Connect with us

News

Money for cutting-edge climate technology could dry up in a second Trump term

Published

on

Money for cutting-edge climate technology could dry up in a second Trump term

Power lines lead into the coal-fired Intermountain Power Plant outside Delta, Utah. The plant, which is getting new turbines that can burn natural gas and hydrogen, is at the center of an ambitious project to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

George Frey/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

George Frey/Getty Images

A couple hours south of Salt Lake City, the open desert is a hive of activity. Hundreds of workers push gravel and pull cables around low-slung green buildings. Beyond a guard shack, a stream of pickup trucks buzz along a two-lane highway that fades into sagebrush.

The workers spill into Delta, a nearby town of about 3,700. Motels and trailer parks are full. And at dinnertime, there’s a line inside El Jalisciense, a taco shop on Main Street. “If you watch the overpass, people coming into town at five and six in the evening, it’s just nonstop,” says John Niles, Delta’s mayor.

Big companies — including a major oil and gas producer — have come to this corner of Utah looking for a new way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change. But even with the backing of deep-pocketed corporations, it’s hard to fund innovative projects like the hydrogen plant that’s being built near Delta. So, the developers got help from the federal government’s Loan Programs Office, part of the Department of Energy that supports groundbreaking endeavors.

Advertisement

The government has a long history of nurturing emerging industries and technologies, including the oil and gas drilling technique known as fracking, an early version of the internet and civilian aviation.

However, funding for cutting-edge energy projects like the one in Utah could dry up if Donald Trump is reelected. During Trump’s first term, his administration tried to strip funding from the Loan Programs Office. The agency survived, but lending slowed dramatically. Conservative activists are still pushing to eliminate the office, saying in a policy agenda called Project 2025 that the government shouldn’t back “risky business ventures or politically preferred commercial enterprises.”

Democrats take a different view. Laws signed by President Biden turbocharged the agency’s lending ability and authorized it to invest in new areas like mining for critical minerals. In general, a lot of the Biden administration’s climate spending is going to Republican-controlled states.

The debate around the Loan Programs Office underscores the stakes in this election for America’s role in developing clean energy and the future of climate action.

Without government investment in innovation, the United States would struggle to make deep cuts in climate pollution or to compete with China and other nations that are racing to dominate emerging technologies, says Tanya Das, who works on energy innovation at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Advertisement

“It is very helpful for us as a society for government to be investing in technologies that better our lives,” Das says. “Because it really won’t happen otherwise.”

Electrolyzers fill a pair of warehouses in the desert near Delta, Utah.  The machines make hydrogen by splitting water molecules.

Electrolyzers fill a pair of warehouses in the desert near Delta, Utah. The machines make hydrogen by splitting water molecules.

Michael Copley/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Michael Copley/NPR

Funding innovative projects is hard, even for big companies

The Loan Programs Office was created almost two decades ago through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. At the time, energy costs were rising, and the country was increasingly dependent on foreign oil.

The legislation was shaped by lawmakers’ “competing concerns about energy security, environmental quality, and economic growth,” according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Buried in the law were instructions for the government to support innovative technology to cut air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

With a budget that totals less than 1% of government spending, the power of the Loan Programs Office is its ability to provide hundreds of billions in loans and loan guarantees to companies. The office has issued $42.4 billion since it started. It recently provided a loan guarantee to reopen a nuclear power plant in Michigan, and it’s lending money to build battery plants in Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

Advertisement

That support can be crucial even for big companies like the oil giant Chevron and Mitsubishi Power Americas, which are building the Utah hydrogen plant with help from a $504 million loan guarantee.

The problem companies face is that it’s hard to get a loan in the private sector to build groundbreaking infrastructure: Banks need to get paid back, and they don’t like taking a chance on something new.

“The reality of pretty much everything in this space is that it’s still very early days, and this is all about making progress” toward climate targets, says Austin Knight, vice president of hydrogen at Chevron New Energies. “And that requires policy. It requires support to get some of these new technologies off the ground and up and running so that they can compete with some of what’s already in the system today.”

Hydrogen developers found a ‘unicorn’ in the Utah desert

Chevron and Mitsubishi Power’s hydrogen plant is designed to solve a challenge that’s emerged hundreds of miles away in California, as it tries to get off fossil fuels.

Advertisement

California has installed more solar than any other state. Sometimes, solar panels produce more power than California needs. It happens mostly in spring, when it’s sunny but people don’t use a lot of electricity for air conditioning because temperatures are mild. That’s a problem because power grids have to keep a perfect balance between electricity supply and demand. So at certain times, California regulators cut back how much electricity solar panels produce, essentially wasting clean energy. In April alone, California “curtailed” enough renewable energy to power nearly 78,000 homes for a year.

That’s where Chevron and Mitsubishi Power come in. When California has too much renewable energy, some of the state’s utilities can send it over transmission lines to the Utah project. There, the Chevron-Mitsubishi plant will take the extra power to run machines called electrolyzers that split water molecules to make hydrogen, a fuel that doesn’t create greenhouse gas emissions when it’s burned. At about eight feet across, the electrolyzers are made of metal plates and membranes held together by huge bolts. They fill a pair of warehouses in the Utah desert.

The hydrogen, once it’s created, will be stored in underground salt caverns the size of the Empire State Building. From there, the gas can be piped to run turbines at the nearby Intermountain Power Plant, which is already hooked up to a transmission line to send electricity back to California.

Workers install solar panels on the rooftop of a home in Poway, California.

Workers install solar panels on a home in California in 2023.

Sandy Huffaker/Bloomberg via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Sandy Huffaker/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The idea is to use the excess renewable energy to make hydrogen that can be stored and then used to generate and deliver power months later when electricity demand soars with hotter temperatures.

Advertisement

“This location, I’ve called it a bit of a unicorn,” says Sophie Hayes, who promotes clean energy in Utah for Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit whose mission is fighting climate change. “Because it does tick a lot of boxes in terms of easing the logistical challenges of a big, pioneering hydrogen project.”

After burning coal for decades, the Intermountain Power Plant is getting new turbines that will initially run on a blend of natural gas and hydrogen. By 2045, Chevron and Mitsubishi Power say the plant will exclusively burn so-called green hydrogen, which is made with renewable energy. And as new wind and solar plants are built across the western U.S., the companies say they can expand the project.

Hayes says it’s easy for companies to say they’ll produce green hydrogen, so watchdogs need to ensure projects like this one actually run on renewable energy, not fossil fuels. But Hayes is hopeful the Utah plant will deliver.

“Hydrogen is not a panacea for replacing fossil fuels,” Hayes says. But climate change is “a huge challenge,” Hayes says, “and we need all the tools we can get.”

Piles of coal wait to be burned at Intermountain Power Plant near Delta, Utah, in 2022.

Piles of coal wait to be burned at the Intermountain Power Plant near Delta, Utah, in 2022.

Rick Bowmer/AP

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Rick Bowmer/AP

Advertisement

The Energy Department is still haunted by a big failure

The problem with projects like the one in Utah, according to some conservatives, is that taxpayer money is involved.

Attacks on the Loan Programs Office go back to at least 2011, when a solar panel manufacturer called Solyndra defaulted on a $535 million loan guaranteed by the Energy Department. Project 2025, the governing proposal for the next Republican administration from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, calls for eliminating the office, as well as a part of the Energy Department called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which funds early-stage technology that has the potential to “radically improve U.S. economic prosperity, national security, and environmental well being.”

It’s one thing for the government to support “fundamental scientific research,” Project 2025 says, but it shouldn’t be “picking winners and losers in dealing with energy resources or commercial technology.”

The Trump campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Harris campaign declined to comment.

Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, but dozens of its writers and architects worked in his administration. And the plan’s vision for climate and energy policy aligns with the former president’s. Both downplay threats from global warming, talk of boosting fossil fuel production and criticize government support for cleaner sources of energy.

Advertisement

“Where it makes sense to have new technology, we should have new technology,” says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation. “But we shouldn’t be subsidizing this new technology if it results in higher electricity prices for Americans, fewer jobs, higher food prices, and problems for small [businesses] and farmers.”

Bill Wright agrees. An elected official in Utah’s Millard County, where the hydrogen plant is being built, Wright says the development’s welcome, but he doesn’t think taxpayer money should be used for it. Government-backed projects are “profit centers for globalists,” Wright says, describing himself as “really to the right of average” in deep-red Millard, where nearly 90% of voters supported Trump in 2020. “That’s why [companies] do it. That’s the only way they can get money out of my pocket.”

Power lines in the desert near Delta, Utah.

Power lines run through the Utah desert near the hydrogen plant that Chevron and Mitsubishi Power Americas are building.

Micheal Copley/NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Micheal Copley/NPR

Sitting in his backyard surrounded by alfalfa farms, Wright criticizes government subsidies of all kinds. “Solar’s terrible this way,” he says. “I like solar, but they all want a tax rebate.”

In recent years, a large share of federal energy subsidies have gone to renewables, according to the Energy Information Administration. But the country’s oil and gas industry was built up over decades with the government’s support, says John Morton, a managing director at an investment and advisory firm called Pollination and a former climate counselor to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Advertisement

Shifting to cleaner sources of energy promises a more affordable system for consumers than the one that exists now, according to the International Energy Agency. But that kind of change — across entire economies — requires big investments in new technology that individual companies are unlikely to make on their own, Morton says.

“We absolutely need to be leaning into this as a country and playing a leadership role by supporting our industries to move more quickly in this transition,” he says.

Sometimes that means government investments don’t work out, and that’s OK, says Das of the Bipartisan Policy Center. “That’s part of how innovation works.”

But failure is rare at projects supported by the Loan Programs Office. The agency recently reported losses of 3%.

After Solyndra, the Loan Programs Office might be best known for lending the electric-vehicle maker Tesla $465 million in 2010. Tesla repaid the loan a few years later.

Advertisement
Intermountain Power Agency spokesperson John Ward walks through the coal plant near Delta, Utah, in 2022.

Intermountain Power Agency spokesperson John Ward walks through the coal plant near Delta, Utah, in 2022.

Rick Bowmer/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Rick Bowmer/AP

Advertisement

The U.S. is chasing economic development while cutting climate pollution

In Delta, Mayor John Niles is guarded about the hydrogen project. The coal plant outside town was an economic cornerstone for the city. Niles worked there for 30 years, and two sons followed him there. He’s not sure the hydrogen and gas plants will have the same impact.

“You could hire on out there right out of high school, they would teach you your skill while paying you a good wage,” Niles says in his office at Delta’s municipal building, next to the town’s only stoplight. “And that, to me, has been a lifesaver for our community, for our young people.”

The hydrogen plant will have about 20 full-time workers, according to an environmental assessment. And the gas plant will employ around 120 more, compared to about 300 at the coal plant, John Ward, a spokesperson for the Intermountain Power Agency, the plant’s owner, said in an email. Utah’s Republican-led government is trying to keep the coal units running, but it’s unclear how those efforts will play out.

“We are doing everything we can from a hiring standpoint,” says Michael Ducker, chief executive of MHI Hydrogen Infrastructure, a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Power Americas. “In the long run, we’re looking at different opportunities for scaling out this hydrogen hub” to deliver more economic benefits.

Advertisement

As communities like Delta wrestle with lost coal jobs, they also face worsening impacts from climate change. Last year was the hottest on record, this year will be among the five hottest, and scientists warn the next decade will be hotter still. Utah endured record heat this summer, a hallmark of human-caused global warming. At a recent meeting of local officials from around the state, Niles says there was a lot of talk about water shortages.

“They actually can’t grow, because [there’s] no water,” he says. Delta has reserves, “but we need another well,” Niles says, “because our wells right now are running 24/7 when it’s this hot.”

Chevron and Mitsubishi Power Americas will take renewable energy from California to run electrolyzers inside these green buildings in the Utah desert.

Chevron and Mitsubishi Power Americas will take renewable energy from California to run electrolyzers inside these green buildings in the Utah desert.

Michael Copley/NPR


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Michael Copley/NPR

The Environmental Protection Agency expects that in the coming decades, rising temperatures will reduce the flow of water on Utah’s rivers, raise the threat of wildfires and make farms and ranches less productive.

With that outlook, Jigar Shah, director of the Loan Programs Office, says his agency will work with anyone who has a credible plan to deal with the challenge, including fossil fuel companies that are distrusted by climate activists.

Advertisement

“I totally understand why the track record of some of these companies would be offensive to some of these groups,” Shah says. “But from our perspective, we are solving the toughest problem that, frankly, the human species has today. That means every single super-smart person in our entire country gets to play.”

With two months to go before an election that could shake up U.S. energy and climate policy, Shah sounds upbeat. The Inflation Reduction Act, a 2022 landmark climate law, is driving big investments in Republican-led states. And Shah says there’s a line of companies at his door looking for help funding ambitious energy projects.

“That makes me excited,” Shah says, “about the economic growth potential in our country.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Undecided Voters Tell Us About Their Biggest Worries

Published

on

Undecided Voters Tell Us About Their Biggest Worries

Donald J. Trump and Kamala Harris are starkly different presidential candidates. So why are so many voters — roughly 1 in 6 — still unsure of their choice?

We asked voters who have not yet made up their minds — 830 of them across five battleground states and Ohio — to name their biggest worries with both candidates.

Here is what they said.

  • Concern about Trump

    “He’s made people comfortable with being racist and set the country back 50 years with racism.”

    Concern about Harris

    Advertisement

    “She’s a liar and it feels like she hasn’t done anything she said she was going to do.”

    Black woman, 50s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Don’t like his rhetoric, how he speaks to people.”

    Concern about Harris

    “Incompetent, no experience in foreign policy or running the government; also has no opinions except on abortion.”

    Advertisement

    White woman, 70s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Trump

    “Too extreme.”

    Concern about Harris

    “I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”

    Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Having the right to control my own body.”

    Concern about Harris

    “Immigration and inflation.”

    Black woman, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “Arrogance.”

    Advertisement

    Concern about Harris

    “She’s a woman and not sure if a woman should be running.”

    White woman, 50s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Has felonies on his record.”

    Concern about Harris

    Advertisement

    “Don’t know much about her policy.”

    Black man, 50s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “I don’t trust him.”

    Concern about Harris

    “I don’t trust her.”

    Advertisement

    Black woman, 60s, Georgia

Until President Joe Biden dropped his bid for re-election, a large share of voters were unhappy with their choices for president.

Today, the electorate as a whole is happier, but the uncommitted voters are still not, according to recent polling by The New York Times and Siena College in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

They trust neither former President Donald J. Trump nor Vice President Kamala Harris. They question the candidates’ honesty and ethics.

Advertisement

Based on New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Respondents who said they didn’t know or who declined to say are not included.

These voters are younger than the electorate overall, less educated and have a lower income. They are much more likely than voters overall to be Black or Latino, and a little more likely to be men.

Some of these voters may just stay home, but a meaningful portion of them will probably vote. And in a close election, they could be the deciding factor.

Advertisement

In trying to understand what is holding them back from committing, we asked voters to tell us in their own words about their worries. Their phrases were telling: “being a bully,” “she’s an idiot.”

In many ways, their words suggest that voters know, and perhaps have become inured to, Donald Trump’s slash-and-burn campaign style and personality.

But with Kamala Harris, who was plunged into the race only in July, their fears are wider ranging — encompassing both character and the issues, like the economy. And for some voters, the historic nature of her candidacy presents not progress but a drawback.

Voters are concerned about one thing when it comes to Trump: his character.

They said he is arrogant or erratic and talks too much. They talked about his age or criminal trials. The words boiled down to concerns about the former president’s personality and honesty.

Advertisement

Even voters who said they were leaning toward Trump mentioned concerns about chaos and dysfunction.

A small but notable share were also concerned, specifically, about his ability to carry out and complete the tasks of president, mentioning his age and mental capacity.

  • Concern about Trump

    “Angered easily.”

    White man, 40s, Michigan

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Being a bully towards other nations.”

    White man, 60s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “He is erratic, not very well-spoken and lies.”

    Advertisement

    White man, 40s, North Carolina

  • Concern about Trump

    “Him staying off the internet.”

    White man, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “Being presidential, sense of decorum, way he communicates.”

    Advertisement

    Man, 60s, Michigan

  • Concern about Trump

    “Does not know when to shut up.”

    White man, 20s, North Carolina

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “His age.”

    White woman, 20s, Wisconsin

At the same time, even though Trump has crossed all kinds of red lines during his campaign, voters used comparatively mild language in describing their doubts about him. Words like “a bit” and “a little” crept in frequently.

  • Concern about Trump

    “Little power hungry.”

    Advertisement

    White woman, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “His authoritative tendencies.”

    White man, 30s, North Carolina

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Trump

    “Probably his rhetoric, maybe, and how he presents himself. And the debate was kind of rough.”

    Woman, 40s, Michigan

  • Concern about Trump

    “Bit decisive at times. He doesn’t always say the right things.”

    Advertisement

    White man, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Trump

    “I wish he could be a little more presidential.”

    White woman, 70s, Arizona

  • Concern about Trump

    “He might become too emotional when making decisions.”

    Advertisement

    Nonwhite man, 30s, North Carolina

Concerns about Harris are more varied.

For Kamala Harris, voters’ anxieties were broader and more complicated. Although qualms about her personality came up less often than with Trump, trustworthiness and honesty were still big question marks for many voters.

So was her ability to handle the economy. Voters specifically mentioned costs and inflation, a persistent concern among undecided and not fully decided voters over the last few months.

Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “She will make the economy worse than it is.”

    Black man, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “That she’s like every other politician, that she is not going to actually do anything to help us.”

    Black woman, 30s, Ohio

  • Concern about Harris

    “Bring down the price of groceries and housing.”

    Advertisement

    Black woman, 60s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “How she would handle the economy.”

    Hispanic woman, 20s, Georgia

  • Concern about Harris

    “Too liberal.”

    Black woman, 50s, Michigan

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “Not following through.”

    White woman, 30s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Harris

    “The people didn’t vote for her; she was appointed. That is not democracy.”

    White man, 60s, Wisconsin

  • Concern about Harris

    “Democrats take the African American vote for granted. Not sure her policies are going to benefit African Americans.”

    Advertisement

    Black man, 30s, North Carolina

They also questioned her abilities and wondered if she was ready for the job. Some voters described her with caustic language, which echoes Trump’s, who called her “mentally disabled” and “mentally impaired.”

Harris has not leaned into the historical nature of her candidacy — she would be the first woman of color to be president. For some of these voters, her background may be a challenge. Some voters used language that was outright sexist.

  • Concern about Harris

    “That she’s not intelligent enough to be president. I think she is an idiot.”

    White man, 70s, Arizona

    Advertisement
  • Concern about Harris

    “I don’t think she’s got it all together.”

    White woman, 70s, Arizona

  • Concern about Harris

    “Overall untrustworthy.”

    Black man, 40s, North Carolina

  • Concern about Harris

    “I don’t know much about her, but I’m unsure about how prepared she is to be president.”

    Advertisement

    Hispanic man, 30s, Arizona

  • Concern about Harris

    “She’s a woman. I’m not sure she can get the job done. People probably won’t listen to her.”

    White woman, 50s, Ohio

  • Concern about Harris

    “She’s a lady.”

    Black woman, 60s, Wisconsin

    Advertisement

Sources and methodology

Selected responses from New York Times/Siena College polls of 4,132 likely voters conducted in September, including 830 undecided or not fully decided voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Undecided and persuadable voters were voters in the survey who either did not pick a presidential candidate after being asked multiple questions about their vote choice or voters who ultimately did pick a candidate but said they were only “probably” but not “definitely” going to support that candidate.

Open-ended responses to the “biggest concern” question were coded into categories using a trained coder and validated with a second reviewer. The primary coder reviewed a sampling of responses and then created an initial coding schema. Categories were adjusted based on size and coherence throughout the process. Where there was disagreement between coders, proposed codes were reviewed, discussed and compared with similar examples in other surveys. To help ensure consistency, responses that exactly matched previous responses in prior surveys were automatically coded to the same category, but were still reviewed for accuracy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

The retaliatory cycle has Iran and Israel firmly in its grip

Published

on

The retaliatory cycle has Iran and Israel firmly in its grip

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The writer is author of ‘Command’ and the Substack ‘Comment is Freed’

There is a famous joke about a frog on the banks of the River Jordan. A scorpion asks for a ride across. “Why would I do that?” says the frog. “If you get on my back you will sting me.” The scorpion explains that he, too, would drown. Reassured the frog carries him, until halfway, the scorpion stings the frog. “Why?” cries the frog, “Now we are both doomed.” Because, comes back the reply, “this is the Middle East.”

It is now a year since Hamas triggered this latest cycle of violence. For Israel, the stakes have grown as its focus has shifted from Gaza to Lebanon. Last week, it inflicted a major blow by killing Hizbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah made his name in 2006 when the Iran-backed paramilitary group fought Israel to a standstill. His success in exposing Israel’s vulnerabilities made him a hero around the Arab world, with Sunni as well as Shia, assuring him an exalted place among Iran’s partners and strengthening his position as the vital powerbroker in Lebanese politics.

Advertisement

Yet Nasrallah got caught in the tensions between his Iranian and Lebanese roles. He was held responsible by many for Lebanon’s chronic economic misery and political instability while Hizbollah’s position as the most prominent member of the Iranian-orchestrated “axis of resistance” took precedence.

After October 7, Hizbollah, still acting as part of the axis, opened up a second front as Israel began its invasion of Gaza. It was comparatively restrained, although engagements were heavy enough to require civilians to evacuate in large numbers on both sides of the border. It did enough to show solidarity with Hamas but not so much as to trigger a wider war. Israel therefore could concentrate on Hamas and leave Hizbollah until later.

As a result, Hizbollah failed to maximise its military impact at a time when Israel was most exposed, while doing enough to ensure that Israel would turn on them once they got the chance. This new stage in the war came with the elimination of much of the top layers of command, beginning with the notorious pager detonations and culminating in the assassination of Nasrallah himself. Now the IDF has embarked on what it has described as a limited ground incursion into southern Lebanon, to destroy as much as possible of Hizbollah’s military infrastructure.

All this put Iran in a quandary as Israel struck blows against its proxies while it stayed on the sidelines. Back in April, Tehran responded to several senior commanders being killed in an attack on its embassy compound in Damascus by sending large numbers of drones and missiles towards Israel. But most either failed to reach their targets or were shot down. Even after more provocations, including the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh while he was in Tehran, it did nothing.

Hizbollah is supposedly part of Iran’s deterrent threat yet has been methodically dismantled by Israel. Nasrallah’s assassination brought the issue to a head. The recently elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, aware of the parlous state of Iran’s economy and widespread popular discontent, sought continuing restraint. But he is subordinate to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, backed by the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. For them more restraint was humiliating. And so on Tuesday night, 181 ballistic missiles hurtled towards targets in Israel. Most were caught by air defences, though some got through, including to airfields. After the strike Iran indicated that it wanted no further escalation.

Advertisement

In Israel there was soon talk of the opportunity this creates for a decisive retaliatory attack that could even complete the process of taking apart the whole Iranian axis by going for Iran itself. This has led to speculation about possible targets. If Israel opts for military installations, Iran will be faced with the same dilemma as before — to respond with missiles or take the hit. But Israel has more ambitious options. US President Joe Biden has urged it to avoid nuclear installations but acknowledged that it might attack oil facilities. If it does, Khamenei has promised Iran’s next strikes might target Israel’s energy infrastructure. It could also generate an international oil crisis by closing the Straits of Hormuz.

Nor is Israel in a position to engineer regime change in Tehran. If this happens it will be because of the actions of ordinary Iranians. And while Israel has been able to demonstrate its military superiority, and has severely weakened its regional adversaries, Iran still has a large stock of ballistic missiles. Nor does Israel have unlimited air defence missiles, particularly the long-range Arrow that has played a critical role in thwarting Iran’s previous attacks.

The Lebanese caretaker government, coping with a humanitarian crisis, is desperate for an end to hostilities, but Hizbollah is still firing rockets across the border and inflicting casualties on the IDF as they battle for control of southern Lebanon. Residents cannot get back to their homes. A ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza remains elusive.

The balance of power within Tehran is not conducive to a full strategic reappraisal. Israel, for its part, may feel that while there are targets to hit, it must carry on striking them. Yet it remains unclear how it intends to turn its military success to its political advantage and agree arrangements that might actually bring some long-term stability to its borders. It is not that it is impossible to imagine how this might be done — but this is still the Middle East.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

In swing-state Wisconsin, new districts threaten the GOP hold on the Legislature

Published

on

In swing-state Wisconsin, new districts threaten the GOP hold on the Legislature

Packers fans Heather Gunnlaugsson, left, and Tim Mahoney, right, dance as the Packer Tailgate Band plays “Roll Out the Barrel” on Sunday, Sept. 29, before the Packers’ game against the Minnesota Vikings in Green Bay, Wis.

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio

GREEN BAY, Wis. — Smoke from portable grills filled the air with the smell of bratwurst on a recent Sunday in the parking lots that surround Lambeau Field.

People were gathered to watch the Green Bay Packers take on the rival Minnesota Vikings, but in a state and city where football is a staple of the culture, they were also there for the pregame tailgate and the experience of one of Wisconsin’s premier gathering places.

In one of the crowded lots, the Packers Tailgate Band meandered its way through lawn chairs and folding tables full of food. Brass and woodwind instruments carried the tune while a makeshift drum set mounted to a stroller kept the time. When the band played “Roll Out The Barrel,” a Wisconsin polka staple, people got up from their seats and danced.

Advertisement

“It’s probably like the best job I have,” said Tim Kozlovski, the band’s sousaphone player. “It’s just having fun with people and partying with them and getting them in the spirit for the game.”

Kozlovski said the Packers unify people in Wisconsin — he calls it a “good place in your heart.” And in an atmosphere like that, he said there are some things you just don’t talk about, like politics.

“You gotta learn to keep that to yourself when you’re trying to make people happy,” he said.

Not everyone has that luxury in Green Bay, where for the first time in years, Lambeau Field and the surrounding community are part of a fierce campaign that could decide control of the Wisconsin Legislature. A couple of parking lots over, local Democrats are tailgating, hoping to unlock the political power they were granted when the state redrew its political maps and turned this once-safe GOP district competitive.

“I actually enjoy talking about politics,” said Ryan Spaude, the Democratic candidate running to represent this area at the state Capitol in Madison. He’s a local prosecutor. “I enjoy having a respectful dialogue with other folks about politics. I also think we can do better than some of the yahoos that are down there in Madison right now.”

Advertisement
Wisconsin Assembly Candidate Ryan Spaude mingles with voters and other Democrats at a tailgate Sunday, Sept. 29, outside of Lambeau Field.

Wisconsin Assembly Candidate Ryan Spaude mingles with voters and other Democrats at a tailgate Sunday, Sept. 29, outside of Lambeau Field.

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio

Advertisement

Spaude is well aware of the divided nature of his district. President Joe Biden would have won this district in 2020—former President Donald Trump would have carried it in 2016. He jokes that this district is as purple as some of the Minnesota Vikings jerseys in the crowd that day.

“Ninety-nine seats in the state Assembly,” Spaude said. “There’s about a dozen that are like mine that could go either way. These seats will determine who gets the majority.”

Wisconsin could swing up and down the ballot

When it comes to races for statewide office, Wisconsin has a well-earned reputation as a swing state. Four of the last six presidential contests have been decided by less than a percentage point.

But in races for the Legislature, it’s been anything but competitive ever since 2011, when Republicans took control of state government and redrew the state’s legislative district lines, cementing their power for years to come.

Advertisement

“There would be a couple competitive seats in the state Assembly every year, but the outcome of them was basically inconsequential,” said John Johnson, a redistricting expert at Marquette University Law School. “There was no chance that majority control of the chamber would change.”

The GOP used its majorities to shift Wisconsin’s politics to the right. When Republican Scott Walker was in the governor’s office, they famously passed laws that weakened unions in a state with deep ties to organized labor.

Even after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers took office, their legislative majorities effectively gave Republicans veto power. As neighboring states expanded Medicaid or legalized marijuana, the GOP was able to block Evers’ plans that would have had Wisconsin join them.

This election, in this 50-50 district, the debate is different. Spaude said the number one issue he hears from voters is about the cost -of -living.

“The second issue is—why can’t you people work together? Just the gridlock you see,” Spaude said.

Advertisement
Wisconsin Assembly candidate Patrick Buckley stands outside Lambeau Field as fans tailgate Sunday, Sept. 29, 2024, in Green Bay, Wis.

Wisconsin Assembly candidate Patrick Buckley stands outside Lambeau Field as fans tailgate Sunday, Sept. 29.

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio

Advertisement

Nearby, Patrick Buckley, Spaude’s Republican opponent is also making the rounds. He’s a small business owner and former police officer who currently chairs the board of Brown County, home to Green Bay.

“We get a lot of stuff done at the county,” Buckley said. “I’d like to take what I’ve learned there at the county to the state level. Because I think we need that there.”

Buckley said the new map created an opening for him because this new district had no incumbent. But he insists he hasn’t really thought about how his race could tip the balance in the Legislature. When asked about the top three things he talks about with voters, Buckley has a clear answer.

“Economy, economy, economy,” Buckley said. “A lot of people are hurting out there, and we gotta figure out what we can do as government to give them some sort of relief.”

Advertisement

New voting maps loosen GOP grip

The idea that Wisconsin could be in this position seemed, just a few years ago, almost impossible. Even with Evers in the governor’s office, the Legislature redrew Wisconsin’s maps to make them even more powerful with the help of a then-conservative majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.

But everything changed in 2023 when voters flipped control of the court from conservative to liberal, and the new majority ordered new maps drawn

In an unexpected twist, the Republican-controlled Legislature chose maps that were drawn by Evers, making the political calculation that it was their least-worst option. In a brief speech before their vote, Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said the new maps would be “very competitive,” and the Legislature would be “up for grabs.”

“We will have the ability to decide if we want to go toward the direction of Minnesota and Michigan,” Vos said, referencing two states where Democrats control both the state Legislature and the governor’s office.”Or [if] we want to stay in the direction that we’re heading in Wisconsin, where we have the ability to have a lower tax burden, a lower regulatory touch, and still a historically good economy for Wisconsin. So I’m optimistic.”

Green Bay Packers fan Bud Hearley stands outside a garage turned into a bar in a neighborhood near Lambeau Field on Sunday, Sept. 29, before the Packers’ game against the Minnesota Vikings.

Green Bay Packers fan Bud Hearley stands outside a garage turned into a bar in a neighborhood near Lambeau Field on Sunday, Sept. 29, before the Packers’ game against the Minnesota Vikings.

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio

Advertisement

This will be the first test of how that debate plays out in Wisconsin. As with many political issues, the answer could be complicated.

A few blocks away from Lambeau Field, Bud Hearley was watching the game with family and friends from the comfort of a garage turned into a bar. Hearley, who lives in a nearby district, said there are too many extremes in politics, and he’d like to see more compromise.

“I’m looking for a little more give and take on both sides with the issues that they make so extreme,” Hearley said. “There’s not enough middle.”

Hearly doesn’t fit neatly into one box when it comes to the issues. He favors the legalization of marijuana and thinks women should have the right to abortion, with some limits. He’s also a strong supporter of capitalism who is leery of government overreach. And he tends to vote for Republicans.

Back at the tailgating event, Democratic voter Denise Gaumer Hutchison concedes that Democrats may or may not win it all this year, but for the first time in years, she said they’ll at least be able to force Republicans to have a dialog. That was never possible, she said, under the state’s old maps.

Advertisement
Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Ben Walker, left, speaks to Denise Gaumer Hutchison, center, a Democratic voter from Green Bay, outside Lambeau Field on Sunday, Sept. 29.

Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Ben Walker, left, speaks to Denise Gaumer Hutchison, center, a Democratic voter from Green Bay, outside Lambeau Field on Sunday, Sept. 29.

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio


hide caption

toggle caption

Angela Major/Wisconsin Public Radio

Advertisement

“Those maps were not fair to the point that legislators wouldn’t even try,” Gaumer Hutchison said. “They wouldn’t even do doors. They wouldn’t even come talk to people who might be of a different opinion because they didn’t have to. Now they have to.”

It’s not just Lambeau Field’s Assembly seat that’s up for grabs this year. The district next door is so close it would have been won by both Evers, a Democrat, and Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson two years ago. The surrounding Senate district could also flip and give Democrats a chance at winning that chamber in 2026.

Regardless of the outcome, there’s already been a political sea change in Wisconsin, a state where the race for president is seemingly always up for grabs, and now the state Legislature is, too.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending