Business
Column: The oil companies lied to us about climate change. California should sue them into the ground
The oil companies want you to see California’s newly filed lawsuit over their decades of deceit about global warming as a “hypocritical … Hollywood-and-foreign-billionaire-funded” effort to “starve the state of energy and hamper the economy.”
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?
The targets of the lawsuit, filed Friday in San Francisco County Superior Court, are five major oil companies and their subsidiaries. “From extreme heat to drought and water shortages, the climate crisis they have caused is undeniable,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said after the filing. “It is time they pay to abate the harm they have caused.”
Climate projections reported by Exxon Mobil scientists between 1977 and 2003 were accurate and skillful in predicting subsequent global warming.
— Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran, Science Magazein
The state’s lawsuit joins others filed by at least 18 municipalities, seven states and the District of Columbia from New York to the West Coast in recent years in state and federal courts.
The industry asserts that the litigation is futile, pointing to scattered adverse rulings by judges here and there. But all those cases are still pending.
Big Oil is right to be concerned, for if even one crosses the judicial finish line, the path could be cleared for a massive financial reckoning in which the industry is forced to pony up for programs of mitigation and abatement. Think of the multibillion-dollar reckoning imposed on the tobacco industry, and multiply by infinity.
The oil lobby also points out that the real blame for petroleum-driven global warming lies with us, the public, and our unquenched demand for gasoline-powered cars and fossil fuels of every other description.
That’s fair, as far as it goes, but it didn’t save the cigarette companies after their role in the promotion of smoking through marketing and the suppression of scientific evidence of links between smoking and diseases was exposed. The harvest included a 25-year, $246-billion settlement reached in 1998 between the companies and state governments.
So let’s take a close look at the California case, which names Exxon Mobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and BP, along with the American Petroleum Institute, as defendants.
The state lawsuit doesn’t blame the oil industry for creating global warming, exactly. Rather, it seeks to hold the companies responsible for lying about it — specifically, for suppressing what its own scientists were saying about the consequences of burning fossil fuels.
Relying on oil, gas and coal for energy has pumped carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases into the air, trapping heat in the atmosphere and driving the average temperature higher.
It’s impossible to overstate the impact of the industry campaign against the truth. Oil companies spent millions on “advertorials” in major newspapers to discredit climate science and scientists, undermining public trust in their work.
They issued statements, pamphlets and briefs describing the state of climate science as unsettled. “Global Warming: Who’s Right? Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers” was the title of an eight-page pamphlet Exxon Mobil issued in 1996.
“Scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate,” its chief executive, Lee Raymond, wrote in the preface. “Many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand climate systems and develop the best long-term strategies.”
All this has emboldened right-wing politicians to question findings of global warming, turning the climate crisis into just another partisan culture battle.
As the California lawsuit properly points out, this translated into decades of lost opportunities to advance policies to mitigate the coming crisis. Such policies might have led to “an earlier and quicker transition to cleaner energy sources” in California and across the country, in part by stepping up public pressure for investments in renewables.
Contrary to Raymond’s assurances, these consequences were anything but unknown to the oil companies. Exxon Mobil’s own scientific staff had begun warning as early as the 1970s that taking action to reduce greenhouse gases was an urgent priority.
“Climate projections reported by Exxon Mobil scientists between 1977 and 2003 were accurate and skillful in predicting subsequent global warming,” science historians Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran observed in Science in January. “ExxonMobil accurately foresaw the threat of human-caused global warming, both prior and parallel to orchestrating lobbying and propaganda campaigns to delay climate action.”
My colleagues at The Times produced a groundbreaking exposé of the oil industry’s deceptive tactics in 2015, in collaboration with the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. Since then, we’ve continued to document its deceit.
How has the industry responded to these revelations? Chiefly by attacking those who have brought them to light, including the jurisdictions that have filed lawsuits against the energy companies.
They point to a “strategy session” held in La Jolla in 2012 sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists and environmental activists, as though there’s something nefarious about financial backing by the Rockefeller Family Fund (the endowment of which can be traced ultimately to, um, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, the forebear of Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Conoco and dozens of other companies).
The Independent Petroleum Assn. of America breathlessly promoted a “bombshell” reported by Fox News that Leonardo DiCaprio’s nonprofit foundation had provided funding for some of the litigation. This scoop, the IPAA decided, “demonstrates that the climate litigation campaign is a national effort, and not a loose collection of state and local cases.” (No kidding?)
The IPAA persistently grouses about this outside litigation funding and advocates investigations into how it is “often used to bring frivolous or politically motivated lawsuits that enrich plaintiffs’ lawyers.”
Is this some sort of a gag? Rules requiring disclosure of third-party litigation funding might not be a bad thing in general. The problem isn’t public-interest nonprofits assisting public-interest plaintiffs, however, but real plaintiffs hiding behind frontmen and -women instead of suing on their own behalf. For example, Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolling the lawsuit by wrestler Hulk Hogan that effectively put the celebrity-trolling website Gawker out of business.
Global warming litigation is still in its infancy, and plainly the judicial system doesn’t quite know what to make of it. The result has been some decisions in which judges agree that the plaintiffs have a point, but aren’t sure how to handle their claims.
In 2018, a federal judge in San Francisco wrote that he “accepts the science behind global warming,” but ruled that crafting a remedy for the damage fell outside his court’s jurisdiction. Another San Francisco federal judge ruled around the same time that lawsuits brought by Marin and San Mateo counties and the city of Imperial Beach against 29 oil companies belonged in state, not federal, court. They’re expected to be consolidated into one case and heard in state court next year.
Which legal strategy would have the best chance of prevailing is still unclear. The California lawsuit lists as causes of action state laws concerning public nuisances, pollution, untrue or misleading advertising or marketing, fraudulent business practices, product liability and negligence, in the hope that at least one of them will bear fruit.
Meanwhile, the oil industry continues to deceive the public about global warming and its efforts to address the crisis. BP and Shell, which promoted themselves as the most aggressive oil companies in shifting to renewables, both have quietly backed away from their pledges to invest heavily in solar and wind energy.
Nor has the industry backed off its efforts to undermine state environmental laws. California oil and gas producers have qualified a referendum for the 2024 state ballot aimed at overturning a new law setting a minimum distance between new oil and gas wells and places of human habitation and work, such as homes, schools and healthcare facilities.
They assembled a war chest last year of more than $20 million. You probably won’t lose a wager that they’ll be spending their millions, as I wrote a few months ago, on “a campaign of deceit and balderdash typical of attempts by businesses to overturn regulations they don’t like (which is most of them).”
To put it another way, the reckoning is still somewhere over the horizon. But it needs to happen.
Business
How Poshmark Is Trying to Make Resale Work Again
Lauren Eager got into thrifting in high school. It was a way to find cheap, interesting clothes while not contributing to the wastefulness of fast fashion.
In 2015, in her first year of college, she downloaded the app for Poshmark, a kind of Instagram-meets-eBay resale platform. Soon, she was selling as well as buying clothes.
This was the golden age of online reselling. In addition to Poshmark, companies like ThredUp and Depop had sprung up, giving a second life to old clothes. In 2016, Facebook debuted Marketplace. Even Goodwill got into the action, starting a snazzy website.
The platforms tapped into two consumer trends: buying stuff online and the never-gets-old delight of snagging a gently used item for a fraction of the original cost. During the Covid-19 pandemic, as people cleaned out their closets, enthusiasm for reselling intensified. It was so strong that Poshmark decided to go public. On the day of its initial public offering in January 2021, the company’s market value peaked at $7.4 billion, roughly the same as PVH’s, the company that owns Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, at the time.
Then, the business of old clothes started to fray.
Using the Poshmark app, Ms. Eager and others said, started to feel like trying to find something in a messy closet. The app was cluttered with features that did not work or that she did not use, and it felt “spammy,” she said, sending too many push notifications.
Many platforms found selling used items hard to scale. Now, online resellers are trying to recalibrate. Last year, ThredUp decided to exit Europe and focus on selling in the United States. Trove, a company that helps brands like Canada Goose and Steve Madden resell their goods, purchased a competitor, Recurate. The RealReal, a luxury consignor, appointed a new chief executive as the company tried to improve profitability.
Poshmark is undergoing perhaps the biggest reinvention. In 2023, Naver, South Korea’s biggest search engine as well as an online marketplace, bought the company in a deal valued at $1.6 billion, less than half its IPO price.
Something of a mash-up of Google and Amazon, Naver is betting it can rebuild Poshmark, which has 130 million active users, with the same technology that made Naver dominant in its own country.
It may also help breathe new life into the resale market. Analysts think the resale fashion market still has room to grow in the United States, with revenue expected to increase 26 percent to $36.3 billion by 2028, according to the retail consultancy firm Coresight Research.
New legislation in California could help. The law, passed last year, requires brands and retailers that operate in the state and generate at least $1 million to set up a “producer responsibility organization” to collect and then reuse, repair or recycle its products. Resale platforms like ThredUp and Poshmark could be in a position to help brands carry out that mandate.
At the moment, though, Naver’s focus for Poshmark is more basic: Make it a better place to sell and shop. The company has the “operating know-how” to do that, said Philip Lee, a founder of the media outlet The Pickool, which covers both South Korean and U.S. tech companies.
“They’re trying to renovate Poshmark and then expand the market share,” he said.
A Marriage of Search and Commerce
Poshmark, which is based in Redwood City, Calif., was founded in 2011 by Manish Chandra, an entrepreneur and former tech executive, and three others. In trying to expand, Poshmark faced a problem common to resellers: Capturing the excitement of the secondhand-shopping treasure hunt while not frustrating buyers with an endless scroll. The company knew it needed better search, as well as interactive elements that gave people more reasons to come beyond paying $19 for a J. Crew sweater.
For its part, Naver was looking for ways to push beyond South Korea, where its commerce and search businesses were already mature. The growing online resale market in the United States presented an opportunity, and also gave the company access to the largest consumer market in the world.
“Commerce is a big growth engine for us,” Namsun Kim, Naver’s chief financial officer, said. And the peer-to-peer sector, where users sell to one another, was still in its infancy, with room to expand. But, Mr. Kim added, “it’s a more challenging segment, and that’s why it’s harder for a lot of the larger players to enter.”
There are two common business models for resale: peer-to-peer and consignment. With consignment, a platform collects and redistributes physical goods. Poshmark uses the peer-to-peer model, which relies on scores of people — many of them novices — haggling over prices and then mailing items to one another. This decentralization can be a headache for brands, which like to maintain a certain level of control of their products. And platforms like Poshmark must make buyers comfortable with trusting the sellers on their site.
Before the Naver purchase, it was difficult to push through needed technological changes, said Vanessa Wong, the vice president of product at Poshmark.
“I would always talk to my engineers and ask, ‘What if we do this or do that?’ They’re like, ‘That’s hard. The effort’s really high,’” Ms. Wong said.
Naver’s purchase offered both the investment and the expertise to pull off the changes. Founded in 1999, the company is everywhere in South Korea.
“We are not just a simple search technology or A.I. service,” said Soo-yeon Choi, the chief executive of Naver, whose headquarters are near Seoul. The company, she said, “alleviates the frustrations of people, which is what is needed to help growth.”
Search built Naver “into the massive power that they are in Korea,” said Mr. Chandra, who stayed on as chief executive after Naver’s purchase. It was the top priority when the company bought Poshmark.
Several new elements for users and sellers have been introduced. With a tool called Posh Lens, users can take a photo of an item and, using Naver’s machine-learning technology, the site populates listings that are the same or similar to the shoe or tank top that they’re searching for. A paid ad feature for sellers called “Promoted Closet,” pushes listings higher on customer feeds.
Poshmark also introduced live shows, some of which are themed, to draw in the TikTok generation and increase engagement. One party auctioned off clothing previously worn by South Korean celebrities, a connection that was made with the help of Naver.
Still, the resale market is going through growing pains and has not quite found its footing since the height of the pandemic. It’s not clear whether the changes taking place at Poshmark will be enough. In May, Mr. Kim, Naver’s finance chief, said in an earnings call that Poshmark’s profitability was improving, but by November, the company was cautioning that growth had slowed because of weakness in the peer-to-peer resale market in North America.
Missteps and Reinvention
The company has already done some backpedaling on unpopular decisions.
In October, Poshmark introduced a new fee structure, which increased costs for buyers. Sellers, fearing that higher costs would make consumers bolt, revolted. Within weeks, the company scrapped the new fee structure.
And there are still user headaches: tags and keywords that help users find what they’re looking for can be miscategorized. Sellers sometimes tag their products incorrectly to get more eyeballs on their less popular products. (Hard-to-offload Amazon leggings, for example, may be listed as Free People apparel.)
The company is beta testing changes with its frequent sellers — people like Alex Mahl, who sells thousands of dollars in apparel on the site each year. And within dedicated Facebook groups related to Poshmark, there’s a lot of chatter about the changes that sellers and buyers would still like to see.
“The only way for it to do well is there’s going to be constant changes,” Ms. Mahl said about the tweaks on Poshmark. “If you were just on an app that never changed — one, it would be boring, and two, the opportunity to just do better wouldn’t be there.”
One recent morning, Ms. Eager, the seller who joined Poshmark back in college, was pleasantly surprised to find that the app had some new features she actually liked. She snapped a photo of her Aerie gray tank top with Posh Lens. Within seconds, the app populated listings of similar products. It was so much better than conjuring up the adjectives needed to describe it.
“Love it,” Ms. Eager exclaimed.
Business
When receipts of home renovations are lost, is the tax break gone too?
Dear Liz: I have sold my family home recently after almost 50 years. I had done lots of improvements throughout those years. Due to a fire 15 years ago, all the documentation for these improvements has been destroyed. How do I document the improvements for the capital gains tax calculation?
Answer: As you probably know, you can exclude $250,000 of capital gains from the sale of a principal residence as long as you own and live in the home at least two of the previous five years. The exclusion is $500,000 for a couple.
Once upon a time, that meant few homeowners had to worry about capital gains taxes on the sale of their home. But the exclusion amounts haven’t changed since they were created in 1997, even as home values have soared. Qualifying home improvements can be used to increase your tax basis in the home and thus decrease your tax bill, but the IRS probably will demand proof of those changes should you be audited.
You could ask any contractors you used who are still in business if they will provide written verification of the work they performed, suggests Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting. You also could check your home’s history with your property tax assessor to see if its assessment was adjusted to reflect any of the improvements.
At a minimum, prepare a list from memory of the improvements you made, including the year and the approximate cost. If you don’t have pictures of the house reflecting the changes, perhaps friends and relatives might. This won’t be the best evidence, Luscombe concedes, but it might get the IRS to accept at least some increase in your tax basis.
If you’re a widow or widower, there’s another tax break you should know about. At least part of your home would have gotten a step-up in tax basis if you were married and your co-owner spouse died. In most states, the half owned by the deceased spouse would get a new tax basis reflecting the home’s current market value. In community property states such as California, both halves of the house get this step-up. A tax pro can provide more details.
Other homeowners should take note of the importance of keeping good digital records. While documents may not be lost in a fire, they may be misplaced, accidentally discarded or (in the case of receipts) so faded they’re illegible. To make sure documents are available when you need them, consider scanning or taking photographs of your records and keeping multiple copies, such as one set in your computer and another in a secure cloud account.
When an employee is misclassified as contractor
Dear Liz: A parent recently wrote to you about a son who was being paid as a contractor. I know someone else who got a job that did not “take out taxes from his paycheck.” Such workers believe they are pocketing more money, but unfortunately, too many do not know about the nature of withholding. They only learn if they choose to file for their expected refund, but instead discover an exorbitant tax liability that a paycheck-to-paycheck worker cannot pay.
The sad fact is that many of these employers improperly classify their workers, who are truly employees, as independent contractors! And they do this to avoid paying their own portion of Social Security and unemployment taxes and also workers compensation insurance.
If workers believe that they have been misclassified (the IRS website provides all criteria), they can file IRS Form SS-8 and Form 8919, which will allow them to pay only their allocated half of their Social Security taxes. Hopefully the IRS will then contact these employers to correct their wrong classifications. And finally, it should be a law that, when hired, all true independent contractors should be given a clear form (not fine print on their employment agreements) that informs them of their status and the need to make estimated tax payments.
Answer: A big factor in determining whether a worker is an employee or contractor is control. Who controls what the worker does and how the worker does the job? The more control that’s in the employer’s hands, the more likely the worker is an employee.
However, the IRS notes that there are no hard and fast rules and that “factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.”
The form you mentioned, IRS Form SS-8, also can be filed by any employer unsure if a worker is properly classified.
Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.
Business
Inside Elon Musk’s Plan for DOGE to Slash Government Costs
An unpaid group of billionaires, tech executives and some disciples of Peter Thiel, a powerful Republican donor, are preparing to take up unofficial positions in the U.S. government in the name of cost-cutting.
As President-elect Donald J. Trump’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency girds for battle against “wasteful” spending, it is preparing to dispatch individuals with ties to its co-leaders, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, to agencies across the federal government.
After Inauguration Day, the group of Silicon Valley-inflected, wide-eyed recruits will be deployed to Washington’s alphabet soup of agencies. The goal is for most major agencies to eventually have two DOGE representatives as they seek to cut costs like Mr. Musk did at X, his social media platform.
This story is based on interviews with roughly a dozen people who have insight into DOGE’s operations. They spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
On the eve of Mr. Trump’s presidency, the structure of DOGE is still amorphous and closely held. People involved in the operation say that secrecy and avoiding leaks is paramount, and much of its communication is conducted on Signal, the encrypted messaging app.
Mr. Trump has said the effort would drive “drastic change,” and that the entity would provide outside advice on how to cut wasteful spending. DOGE itself will have no power to cut spending — that authority rests with Congress. Instead, it is expected to provide recommendations for programs and other areas to cut.
But parts of the operation are becoming clear: Many of the executives involved are expecting to do six-month voluntary stints inside the federal government before returning to their high-paying jobs. Mr. Musk has said they will not be paid — a nonstarter for some originally interested tech executives — and have been asked by him to work 80-hour weeks. Some, including possibly Mr. Musk, will be so-called special government employees, a specific category of temporary workers who can only work for the federal government for 130 days or less in a 365-day period.
The representatives will largely be stationed inside federal agencies. After some consideration by top officials, DOGE itself is now unlikely to incorporate as an organized outside entity or nonprofit. Instead, it is likely to exist as more of a brand for an interlinked group of aspirational leaders who are on joint group chats and share a loyalty to Mr. Musk or Mr. Ramaswamy.
“The cynics among us will say, ‘Oh, it’s naïve billionaires stepping into the fray.’ But the other side will say this is a service to the nation that we saw more typically around the founding of the nation,” said Trevor Traina, an entrepreneur who worked in the first Trump administration with associates who have considered joining DOGE.
“The friends I know have huge lives,” Mr. Traina said, “and they’re agreeing to work for free for six months, and leave their families and roll up their sleeves in an attempt to really turn things around. You can view it either way.”
DOGE leaders have told others that the minority of people not detailed to agencies would be housed within the Executive Office of the President at the U.S. Digital Service, which was created in 2014 by former President Barack Obama to “change our government’s approach to technology.”
DOGE is also expected to have an office in the Office of Management and Budget, and officials have also considered forming a think tank outside the government in the future.
Mr. Musk’s friends have been intimately involved in choosing people who are set to be deployed to various agencies. Those who have conducted interviews for DOGE include the Silicon Valley investors Marc Andreessen, Shaun Maguire, Baris Akis and others who have a personal connection to Mr. Musk. Some who have received the Thiel Fellowship, a prestigious grant funded by Mr. Thiel given to those who promise to skip or drop out of college to become entrepreneurs, are involved with programming and operations for DOGE. Brokering an introduction to Mr. Musk or Mr. Ramaswamy, or their inner circles, has been a key way for leaders to be picked for deployment.
That is how the co-founder of Loom, Vinay Hiremath, said he became involved in DOGE in a rare public statement from someone who worked with the entity. In a post this month on his personal blog, Mr. Hiremath described the work that DOGE employees have been doing before he decided against moving to Washington to join the entity.
“After 8 calls with people who all talked fast and sounded very smart, I was added to a number of Signal groups and immediately put to work,” he wrote. “The next 4 weeks of my life consisted of 100s of calls recruiting the smartest people I’ve ever talked to, working on various projects I’m definitely not able to talk about, and learning how completely dysfunctional the government was. It was a blast.”
These recruits are assigned to specific agencies where they are thought to have expertise. Some other DOGE enrollees have come to the attention of Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy through X. In recent weeks, DOGE’s account on X has posted requests to recruit a “very small number” of full-time salaried positions for engineers and back-office functions like human resources.
The DOGE team, including those paid engineers, is largely working out of a glass building in SpaceX’s downtown office located a few blocks from the White House. Some people close to Mr. Ramaswamy and Mr. Musk hope that these DOGE engineers can use artificial intelligence to find cost-cutting opportunities.
The broader effort is being run by two people with starkly different backgrounds: One is Brad Smith, a health care entrepreneur and former top health official in Mr. Trump’s first White House who is close with Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law. Mr. Smith has effectively been running DOGE during the transition period, with a particular focus on recruiting, especially for the workers who will be embedded at the agencies.
Mr. Smith has been working closely with Steve Davis, a collaborator of Mr. Musk’s for two decades who is widely seen as working as Mr. Musk’s proxy on all things. Mr. Davis has joined Mr. Musk as he calls experts with questions about the federal budget, for instance.
Other people involved include Matt Luby, Mr. Ramaswamy’s chief of staff and childhood friend; Joanna Wischer, a Trump campaign official; and Rachel Riley, a McKinsey partner who works closely with Mr. Smith.
Mr. Musk’s personal counsel — Chris Gober — and Mr. Ramaswamy’s personal lawyer — Steve Roberts — have been exploring various legal issues regarding the structure of DOGE. James Burnham, a former Justice Department official, is also helping DOGE with legal matters. Bill McGinley, Mr. Trump’s initial pick for White House counsel who was instead named as legal counsel for DOGE, has played a more minimal role.
“DOGE will be a cornerstone of the new administration, helping President Trump deliver his vision of a new golden era,” said James Fishback, the founder of Azoria, an investment firm, and confidant of Mr. Ramaswamy who will be providing outside advice for DOGE.
Despite all this firepower, many budget experts have been deeply skeptical about the effort and its cost-cutting ambitions. Mr. Musk initially said the effort could result in “at least $2 trillion” in cuts from the $6.75 trillion federal budget. But budget experts say that goal would be difficult to achieve without slashing popular programs like Social Security and Medicare, which Mr. Trump has promised not to cut.
Both Mr. Musk and Mr. Ramaswamy have also recast what success might mean. Mr. Ramaswamy emphasized DOGE-led deregulation on X last month, saying that removing regulations could stimulate the economy and that “the success of DOGE can’t be measured through deficit reduction alone.”
And in an interview last week with Mark Penn, the chairman and chief executive of Stagwell, a marketing company, Mr. Musk downplayed the total potential savings.
“We’ll try for $2 trillion — I think that’s like the best-case outcome,” Mr. Musk said. “You kind of have to have some overage. I think if we try for two trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting one.”
-
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?
-
Health1 week ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
Technology4 days ago
Meta is highlighting a splintering global approach to online speech
-
News1 week ago
Seeking to heal the country, Jimmy Carter pardoned men who evaded the Vietnam War draft
-
Science2 days ago
Metro will offer free rides in L.A. through Sunday due to fires
-
News1 week ago
Trump Has Reeled in More Than $200 Million Since Election Day
-
News1 week ago
The U.S. Surgeon General wants cancer warnings on alcohol. Here's why