Connect with us

Science

How Inflation Upended Biden’s Climate Agenda

Published

on

How Inflation Upended Biden’s Climate Agenda

WASHINGTON — President Biden bowed to political realty on Friday, conceding that he had been unable to influence a holdout coal-state Democrat — and any Republicans within the Senate — to again what had been his best hope to fulfill the local weather disaster.

Calling an finish to what had been greater than a yr of fruitless negotiations on laws to spend tons of of billions of {dollars} to wash up the nation’s electrical energy and transportation sectors, Mr. Biden launched an announcement Friday afternoon saying he was as a substitute ready to “take robust govt motion to fulfill this second.”

Even for a president who has prided himself on compromise and the artwork of the potential, it was a marked retreat — one pushed, largely, by the financial and political challenges of rampant inflation.

Mr. Biden’s assertion additionally referred to as on Democratic senators to shortly approve a slimmed model of a invoice that had as soon as been Mr. Biden’s grand agenda to remake the federal position within the economic system, which can now be narrowed to solely embody expanded health-insurance subsidies by means of the Reasonably priced Care Act and efforts to scale back the price of pharmaceuticals. The transfer successfully dooms his legislative efforts on local weather — and his accompanying plans to lift taxes on companies and high-earning people — except Democrats maintain the Home and Senate in November.

In an indication of the diploma to which worth spikes throughout the economic system have upended Mr. Biden’s agenda over the past yr, the announcement got here from Saudi Arabia, the place Mr. Biden flew on Friday with plans to press the area’s oil giants to pump much more crude onto world markets.

Advertisement

On the finish of a information convention after a day of conferences in Jeddah, Mr. Biden vowed that “I’m not going away” on the local weather combat. “I’ll use each energy that I’ve as president to proceed to meet my pledge towards coping with world warming,” he stated.

Mr. Biden got here to workplace promising to wean the US from fossil fuels like oil and coal with a view to scale back the greenhouse gasoline emissions which might be on tempo to set off catastrophic world warming.

He surrounded himself with skilled and aggressive advisers on worldwide and home local weather politics, setting formidable objectives to hurry an power transition that might contact each nook of the American economic system. He forged himself as a grasp negotiator who had spent practically 4 many years within the Senate and will construct coalitions on massive laws.

One 24-hour span on the finish of this week confirmed how completely Mr. Biden has been annoyed in that effort.

His local weather objectives have stalled amid Democratic infighting and shifting financial priorities pushed by fast-rising inflation, together with the gasoline worth spike triggered by Russia’s struggle in Ukraine.

Advertisement

After greater than a yr of tortured negotiations, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia gave get together leaders but another excuse he couldn’t assist $300 billion in tax incentives for clear power like photo voltaic and wind energy. He stated Thursday he wished to attend for extra encouraging knowledge on inflation, despite the fact that administration officers stated the clear power provisions can be a part of a broader invoice designed to scale back well being and electrical energy prices, minimize the deficit and strengthen the economic system.

Mr. Manchin had been negotiating with Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the bulk chief, on a scaled-back model of the local weather initiatives Mr. Biden had unsuccessfully tried to promote to Mr. Manchin final fall. In a style of the on-again, off-again nature of the talks, on Friday, Mr. Manchin advised the West Virginia radio host Hoppy Kercheval that he was nonetheless engaged in these negotiations and dangled the concept that he would possibly assist power laws in September, however not earlier.

However Mr. Manchin additionally stated he was cautious of elevating taxes on companies and high-earning people with a view to offset the power and local weather credit, at a time when inflation is rising at its quickest tempo in 40 years. He stated he had advised Mr. Schumer he wished to attend for the following set of financial indicators in August earlier than continuing.

“Inflation is totally killing many, many individuals,” Mr. Manchin stated on the radio program. “They’ll’t purchase gasoline, they’ve a tough time shopping for groceries, the whole lot they purchase and eat for his or her every day lives is a hardship to them. And may’t we wait to guarantee that we do nothing so as to add to that?”

Mr. Biden’s assertion successfully dominated out ready any longer on Mr. Manchin,

Advertisement

who had objected to parts of the local weather plan for greater than a yr, effectively earlier than the struggle in Ukraine and earlier than inflation took root.

Mr. Manchin’s vote was key largely as a result of not a single Republican is prepared to vote for the Democrats’ local weather laws. Whereas a number of Republicans have lately deserted outright local weather denial, none stated they might vote for clear power tax credit in the event that they had been in a stand-alone invoice, a New York Occasions survey earlier this yr discovered.

The information got here at a very awkward time for Mr. Biden. The president was flying on Friday from Israel to Saudi Arabia, carrying hopes that the Saudis and their oil-rich neighbors will ramp up manufacturing and assist to drive down the gasoline costs which have helped to hobble Mr. Biden’s approval rankings this yr.

Leaders of a few of the nation’s largest environmental organizations held a teleconference Friday afternoon with two of Mr. Biden’s high aides, Steve Ricchetti and Bruce Reed in addition to Ali Zaidi, the White Home deputy local weather adviser.

“We had been very clear in our assembly on the White Home that this was a second that calls for presidential management. President Biden has stated the local weather disaster is code crimson and he’s proper,” stated Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Protection Fund, an environmental group, who co-chaired the dialogue.

Advertisement

The dying of the laws is simply the most recent, however arguably worst, blow to Mr. Biden’s local weather agenda, as his instruments to deal with world warming have been stripped away, one after the other.

“There was a celebration leadership-wide failure to handle this,” stated Varshini Prakash, govt director of the Dawn Motion, an environmental group that represents many younger local weather activists.

“I wish to ensure that Biden and his administration hear this loud and clear,” Ms. Prakash stated. “They need to create a response throughout all businesses of the federal government at each degree over the course of the 2 and a half years that they continue to be in workplace to do the whole lot of their energy to handle the local weather disaster, or danger being an enormous failure and disappointment to the American individuals and younger individuals specifically.”

Christy Goldfuss, the senior vice chairman for power and setting coverage on the Heart for American Progress, a liberal suppose tank, stated she believed it was time for an “trustworthy dialog” about how far more tough it will likely be now to fulfill Mr. Biden’s local weather objectives with out congressional motion.

Economists usually agree there are two primary methods to scale back emissions and curb world temperature rise. One is to drive down the price of low-carbon power sources, like wind, photo voltaic or nuclear energy, whereas enhancing power effectivity. The opposite is making fossil fuels costlier to make use of, both by placing a worth on carbon emissions or elevating the value of the fuels.

Advertisement

Mr. Biden seems to have misplaced his greatest probability to additional promote clear power. He might pursue govt actions to manage emissions in some sectors of the economic system, although his choices have been narrowed on that entrance by a current Supreme Courtroom ruling that restricted the authority of the Environmental Safety Company to restrict emissions from energy crops, the nation’s second-largest supply of planet-warming air pollution.

Authorized consultants say that call will possible set a precedent that would additionally constrain the federal authorities’s capacity to extra strictly regulate different sources of heat-trapping emissions, together with vehicles and vehicles.

On the White Home, Mr. Biden’s local weather group is now assembling a set of smaller and fewer muscular instruments to combat world warming, which consultants say might nonetheless take slices out of the nation’s carbon footprint — though not by sufficient to fulfill the targets Mr. Biden has pledged to the remainder of the world. He has promised the US would minimize its greenhouse gasoline emissions by about half by the tip of this decade.

Within the coming months, the E.P.A. nonetheless plans to concern harder laws to manage methane, a potent greenhouse gasoline that leaks from oil and gasoline wells, together with a extra modest rule to chop emissions from utilities.

And whereas many economists have lengthy pushed for governments to tax fossil fuels to scale back emissions, Mr. Biden and his advisers have stated repeatedly that they wish to scale back, not increase, gasoline costs. The president is conscious of gasoline’s impression on family budgets and the political toll that prime gasoline costs have exacted on his presidency.

Advertisement

Mr. Biden acknowledged the contradictions of that place final fall, when gasoline costs had been rising however had been nonetheless $1.50 a gallon cheaper on common in the US than they’re right now.

“On the floor,” he advised reporters at a information convention following a Group of 20 summit assembly in Rome, “it looks like an irony, however the fact of the matter is — you’ve all recognized, everybody is aware of — that the concept we’re going to have the ability to transfer to renewable power in a single day and never have — from this second on, not use oil or not use gasoline or not use hydrogen is simply not rational.”

When gasoline rises above $3.35 a gallon, he added, “it has profound impression on working-class households simply to get forwards and backwards to work.”

The collapse of local weather laws comes as Mr. Biden’s high environmental advisers are stated to be headed for the exits. Mr. Biden had assembled what many referred to as a dream group of consultants together with Gina McCarthy, who had served as the pinnacle of the Environmental Safety Company beneath President Barack Obama, to steer a White Home workplace of local weather coverage.

Ms. McCarthy has indicated she intends to step down from her place this yr, however had hoped to take action on a excessive word after the passage of local weather laws, aides have stated.

Advertisement

Mr. Biden’s high worldwide envoy, John Kerry, who served as secretary of state within the Obama administration, is anticipated to go away after the following spherical of United Nations local weather negotiations, which might be in November in Egypt.

With little to point out from the US, nevertheless, Mr. Kerry will wrestle to push different nations to chop their local weather air pollution, consultants stated. Doing so is crucial to conserving the planet secure at about 1.5 levels Celsius of warming in comparison with preindustrial ranges. That’s the threshold past which the probability of catastrophic droughts, floods, fires and warmth waves will increase considerably. The Earth has already warmed by a median of about 1.1 levels Celsius, or about 2 levels Fahrenheit.

Because the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases traditionally, the US occupies a singular position within the combat to mitigate world warming. President Donald J. Trump abdicated that position, however when Mr. Biden was elected he declared that America was “again” and would lead nations in tamping down the air pollution that’s dangerously heating the planet.

Now, the US “will discover it very laborious to steer the world if we will’t even take the primary steps right here at residence,” stated Nat Keohane, the president of the Heart for Local weather and Vitality Options, an environmental group. “The honeymoon is over.”

Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.

Advertisement
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.

Science

Racing to Save California’s Elephant Seals From Bird Flu

Published

on

Racing to Save California’s Elephant Seals From Bird Flu
During the breeding season, the center sees a lot of underweight, malnourished elephant seal pups, many of which are still too young to fend for themselves or even swim. Sometimes, they also see elephant seals with parasites or traumatic injuries, such as dog bites or blunt force trauma from boat propellers.

For the last few years, the Marine Mammal Center has been testing any patients with bird-flu-like symptoms, which include respiratory and neurological problems, for the virus.

Continue Reading

Science

Lawmakers ask Newsom and waste agency to follow the law on plastic legislation

Published

on

Lawmakers ask Newsom and waste agency to follow the law on plastic legislation

California lawmakers are taking aim at proposed rules to implement a state law aimed at curbing plastic waste, saying the draft regulations proposed by CalRecycle undermine the letter and intent of the legislation.

In a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and two of his top administrators, the lawmakers said CalRecycle exceeded its authority by drafting regulations that don’t abide by the terms set out by the law, Senate Bill 54.

“While we support many changes in the current draft regulations, we have identified several provisions that are inconsistent with the governing statute … and where CalRecycle has exceeded its authority under the law,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Newsom, California Environmental Protection agency chief Yana Garcia, and Zoe Heller, director of the state’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, or CalRecycle.

The letter, which was written by Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) and Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), was signed by 21 other lawmakers, including Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) and Assemblymembers Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) and Monique Limón (D-Goleta).

Advertisement

CalRecycle submitted informal draft regulations two weeks ago that are designed to implement the law, which was authored by Allen, and signed into law by Newsom in 2022.

The lawmakers’ concerns are directed at the draft regulations’ potential approval of polluting recycling technologies — which the language of the law expressly prohibits — as well as the document’s expansive exemption for products and packaging that fall under the purview of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

The inclusion of such blanket exemptions is “not only contrary to the statute but also risks significantly increasing the program’s costs,” the lawmakers wrote. They said the new regulations allow “producers to unilaterally determine which products are subject to the law, without a requirement or process to back up such a claim.”

Daniel Villaseñor, a spokesman for the governor, said in an email that Newsom “was clear when he asked CalRecycle to restart these regulations that they should work to minimize costs for small businesses and families, and these rules are a step in the right direction …”

At a workshop held at the agency’s headquarters in Sacramento this week, CalRecycle staff responded to similar criticisms, and underscored that these are informal draft regulations, which means they can be changed.

Advertisement

“I know from comments we’ve already been receiving that some of the provisions, as we have written them … don’t quite come across in the way that we intended,” said Karen Kayfetz, chief of CalRecycle’s Product Stewardship branch, adding that she was hopeful “a robust conversation” could help highlight areas where interpretations of the regulations’ language differs from the agency’s intent.

“It was not our intent, of course, to ever go outside of the statute, and so to the extent that it may be interpreted in the language that we’ve provided, that there are provisions that extend beyond … it’s our wish to narrow that back down,” she said.

These new draft regulations are the expedited result of the agency’s attempt to satisfy Newsom’s concerns about the law, which he said could increase costs to California households if not properly implemented.

Newsom rejected the agency’s first attempt at drafting regulations — the result of nearly three years of negotiations by scores of stakeholders, including plastic producers, package developers, agricultural interests, environmental groups, municipalities, recycling companies and waste haulers — and ordered the waste agency to start the process over.

Critics say the new draft regulations cater to industry and could result in even higher costs to both California households, which have seen large increases in their residential waste hauling fees, as well as to the state’s various jurisdictions, which are taxed with cleaning up plastic waste and debris clogging the state’s rivers, highways, beaches and parks.

Advertisement

The law is molded on a series of legislative efforts described as Extended Producer Responsibility laws, which are designed to shift the cost of waste removal and disposal from the state’s jurisdictions and taxpayers to the industries that produce the waste — theoretically incentivizing a circular economy, in which product and packaging producers develop materials that can be reused, recycled or composted.

Continue Reading

Science

U.S. just radically changed its COVID vaccine recommendations: How will it affect you?

Published

on

U.S. just radically changed its COVID vaccine recommendations: How will it affect you?

As promised, federal health officials have dropped longstanding recommendations that healthy children and healthy pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccines.

“The COVID-19 vaccine schedule is very clear. The vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women. The vaccine is not recommended for healthy children,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a post on X on Friday.

In formal documents, health officials offer “no guidance” on whether pregnant women should get the vaccine, and ask that parents talk with a healthcare provider before getting the vaccine for their children.

The decision was done in a way that is still expected to require insurers to pay for COVID-19 vaccines for children should their parents still want the shots for them.

The new vaccine guidelines were posted to the website of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday.

Advertisement

The insurance question

It wasn’t immediately clear whether insurers will still be required under federal law to pay for vaccinations for pregnant women.

The Trump administration’s decision came amid criticism from officials at the nation’s leading organizations for pediatricians and obstetricians. Some doctors said there is no new evidence to support removing the recommendation that healthy pregnant women and healthy children should get the COVID vaccine.

“This situation continues to make things unclear and creates confusion for patients, providers and payers,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement Friday.

Earlier in the week, the group’s president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, said the science hasn’t changed, and that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and protects both the mom-to-be and their infants after birth.

“It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic,” Fleischman said in a statement.

Advertisement

Dr. Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, criticized the recommendation change as being rolled out in a “conflicting, confusing” manner, with “no explanation of the evidence used to reach their conclusions.”

“For many families, the COVID vaccine will remain an important way they protect their child and family from this disease and its complications, including long COVID,” Kressly said in a statement.

Some experts said the Trump administration should have waited to hear recommendations from a committee of doctors and scientists that typically advises the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunization recommendations, which is set to meet in late June.

California’s view

The California Department of Public Health on Thursday said it supported the longstanding recommendation that “COVID-19 vaccines be available for all persons aged 6 months and older who wish to be vaccinated.”

The changes come as the CDC has faced an exodus of senior leaders and has lacked an acting director. Typically, as was the case during the first Trump administration and in the Biden administration, it is the CDC director who makes final decisions on vaccine recommendations. The CDC director has traditionally accepted the consensus viewpoint of the CDC’s panel of doctors and scientists serving on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Advertisement

Even with the longstanding recommendations, vaccination rates were relatively low for children and pregnant women. As of late April, 13% of children, and 14.4% of pregnant women, had received the latest updated COVID-19 vaccine, according to the CDC. About 23% of adults overall received the updated vaccine, as did 27.8% of seniors age 65 and over.

The CDC estimates that since October, there have been 31,000 to 50,000 COVID deaths and between 270,000 and 430,000 COVID hospitalizations.

Here are some key points about the CDC’s decision:

New vaccination guidance for healthy children

Previously, the CDC’s guidance was simple: everyone ages 6 months and up should get an updated COVID vaccination. The most recent version was unveiled in September, and is officially known as the 2024-25 COVID-19 vaccine.

As of Thursday, the CDC, on its pediatric immunization schedule page, says that for healthy children — those age 6 months to 17 years — decisions about COVID vaccination should come from “shared clinical decision-making,” which is “informed by a decision process between the healthcare provider and the patient or parent/guardian.”

Advertisement

“Where the parent presents with a desire for their child to be vaccinated, children 6 months and older may receive COVID-19 vaccination, informed by the clinical judgment of a healthcare provider and personal preference and circumstances,” the CDC says.

The vaccine-skeptic secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., contended in a video posted on Tuesday there was a “lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children.”

However, an earlier presentation by CDC staff said that, in general, getting an updated vaccine provides both children and adults additional protection from COVID-related emergency room and urgent care visits.

Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UC San Francisco infectious diseases expert, said he would have preferred the CDC retain its broader recommendation that everyone age 6 months and up get the updated vaccine.

“It’s simpler,” Chin-Hong said. He added there’s no new data out there that to him suggests children shouldn’t be getting the updated COVID vaccine.

Advertisement

A guideline that involves “shared decision-making,” Chin-Hong said, “is a very nebulous recommendation, and it doesn’t result in a lot of people getting vaccines.”

Kressly, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the shared clinical decision-making model is challenging to implement “because it lacks clear guidance for the conversations between a doctor and a family. Doctors and families need straightforward, evidence-based guidance, not vague, impractical frameworks.”

Some experts had been worried that the CDC would make a decision that would’ve ended the federal requirement that insurers cover the cost of COVID-19 vaccines for children. The out-of-pocket cost for a COVID-19 vaccine can reach around $200.

New vaccine guidance for pregnant women

In its adult immunization schedule for people who have medical conditions, the CDC now says it has “no guidance” on whether pregnant women should get the COVID-19 vaccine.

In his 58-second video on Tuesday, Kennedy did not explain why he thought pregnant women should not be recommended to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Advertisement

Chin-Hong, of UCSF, called the decision to drop the vaccination recommendation for pregnant women “100%” wrong.

Pregnancy brings with it a relatively compromised immune system. Pregnant women have “a high chance of getting infections, and they get more serious disease — including COVID,” Chin-Hong said.

A pregnant woman getting vaccinated also protects the newborn. “You really need the antibodies in the pregnant person to go across the placenta to protect the newborn,” Chin-Hong said.

It’s especially important, Chin-Hong and others say, because infants under 6 months of age can’t be vaccinated against COVID-19, and they have as high a risk of severe complications as do seniors age 65 and over.

Not the worst-case scenario for vaccine proponents

Earlier in the week, some experts worried the new rules would allow insurers to stop covering the cost of the COVID vaccine for healthy children.

Advertisement

Their worries were sparked by the video message on Tuesday, in which Kennedy said that “the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule.”

By late Thursday, the CDC came out with its formal decision — the agency dropped the recommendation for healthy children, but still left the shot on the pediatric immunization schedule.

Leaving the COVID-19 vaccine on the immunization schedule “means the vaccine will be covered by insurance” for healthy children, the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement.

How pharmacies and insurers are responding

There are some questions that don’t have immediate answers. Will some vaccine providers start requiring doctor’s notes in order for healthy children and healthy pregnant women to get vaccinated? Will it be harder for children and pregnant women to get vaccinated at a pharmacy?

In a statement, CVS Pharmacy said it “follows federal guidance and state law regarding vaccine administration and are monitoring any changes that the government may make regarding vaccine eligibility.” The insurer Aetna, which is owned by CVS, is also monitoring any changes federal officials make to COVID-19 vaccine eligibility “and will evaluate whether coverage adjustments are needed.”

Advertisement

Blue Shield of California said it will not change its practices on covering COVID-19 vaccines.

“Despite the recent federal policy change on COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy children and pregnant women, Blue Shield of California will continue to cover COVID-19 vaccines for all eligible members,” the insurer said in a statement. “The decision on whether to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is between our member and their provider. Blue Shield does not require prior authorization for COVID-19 vaccines.”

Under California law, health plans regulated by the state Department of Managed Health Care must cover COVID-19 vaccines without requiring prior authorization, the agency said Friday. “If consumers access these services from a provider in their health plan’s network, they will not need to pay anything for these services,” the statement said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending