Business
L.A. County supervisors seek aid for hundreds of workers affected by Phillips 66 refinery closure
With a major oil refinery in Wilmington and Carson scheduled to close next year, Los Angeles County officials are looking to shore up resources for hundreds of workers who will be left without jobs.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a motion Tuesday asking county staff to work with local partners such as the city of Los Angeles and the South Bay Workforce Investment Board to develop a plan to provide hiring fairs, training and other job placement resources for affected workers.
Oil giant Phillips 66 announced in October that the century-old complex, which sprawls across 650 acres and produces about 8% of the state’s gasoline, would cease operations late next year. Its closure will affect some 600 employees and 300 contract workers that keep its operations running.
Supervisor Janice Hahn said at the meeting that more than half of the affected workforce is Latino and includes skilled workers such as operators, welders, engineers and safety compliance experts that would bring “years of specialized training and certifications” to other jobs. She said they should receive support to help them make the transition to similar jobs in renewable energy, infrastructure development and advanced manufacturing.
“This is a time the county needs to lean in and support them as they face this abrupt transition,” Hahn said.
Supervisors Hahn and Holly Mitchell introduced the motion, which also asks various departments to identify career pathways for “hard-to-hire” skilled trade positions within the county itself.
“We have the responsibility to ensure that displaced workers can smoothly transition … not just by partnering with the private sector but also by opening up doors here at the county,” Mitchell said at the meeting.
The county’s Director of Economic Opportunity has 60 days to report back to the board with an action plan.
The announcement of the pending closure came amid community concerns of harmful emissions and high pollution levels. Mark Lashier, chairman and chief executive of Phillips 66, said in an October news release that the long-term sustainability of the operation was “uncertain and affected by market dynamics.”
“We understand this decision has an impact on our employees, contractors and the broader community,” Lashier said. “We will work to help and support them through this transition.”
The closure will leave the state with eight major refineries, three in the Bay Area and five in Southern California, operated by Chevron, Valero and others.
Business
Column: With final report on pandemic, House GOP fully embraces COVID conspiracy-mongering
Over the last two years, the Republican-dominated House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic conducted 38 interviews and depositions, held 25 hearings and meetings, and examined more than 1 million pages of documents.
Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), a podiatrist, called it “the single most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date” in his introduction to its final report, issued Dec. 2.
Wenstrup and his colleagues must be hoping that nobody actually reads the 557-page report, which is notable for its reliance on cherry-picked data, misrepresentations and flagrant fabrications.
The weight of the evidence increasingly supports the lab leak hypothesis.
— House GOP, getting the facts exactly wrong
Let’s take a look at what the majority had to say.
We’ll start with its first headline, “finding,” which is that “SARS-CoV-2, the Virus that Causes COVID-19, Likely Emerged Because of a Laboratory or Research Related Accident,” specifically at the Chinese Government’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, or WIV.
In fact, the hypothesis heavily favored by the epidemiological and virological scientific communities is that the source wasn’t a lab leak, but “zoonosis,” a natural spillover from wildlife, which were actively farmed and sold — illicitly — throughout southeast Asia, encompassing the region of China that includes Wuhan, the teeming city where the COVID first emerged.
Nevertheless, the GOP report asserts with cocksure confidence that “the weight of the evidence increasingly supports the lab leak hypothesis.”
What evidence? We don’t know, because the report doesn’t cite any — not a single empirical finding, not a single study in a peer-reviewed journal. That’s unsurprising, because there doesn’t appear to ever have been any such study.
Although the nation’s intelligence agencies have been divided over COVID’s origins, no empirical evidence has ever been published to support the lab-leak theory.
The report does mention six scientific studies of COVID’s origin in peer-reviewed journals. Every single one supports the zoonosis theory. The Republicans cite assessments by some U.S. intelligence agencies favoring a lab leak, but no agency has ever disclosed what made them think so. A declassified report issued in June 2023 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or ODNI — which oversees the entire intelligence community — found no evidence that a “research-related incident” at WIV “could have caused the COVID pandemic.”
As part of its bill of particulars, the GOP report resurrects an old yarn, originated by Trump acolytes at the State Department in 2020 and promoted by the Wall Street Journal, that three researchers at the WIV became sick with what may have been COVID in the autumn of 2019. The GOP report states that the ODNI release “supports this conclusion.”
Is that so? Here’s what ODNI said in its declassified assessment: “While several WIV researchers fell mildly ill in Fall 2019, they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19.”
The Republicans devote more than 50 pages of their report to an effort to denigrate a seminal paper supporting the zoonosis hypothesis. “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” drafted by five immunologists and virologists with international reputations, was published by the journal Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020. (SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19.)
The paper was a product of a conference among about a dozen high-level scientists convened Feb. 1, 2020, by Jeremy Farrar, who was then director of the Wellcome Trust, a British health research foundation, and is now chief scientist of the World Health Organization. Farrar’s goal was to foster a discussion of initial concerns voiced by several virologists that features of the virus appeared to be man-made.
The GOP report notes that in his 2021 book “Spike: The Virus vs The People,” an inside look at the British response to the pandemic, Farrar refers to a paper co-written by Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina and Zhengli Shi, a top official at WIV, as a “how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.”
The report presents this as evidence that SARS2 could have been man-made. The Baric/Shi paper was brought to Farrar’s attention by Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, who would be a drafter of the Proximal Origin paper.
But the majority provides a misleadingly incomplete quote from Farrar’s book. What he actually wrote was, “At first glance, the paper Kristian had unearthed looked like a how-to manual for building the Wuhan coronavirus in a laboratory.” (Emphasis mine.)
The GOP report doesn’t mention that Farrar devoted the next 15 pages of his book, nearly 5,000 words, to explaining why his initial judgment was erroneous and that “the new virus was more convincingly explained, scientifically, as a natural spillover than a laboratory event.”
Farrar concludes, “I had put two and two together and made five.” The features that seemed at first to have been unique turned out to be common in the natural world.
Despite that, the Republicans strained to make the case that the Proximal Origin authors dismissed a lab leak as “implausible” because they were “‘Prompted’ by Dr. Anthony Fauci to ‘Disprove’ the Lab Leak Theory.”
This is part and parcel of the right wing’s long campaign to falsely smear Fauci, who retired in 2022 as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and was one of the nation’s most trusted public health professionals, as somehow the perpetrator of the pandemic.
Here the subcommittee is undone by its own text. Every reference in the GOP report to Fauci’s contacts with the authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper, including his emails and testimony, shows him explicitly urging the authors to investigate the lab leak theory and bring their concerns that the virus was artificially made to “the appropriate authorities” such as the FBI.
In not a single statement or testimony cited by the report does Fauci argue against the lab leak hypothesis. Indeed, as the report itself documents, Fauci urged experts to look into various ways the virus might have been grown in a lab before escaping into the world.
The Republicans tried to rewrite history in other respects. They accused the American Federation of Teachers of exercising “influence” over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the CDC’s guidelines for reopening schools during the pandemic, and asserting that the AFT “continually pushed for school closures throughout the pandemic.”
This is a flagrant misrepresentation. The AFT actually pushed to open schools as rapidly as possible “with appropriate safety protocols in place” such as “physical distancing, proper ventilation, deep cleaning procedures and adequate personal protective equipment.” Its concerns were not only for the children, but also for teachers and other school personnel, as well as family members who were exposed to the virus via children.
The truth is that neither the AFT nor the CDC had any authority to impose school closing policies. These were always the product of local decisions, not all of which paid attention to CDC guidelines.
The subcommittee’s Democratic minority produced its own report, which is more measured in all respects, though not entirely devoid of problems. The Democrats observed, accurately, that “Republicans spent the 118th Congress amplifying extreme claims against our nation’s scientists,” especially Fauci.
The GOP members “relentlessly attacked Dr. Fauci” by claiming absurdly that Fauci created the virus and is “responsible for the millions of ensuing deaths,” the Democrats wrote. They also refuted another smear, aimed at EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that was formed to oversee international virus research funded by government agencies.
The Republicans insinuated that EcoHealth played a role in inventing the COVID virus, which is utterly preposterous. As I reported earlier, however, the Democrats connived with the GOP to undermine EcoHealth by accusing it unfairly of mishandling government funds. EcoHealth responded that the “falsehoods and accusations” about its work “stem from political motivations.” That’s correct. Unfortunately its valuable work has been hampered by these smears.
The Republican report promotes other long-debunked notions about the pandemic. It criticizes the efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to discourage people from taking nostrums that have been shown to have absolutely no therapeutic value against COVID, such as versions of the livestock dewormer ivermectin and the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, beloved of right-wing medical quacks.
I asked the GOP majority to explain on the report’s misrepresentations and contradictions, and whether the absence of evidence for its brief against Fauci suggested that its accusation was a fabrication. I also asked for its response to letters entered into the subcommittee record disputing the report’s claims from representatives for Fauci, the AFT, the Department of Health and Human Services and Francis Collins, who was head of the National Institutes of Health during the pandemic. I got no reply.
In a supreme irony, the GOP asserts that arguments favoring the zoonosis theory of COVID’s origin rest on “assumptions rather than facts.” That would be a more appropriate description of the majority report, which advances no “facts” but rests on fabricated and tendentious assumptions.
If one seeks a guide to how not to perform oversight over the work of scientists, this report sets a dismal standard. It’s a disservice to anyone who lives in the real world, not in a partisan fantasy.
Business
Trump is threatening to raise tariffs again. Here's how China plans to fight back
TAIPEI, Taiwan — President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to impose new tariffs on Chinese imports when he takes office, a move that would deepen a trade war he started six years ago.
He has not offered many specifics, but China is already arming itself for economic battle.
“Six years of really intense, focused preparatory work has gotten the top leaders in Beijing ready to deal with whatever comes down the pike,” said Even Pay, an analyst with research firm Trivium China.
Here’s a look at how the showdown between the world’s two largest economies played out the last time Trump was in office and where things might be headed now.
What happened during Trump’s first term?
Trump kicked off a trade war in 2018 by imposing 25% tariffs on imports from China — including industrial machinery, cars, auto parts and television cameras. Those goods accounted for about $50 billion of the $540 billion the United States spent that year on Chinese-made products.
The aim was to spur U.S. manufacturing, reduce a trade imbalance and punish China for trade practices Trump said were unfair. China imported just $120 billion in U.S. goods in 2018.
China responded with its own 25% tariffs on about $50 billion of those goods.
Despite trade talks over the next year, each country continued to impose more tariffs. By 2020, tariffs had been applied to a total of $550 billion in Chinese goods and $185 billion in U.S. goods.
Experts said the trade war did little to mitigate the U.S. trade deficit or boost U.S. exports. Instead, they said it weighed on economic growth and cost jobs in both the U.S. and China.
In the final year of Trump’s term, the two nations agreed to a truce, signing a trade deal that scrapped some tariffs and reduced others. China also agreed to purchase an additional $200 billion in U.S. goods and services — a pledge it failed to fulfill.
Did things cool off after President Biden took office?
Not really. The rhetoric coming from the White House was less hostile, but getting tough on China had become a political necessity for whoever was president, and the trade war only intensified.
Biden kept the Trump-era tariffs and added some of his own, including a 100% tax on imports of electric cars from China, a 50% tax on solar panels and a 25% tax on lithium-ion batteries and steel and aluminum products.
Biden has also continued the first Trump administration’s use of export bans to curb China’s access to U.S. technology. Last week, the U.S. expanded restrictions on sales of semiconductors and related manufacturing equipment to China and added 140 Chinese entities to a blacklist that limits trade with U.S. businesses on national security concerns.
What might Trump do this time?
For months he has advocated for raising tariffs on imports from China by 60% or more. He said on social media last month that he would impose a 10% tariff, “above any additional tariffs,” on all products from China.
His motivations are not entirely based on leveling trade or boosting U.S. manufacturing. Trump has also talked about using the threat of tariffs to spur China — as well as Mexico — to do more to help curb the U.S. opioid crisis. The two countries are the top sources of fentanyl and the chemicals used to make it.
How is China preparing for more tariffs?
China has already taken numerous steps to protect itself.
The country, which typically buys corn, soybeans and sorghum from the U.S., has been diversifying its sources and stocking up. Brazil has been one of the big winners. The damage could be significant for U.S. farmers, who sell about 77% of their sorghum exports to China.
China, though, is more vulnerable than the United States when it comes to tariffs — for the simple reason that it exports so much more than it imports.
The current economic situation in China doesn’t help. Growth has stagnated as the country struggles with a real estate downturn, growing debt, rising youth unemployment and a slowdown in consumer spending.
Larry Hu, chief China economist at the Australian bank Macquarie Group, estimated that a 60% tariff hike from the U.S. would reduce Chinese exports by 8% and GDP by 2%. If the U.S. enacts tariffs on goods from other countries as well, that would exacerbate the effect on China, which has been able to circumvent some tariffs by exporting products destined for the U.S. through third-party nations.
How can China go on the offense?
Perhaps China’s biggest weapon in the trade war is its dominance in crucial materials that the U.S. needs to make products such as semiconductors and missiles. After the latest round of tech trade restrictions last week, China retaliated by banning exports of the rare elements gallium, germanium and antimony — cutting off at least half the U.S. supply, based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.
The move was widely seen as a warning shot to the next administration of its ability to stall U.S. advancements in key strategic industries.
China can also fight back with monetary policy. During the last trade war, the country allowed the yuan to depreciate against the U.S. dollar, effectively making Chinese exports to the U.S. cheaper. The U.S. labeled China a currency manipulator, an accusation Beijing denied.
And after the U.S. began blacklisting Chinese companies during the first Trump administration, China launched its own list of entities deemed a threat to its national interests. This means the Chinese government can swiftly sanction U.S. individuals and businesses in retaliation for trade restrictions or other efforts to constrain development.
In September, China launched a probe into PVH Corp. — the parent company of apparel brands such as Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger — which it said has unfairly boycotted Xinjiang cotton. The U.S. has accused China of genocide against Muslim ethnic groups there and prohibits companies from using products suspected of being made with forced labor.
And on Monday, China opened an antitrust investigation into U.S. semiconductor giant Nvidia, whose value has soared this year amid an AI boom and increasing demand for advanced microchips. The U.S. has barred Nvidia from selling some of its most powerful chips to China.
If the trade war intensifies, the scope of targeted companies could broaden and China might also try to inconvenience U.S. businesses with operations in China by banning staff, restricting sales or initiating onerous compliance inspections or audits.
What are the downsides for China?
China may have the power to inflict serious damage on the U.S. economy, but it has to be careful about using it.
Ja-Ian Chong, associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, said that punishing U.S. operations in China could chill foreign investment and accelerate plans to move to other countries at a time when China is trying to attract more international business.
And preventing all crucial materials from reaching the U.S. would be difficult to enforce, considering the complex global supply chain, and might alienate other trade partners such as Taiwan or South Korea in the process.
“Beijing has options, but these options are not cost-free,” Chong said. “It comes down to how far China is willing to go.”
Business
Rupert Murdoch cannot hand control of his media empire to son Lachlan, commissioner rules
Rupert Murdoch has been dealt a setback in his bid to steer control of his empire to his son Lachlan after the media mogul dies.
Murdoch, 93, had sought to change the terms of his irrevocable family trust to ensure his older son, Lachlan, would have sole control over his media companies News Corp. and Fox Corp. News Corp. owns influential publications such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Investor’s Business Daily and Dow Jones. Fox Corp. is the parent company of Fox News and the Fox broadcast network.
But a Nevada probate commissioner rejected the request to amend the trust that had been opposed by three other Murdoch children named in the trust — Prudence, James and Elisabeth. In the current version of the trust, the four eldest siblings, including Lachlan, were set to jointly inherit control of the businesses.
That commissioner, Edmund J. Gorman Jr., said in a ruling over the weekend that the elder Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch had acted in “bad faith” in their attempt to rewrite the trust, according to a sealed court filing obtained by the New York Times.
“The effort was an attempt to stack the deck in Lachlan Murdoch’s favor after Rupert Murdoch’s passing so that his succession would be immutable,” Gorman wrote in the filing. “The play might have worked; but an evidentiary hearing, like a showdown in a game of poker, is where gamesmanship collides with the facts and at its conclusion, all the bluffs are called and the cards lie face up.”
While the Nevada proceedings were behind closed doors, the outcome had enormous implications because Murdoch controls the world’s most influential conservative-leaning media empire.
The trust was established following Murdoch’s divorce from his second wife, Anna Torv Murdoch Mann, the mother of Elisabeth, Lachlan and James. As part of that 1998 divorce settlement, Murdoch agreed to set up the trust that would give control of his empire to his then-four adult children after the mogul’s passing.
The trust gave Anna’s children and Murdoch’s eldest daughter from his first marriage, Prudence, equal voting shares — in a bid to establish a power-sharing arrangement to oversee his corporate empire. Murdoch’s two daughters from his marriage to Wendi Deng were given economic stakes in the trust, but not voting shares.
News Corp. and Fox Corp. declined to comment. Rupert Murdoch’s lawyer, Adam Streisand, said in a statement: “We are disappointed in the Commissioner’s ruling and, of course, plan to appeal.”
Prudence, James and Elisabeth Murdoch said in a separate statement that “We welcome Commissioner Gorman’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”
Murdoch’s proposed trust change revealed a deep rift is the family.
The elder Murdoch had claimed changing the trust was necessary to preserve the conservative bent of his media properties, which would maintain shareholder value for all the heirs. Lachlan is known for sharing his father’s political views, and since last year has served as sole chairman of News Corp. and executive chairman of Fox. The three other siblings are more politically moderate.
-
Technology1 week ago
Elon Musk targets OpenAI’s for-profit transition in a new filing
-
News1 week ago
Rassemblement National’s Jordan Bardella threatens to bring down French government
-
Technology1 week ago
9 ways scammers can use your phone number to try to trick you
-
World1 week ago
Georgian PM praises country's protest crackdown despite US condemnation
-
World7 days ago
Freedom is permanent for Missourian described as the longest-held wrongly incarcerated woman in US
-
Technology3 days ago
Struggling to hear TV dialogue? Try these simple fixes
-
Business1 day ago
OpenAI's controversial Sora is finally launching today. Will it truly disrupt Hollywood?
-
World6 days ago
Brussels denies knowledge of Reynders's alleged money laundering