn’t lose a property.
Business
As Delta Reports Profits, Airlines Are Optimistic About 2025
This year just got started, but it is already shaping up nicely for U.S. airlines.
After several setbacks, the industry ended 2024 in a fairly strong position because of healthy demand for tickets and the ability of several airlines to control costs and raise fares, experts said. Barring any big problems, airlines — especially the largest ones — should enjoy a great year, analysts said.
“I think it’s going to be pretty blue skies,” said Tom Fitzgerald, an airline industry analyst for the investment bank TD Cowen.
In recent weeks, many major airlines upgraded forecasts for the all-important last three months of the year. And on Friday, Delta Air Lines said it collected more than $15.5 billion in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024, a record.
“As we move into 2025, we expect strong demand for travel to continue,” Delta’s chief executive, Ed Bastian, said in a statement. That put the airline on track to “deliver the best financial year in Delta’s 100-year history,” he said.
The airline also beat analysts’ profit estimates and said it expected earnings per share, a measure of profitability, to rise more than 10 percent this year.
Delta’s upbeat report offers a preview of what are expected to be similarly rosy updates from other carriers that will report earnings in the next few weeks. That should come as welcome news to an industry that has been stifled by various challenges even as demand for travel has rocketed back after the pandemic.
“For the last five years, it’s felt like every bird in the sky was a black swan,” said Ravi Shanker, an analyst focused on airlines at Morgan Stanley. “But it appears that this industry does have its ducks in a row.”
That is, of course, if everything goes according to plan, which it rarely does. Geopolitics, terrorist attacks, air safety problems and, perhaps most important, an economic downturn could tank demand for travel. Rising costs, particularly for jet fuel, could erode profits. Or the industry could face problems like a supply chain disruption that limits availability of new planes or makes it harder to repair older ones.
Early last year, a panel blew off a Boeing 737 Max during an Alaska Airlines flight, resurfacing concerns about the safety of the manufacturer’s planes, which are used on most flights operated by U.S. airlines, according to Cirium, an aviation data firm.
The incident forced Boeing to slow production and delay deliveries of jets. That disrupted the plans of some airlines that had hoped to carry more passengers. And there was little airlines could do to adjust because the world’s largest jet manufacturer, Airbus, didn’t have the capacity to pick up the slack — both it and Boeing have long order backlogs. In addition, some Airbus planes were afflicted by an engine problem that has forced carriers to pull the jets out of service for inspections.
There was other tumult, too. Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy. A brief technology outage wreaked havoc on many airlines, disrupting travel and resulting in thousands of canceled flights in the heart of the busy summer season. And during the summer, smaller airlines flooded popular domestic routes with seats, squeezing profits during what is normally the most lucrative time of year.
But the industry’s financial position started improving when airlines reduced the number of flights and seats. While that was bad for travelers, it lifted fares and profits for airlines.
“You’re in a demand-over-supply imbalance, which gives the industry pricing power,” said Andrew Didora, an analyst at the Bank of America.
At the same time, airlines have been trying to improve their businesses. American Airlines overhauled a sales strategy that had frustrated corporate customers, helping it win back some travelers. Southwest Airlines made changes aimed at lowering costs and increasing profits after a push by the hedge fund Elliott Management. And JetBlue Airways unveiled a strategy with similar aims, after a less contentious battle with the investor Carl C. Icahn.
Those improvements and industry trends, along with the stabilization of fuel, labor and other costs, have created the conditions for what could be a banner 2025. “All of this is the best setup we’ve had in decades,” Mr. Shanker said.
That won’t materialize right away, though. Travel demand tends to be subdued in the winter. But business trips pick up somewhat, driven by events like this week’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
The positive outlook for 2025 is probably strongest for the largest U.S. airlines — Delta, United and American. All three are well positioned to take advantage of buoyant trends, including steadily rebounding business travel and customers who are eager to spend more on better seats and international flights.
But some smaller airlines may do well, too. JetBlue, Alaska Airlines and others have been adding more premium seats, which should help lift profits.
While he is optimistic overall, Mr. Shanker acknowledged that the industry was vulnerable to a host of potential problems.
“I mean, this time last year you were talking about doors falling off planes,” he said. “So who knows what might happen.”
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics1 week ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health6 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
South Korea extends Boeing 737-800 inspections as Jeju Air wreckage lifted
-
Technology2 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
World1 week ago
Weather warnings as freezing temperatures hit United Kingdom
-
News1 week ago
Seeking to heal the country, Jimmy Carter pardoned men who evaded the Vietnam War draft