Connect with us

News

Shell suffers drop in investor support for climate strategy

Published

on

Shell suffers drop in investor support for climate strategy

Shell’s local weather objectives got here below fireplace on the firm’s annual assembly as shareholders backed the technique in decrease numbers than final 12 months and activists protesting towards the vitality main’s continued growth of fossil fuels delayed proceedings for nearly three hours.

Below the ornate domed roof of Central Corridor Westminster in London, protesters, who all needed to maintain Shell shares to realize entry, chanted and shouted as chair Andrew MacKenzie tried to start proceedings.

“Shell should fall” and “your income will solely drown us out for therefore lengthy,” the group of about 50 shareholders shouted, as they promised to chain themselves to Shell’s “fossil gasoline pipelines” and sung “we are going to cease you” to the tune of Queen’s 1977 hit We Will Rock You.

After 90 minutes, MacKenzie requested different shareholders to clear the room to allow police to reach and take away the activists, a few of whom claimed to have glued themselves to their chairs.

Like friends BP, TotalEnergies and ExxonMobil, Shell is making an attempt to fulfill an more and more complicated set of shareholder calls for by persevering with to generate wholesome returns whereas overhauling its enterprise to cut back its carbon emissions to web zero by 2050.

Advertisement

When the assembly lastly restarted, two hours and 40 minutes late, 80 per cent of shareholders voted in help of Shell’s transition technique and the progress it had made up to now 12 months. Nonetheless, that was down from the 89 per cent that backed the plan when it was unveiled final 12 months.

A rival decision from Dutch shareholder activist group Observe This, which says Shell’s plan doesn’t go far sufficient and isn’t aligned with the 2015 Paris local weather accord, additionally curried much less help. Simply over 20 per cent of shareholders voted in favour of the Observe This decision, in contrast with 30 per cent final 12 months.

The AGM was Shell’s first in London because it simplified its Anglo-Dutch construction in December by relocating its headquarters to the UK.

Chief government Ben van Beurden advised shareholders who had not been evicted that Shell had “made important” progress in its efforts to overtake the enterprise. By the top of 2021 the corporate had reduce absolute emissions from its personal operations by 18 per cent in contrast with 2016 and was dedicated to a 50 per cent discount by 2030, he mentioned.

The corporate had additionally diminished the carbon depth of the merchandise it sells by 2.5 per cent in contrast with 2016, and was focusing on a 9-12 per cent discount by 2024, van Beurden added. “We’re reinforcing Shell to ship a safe provide of vitality within the locations the place it’s wanted most.”

Advertisement

Observe This, which submits the identical decision at a number of oil and gasoline corporations, argues that Shell should decide to an absolute discount within the scope 3 emissions generated from the fuels it sells. Shell’s targets are for a discount within the carbon depth of its merchandise, a metric that displays the relative emissions of all of its vitality, together with low and zero-carbon options.

Observe This founder Mark van Baal mentioned the vote for its decision remained important. “Twenty per cent remains to be a shareholder riot and we’ve got to work with them as a result of they see that these corporations, not solely Shell, should not going to alter their enterprise fashions of their very own accord,” he mentioned.

Local weather Capital

The place local weather change meets enterprise, markets and politics. Discover the FT’s protection right here.

Are you interested by the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Discover out extra about our science-based targets right here

Advertisement

News

Sleep training: Life preserver for parents or “symptom of capitalism”?

Published

on

Sleep training: Life preserver for parents or “symptom of capitalism”?

Todd Warnock/Getty Images

Please go to sleep

Todd Warnock/Getty Images

Well, I’m back. After a lengthy parental leave, when publication of the Planet Money newsletter decreased in frequency, I’m now working full-time and the newsletter will go back to being published weekly.

Advertisement

As always, I will continue to do my best to provide you with insights from the field of economics and keep you informed about what’s going on in the economy. And, don’t worry, this newsletter is not about to become all about babies. This week, however, it is. Now that I’m a working parent, I want to take just one brief moment to complain on behalf of all of us. Like millions of parents before me, I’ve discovered it’s hard to be productive when you’re sleep deprived.

There’s a ginormous mountain of studies that find that sleep deprivation is a serious drag on productivity. One recent study by economists Joan Costa-i-Font, Sarah Fleche, and Ricardo Pagan estimates that each additional hour of sleep per week increases the probability that a person is employed by 1.6 percentage points and increases a person’s weekly earnings by 3.4%.

Another study by economists Pedro Bessone and colleagues finds that it’s not necessarily just the quantity of sleep hours that matters for productivity, it’s also the quality of sleep. This checks out, personally.

The Modern Dilemma of Juggling Career and Kids

In some ways, the problem of sleep deprivation hurting productivity at work is a contemporary one. More than ever before, families have two parents who work outside the home. Historically, many women stayed at home and bore the brunt of baby-induced sleep deprivation. Today, more often than not, there are two drowsy parents who must go into work the next day and — not speaking from personal experience at all, ahem — may get into small tiffs at around 3 a.m. over whose turn it is to comfort or feed their crying baby.

Plus, thanks to efforts to combat Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) — which, we should note, seem to have been extraordinarily successful — parents are now instructed to avoid co-sleeping and to do things like put their babies to sleep on their backs as opposed to their bellies. While such measures have been found to reduce the risk of SIDS, they also may make it harder for many babies to sleep because many of them naturally want to sleep on their parents or their bellies.

Advertisement

Sleep Training

For today’s parents, there’s a tantalizing solution to the problem of sleepless babies: sleep training. For many, “sleep training” is a mere euphemism for the most infamous and controversial method: Cry It Out. Basically, you put your baby in a crib or bassinet in a separate room and don’t come back until the morning. If they cry, so be it. The idea is they will learn to self-soothe and become good sleepers.

Not all forms of sleep training are so severe, but most do involve some tolerance for crying and, because of this, many categorize most approaches broadly under the umbrella of “cry it out.”

In her bestselling book Cribsheet: A Data-Driven Guide to Better, More Relaxed Parenting, from Birth to Preschool, economist Emily Oster reviews the evidence on sleep training and concludes, “The bottom line is that there is simply a tremendous amount of evidence suggesting that ‘cry it out’ is an effective method of improving sleep.”

That said, sleep training is pretty hard, strategically, physically, and emotionally. That’s why there’s a whole cottage industry of high-paid sleep trainers, books, consultants, podcasts, influencers, and so on, who help parents with all this. Recognizing that sleeplessness is a problem for employees to be the most productive, companies like Meta (aka Facebook) have begun subsidizing the cost of sleep training coaching for their workers.

The Online War Over Sleep Training

Ever since we had a baby — and apparently started googling baby-related stuff — my wife and I have found our social media feeds to be jam-packed with baby-rearing and sleep training content.

Advertisement

For example, my wife was targeted with a post from a baby sleep consultancy called Taking Cara Babies that marketed their services to us (and our employers). “It’s true! Taking Cara Babies has a way your company can give you the gift of sleep (which will help you thrive as an employee). For more information to send to your boss or HR department, head to my stories or comment.”

It seemed pretty innocuous. But the most liked comment was the following: “Wish we had actual parental leave like the rest of the modern world so we weren’t forced to sleep train and get back to work like good little capitalists.”

It turns out this sentiment can be found across the internet, in comments, on sites like Reddit and X (formerly Twitter), and by influencers. There’s a large community of parents who disparage sleep training — and, in particular, any form of cry it out — as basically a cruel practice that sacrifices our babies’ well-being on the altar of capitalism.

Whole Mother Therapy, which provides online therapy to parents, for example, argues on their blog that “Sleep training is a symptom of capitalism—it cuts parents off from the natural attachment and nurturance that is essential for infant and baby development.”

“Sleep training is breaking your child’s mind and nervous system to fit into the productivity model capitalism requires,” tweeted an X user named ℍℝ.

Advertisement

But is not wanting to be really sleep deprived only driven by economic concerns? If I had the luxury of not working, I probably would still want to be well-slept. And aren’t there a whole bunch of countries that have capitalist economies — but, at the same time, robust safety nets — that give parents greater opportunity to stay home and be sleep-deprived without having to go into work? I’ll let you be the judge.

One of the biggest schools that opposes sleep training, or at least strategies that tolerate baby crying, is known as attachment parenting. This approach advises parents against letting babies cry on the grounds that crying is an expression of distress and that it’s unnatural and cruel to not do everything in our power to prevent it. I have friends who pursued attachment parenting. They not only refused to let their babies cry at night without intervention, but they also let their babies sleep in their beds (which, by the way, is not recommended by health experts for at least the first six months of your baby’s life). And let me tell you, years later, their kids are still interrupting their sleep. Not for us.

Emily Oster points out that sleep training has sizable benefits for parents. She cites a randomized controlled trial that found that mothers “were less likely to be depressed and more likely to have better physical health” months after sleep training their babies. “This finding is consistent across studies,” Oster continues. “Sleep-training methods consistently improve parental mental health; this includes less depression, higher marital satisfaction, and lower parenting stress.”

But what about the baby’s mental and physical health? In reviewing the literature, Oster finds no credible evidence that babies’ long-term well-being is impaired by sleep training. “Fundamentally, the argument against sleep training is theoretical,” Oster argues. She admits that it’d be better if we had more studies on this. “And yes, it is possible that if we had more data, we would find some small negative effects,” she admits. But, at the same time, she says, it’s also possible that, by promoting good sleep hygiene, sleep training could actually be a benefit to babies. She concludes that “You’ll have to make a choice about this without perfect data.”

As for us, we’ve pursued a strategy that you might call sleep training lite. Basically, when our baby cries in the night, we either feed him if it’s been a while since he’s eaten or we hold his hand and sing Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star to him while he stays in his crib. Honestly, it worked really well between months 4 and 7. But recently, he started teething, and… well, we’re both really tired. Take that, capitalism.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk vows to fight Australian injunction to hide church attack videos on X

Published

on

Elon Musk vows to fight Australian injunction to hide church attack videos on X

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Elon Musk has pledged to appeal against a court order in Australia to scrub footage of a violent attack in Sydney from his X social media platform, accusing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government of censorship. 

The billionaire Tesla chief executive has been embroiled in a war of words with Australian politicians over their demands to remove videos of an attack last week on an Assyrian church in Sydney from the X platform.

At least four people, including the church’s bishop, were injured in the attack, which police have called a “terrorist incident” of “religious motivated extremism”.

Advertisement

An Australian federal court late on Monday granted an interim injunction sought by the country’s eSafety commissioner ordering X to hide all videos of the incident within 24 hours.

The court will reconvene on Wednesday, when X will argue against what it called an “unlawful and dangerous approach” to online content.

“Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian ‘eSafety Commissar’ is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?,” Musk wrote on X after the injunction was granted, noting that the videos had already been removed for users in Australia. 

Anthony Albanese, Australia’s prime minister, accused Musk of acting as if he was “above the Australian law” and “common decency”.

“This billionaire is prepared to go to court fighting for the right to sow division and to show violent videos which are very distressing,” Albanese told Sky News. “I won’t cop it and Australians won’t cop it either.”

Advertisement

“Under the law today there are legal prohibitions which limit free speech,” Stephen Jones, assistant treasurer who is involved in tech regulation, told Australian broadcaster ABC. “Yes, we want free speech, but it comes with responsibilities.”

The dispute is the latest between large technology companies and the Australian government, which has been pursuing stronger regulation of online platforms, digital payments and social media. Canberra has threatened action against Facebook and Instagram owner Meta after it pulled out of a deal to pay local publishers for news.

The eSafety commissioner also lodged a removal notice with Meta over the Sydney stabbing attack and said it was “satisfied with” the company’s compliance after it “quickly removed the material”.

Australia established the eSafety commissioner in 2015 as the world’s first dedicated government agency to keep citizens safe online. The body, led by Julie Inman Grant who previously worked at Twitter and Microsoft, has enforcement powers to stop the spread of harmful content online, including the right to levy heavy fines on companies failing to comply with its orders.

The commissioner imposed a A$610,500 (US$394,000) fine against X last year for failing to disclose efforts to prevent the spread of child sexual abuse content, a penalty the company failed to pay.

Advertisement

The commissioner can levy fines of up to A$782,500 per contravention of a removal notice.

The case against X follows two unrelated violent attacks in Sydney this month, one of which resulted in six deaths as well as that of the assailant.

Gruesome footage of the attacks and misinformation about the identity and potential motives of the attacker in one incident were widely circulated online, leading to the wrong person being identified as the culprit.

X has also been the subject of an acrimonious public battle in Brazil, where the country’s attorney-general has called for social media sites to be regulated after Musk posted that a Supreme Court judge should “resign or be impeached” over an order to block certain accounts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

'Catch-and-kill' to be described to jurors as testimony resumes in hush money trial of Donald Trump

Published

on

'Catch-and-kill' to be described to jurors as testimony resumes in hush money trial of Donald Trump

NEW YORK (AP) — A longtime tabloid publisher was expected Tuesday to tell jurors about his efforts to help Donald Trump stifle unflattering stories during the 2016 campaign as testimony resumes in the historic hush money trial of the former president.

David Pecker, the former National Enquirer publisher who prosecutors say worked with Trump and Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, on a so-called “catch-and-kill” strategy to buy up and then spike negative stories during the campaign, testified briefly Monday and will be back on the stand Tuesday in the Manhattan trial.

What to know about Trump’s hush money trial:

Also Tuesday, prosecutors are expected to tell a judge that Trump should be held in contempt over a series of posts on his Truth Social platform that they say violated an earlier gag order barring him from attacking witnesses in the case. Trump’s lawyers deny that he broke the order.

Pecker’s testimony followed opening statements in which prosecutors alleged that Trump had sought to illegally influence the 2016 race by preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public, including by approving hush money payments to a porn actor who alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied that.

Advertisement

“This was a planned, long-running conspiracy to influence the 2016 election, to help Donald Trump get elected through illegal expenditures to silence people who had something bad to say about his behavior,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said. “It was election fraud, pure and simple.”

Former president Donald Trump, center, awaits the start of proceedings at Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 22, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, Pool)

Advertisement

A defense lawyer countered by attacking the integrity of the onetime Trump confidant who’s now the government’s star witness.

“President Trump is innocent. President Trump did not commit any crimes. The Manhattan district attorney’s office should not have brought this case,” attorney Todd Blanche said.

The opening statements offered the 12-person jury — and the voting public — radically divergent roadmaps for a case that will unfold against the backdrop of a closely contested White House race in which Trump is not only the presumptive Republican nominee but also a criminal defendant facing the prospect of a felony conviction and prison.

The case is the first criminal trial of a former American president and the first of four prosecutions of Trump to reach a jury. Befitting that history, prosecutors sought from the outset to elevate the gravity of the case, which they said was chiefly about election interference as reflected by the hush money payments to a porn actor who said she had a sexual encounter with Trump.

“The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again,” Colangelo said.

Advertisement

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — a charge punishable by up to four years in prison — though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars. A conviction would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

The case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg revisits a years-old chapter from Trump’s biography when his celebrity past collided with his political ambitions and, prosecutors say, he scrambled to stifle stories that he feared could torpedo his campaign.

Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom at his criminal trial at Manhattan state court in New York, Monday, April 22, 2024. (Brendan McDermid/Pool Photo via AP)

Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom at his criminal trial at Manhattan state court in New York, Monday, April 22, 2024. (Brendan McDermid/Pool Photo via AP)

Advertisement

The opening statements served as an introduction to the colorful cast of characters that feature prominently in that tawdry saga, including Stormy Daniels, the porn actor who says she received the hush money; Cohen, the lawyer who prosecutors say paid her; and Pecker, who prosecutors say agreed to function as the campaign’s “eyes and ears.”

In his opening statement, Colangelo outlined a comprehensive effort by Trump and allies to prevent three separate stories — two from women alleging prior sexual encounters — from surfacing during the 2016 presidential campaign. That undertaking was especially urgent following the emergence late in the race of a 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump could be heard boasting about grabbing women sexually without their permission.

“The impact of that tape on the campaign was immediate and explosive,” Colangelo said.

Within days of the “Access Hollywood” tape becoming public, Colangelo told jurors that The National Enquirer alerted Cohen that Daniels was agitating to go public with her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006.

“At Trump’s direction, Cohen negotiated a deal to buy Ms. Daniels’ story to prevent American voters from hearing that story before Election Day,” Colangelo told jurors.

Advertisement

But, the prosecutor noted, “Neither Trump nor the Trump Organization could just write a check to Cohen with a memo line that said ‘reimbursement for porn star payoff.’” So, he added, “they agreed to cook the books and make it look like the payment was actually income, payment for services rendered.”

Those alleged falsified records form the backbone of the 34-count indictment against Trump. Trump has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels.

Blanche, the defense lawyer, sought to preemptively undermine the credibility of Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal charges related to his role in the hush money scheme, as someone with an “obsession” with Trump who cannot be trusted. He said Trump had done nothing illegal when his company recorded the checks to Cohen as legal expenses and said it was not against the law for a candidate to try to influence an election.

Blanche challenged the notion that Trump agreed to the Daniels payout to safeguard his campaign, characterizing the transaction instead as an attempt to squelch a “sinister” effort to embarrass Trump and his loved ones.

“President Trump fought back, like he always does, and like he’s entitled to do, to protect his family, his reputation and his brand, and that is not a crime,” Blanche told jurors.

Advertisement
Former president Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower on his way to Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 22, 2024, in New York. Opening statements in Donald Trump's historic hush money trial are set to begin. Trump is accused of falsifying internal business records as part of an alleged scheme to bury stories he thought might hurt his presidential campaign in 2016. (AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah)

Former president Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower on his way to Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 22, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Stefan Jeremiah)

The efforts to suppress the stories are what’s known in the tabloid industry as “catch-and-kill” — catching a potentially damaging story by buying the rights to it and then killing it through agreements that prevent the paid person from telling the story to anyone else.

Besides the payment to Daniels, Colangelo also described arrangements to pay a former Playboy model $150,000 to suppress claims of a nearly yearlong affair with the married Trump. Colangelo said Trump “desperately did not want this information about Karen McDougal to become public because he was worried about its effect on the election.”

Advertisement

He said jurors would hear a recording Cohen made in September 2016 of himself briefing Trump on the plan to buy McDougal’s story. The recording was made public in July 2018. Colangelo told jurors they will hear Trump in his own voice saying: “What do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?”

Pecker is relevant to the case because prosecutors say he met with Trump and Cohen at Trump Tower in August 2015 and agreed to help Trump’s campaign identify negative stories about him.

He described the tabloid’s use of “checkbook journalism,” a practice that entails paying a source for a story.

“I gave a number to the editors that they could not spend more than $10,000” on a story without getting his approval, he said.

___

Tucker reported from Washington.

Advertisement

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of former President Donald Trump at https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending