• Newsom budget plan would cap health program for undocumented Californians to help close $12 billion Trump Slump deficit
• Deadly Israeli air strikes continue in Gaza amid ceasefire talks in Doha
• Californians rally at hospitals across state to protest Medicaid cuts, Mayor Elect Barbara Lee joins rally at Oakland’s Highland Hospital
• SF workers rally against Mayor Lurie’s cuts to services
• Rashida Tlaib D-MI introduces resolution to recognize 77^th anniversary of Naqba expulsion of Palestinians
• Republican lawmakers propose measure to label as “terrorist” non-profits that oppose Trump policies

The post Newsom budget plan would cap health program for undocumented Californians; Deadly Israeli air strikes continue in Gaza amid ceasefire talks in Doha – May 14, 2025 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

Boughalleb, a reporter with local independent channel Carthage Plus and local independent radio station Cap FM, was sentenced to six months in prison in April 2024 on defamation charges. But he has been imprisoned for nearly a year, as his sentence was increased to eight months on appeal and he has been charged on a second defamation count under Decree 54.

Tunisian authorities have used the cybercrime law to continue to arrest, prosecute, and silence members of the press, the letter states.

Read the letter here.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

The fifth and potentially final round of negotiations over a global plastics treaty began on Monday, with hopes running high that countries will be able to wrap up a deal to address plastic pollution by December 1. During an opening ceremony, speakers from the U.N. entreated delegates to find the “bold political will” to address plastic’s damage to human health and the environment. South Korea’s environment minister, Kim Wan Sup, said that “we must end plastic pollution before plastic pollution ends us.”

Specifically at stake at INC-5, the official name for this round of negotiations, is what many participants consider to be the treaty’s defining question: Will the world directly limit the amount of plastic that manufacturers can produce? Dozens of countries have argued that a production cap is the only way to achieve the treaty’s goal to “end plastic pollution,” though they’ve had a hard time convincing oil-producing countries to agree. Virtually all plastics are made from fossil fuels.

Proponents of a production cap, who include environmental groups and a coalition of scientists, sometimes liken the plastic pollution crisis to an overflowing bathtub. Instead of mopping up the floor — cleaning up existing plastic waste while the industry plans to produce more and more — they want to turn off the metaphorical tap. Reducing plastic production would also cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate people’s exposure to the 16,000 chemicals used in plastic products, at least 4,200 of which have hazardous properties.

There’s also a financial case for hard limits on plastic production: The Institute for Environmental Economics and Financial Analysis, a think tank, recently argued that a cap on the production of primary plastic polymers, combined with other demand and supply initiatives, could smooth volatility and price instability currently affecting producers.

“World leaders gathering here in Busan must deliver an agreement that progressively cuts the unfettered production of plastic,” Von Hernandez, the global coordinator for the anti-plastic coalition Break Free From Plastic, said in a statement. Along with the nonprofits Greenpeace and WWF, Break Free From Plastic delivered a 3-million-signature petition to government officials on the day before discussions began, asking for them to “drastically reduce” the production of plastic. 

Much has changed since countries first agreed to negotiate a plastics treaty in 2022, and even since the last meeting in April. This summer, the United States indicated it would support production caps as part of the treaty, only to flip-flop the week after the reelection of former President Donald Trump. Chris Dixon, an ocean campaign leader for the nonprofit Environmental Investigations Agency who is attending the talks, said any hope that the U.S. would eventually ratify the treaty has “completely evaporated,” since Republicans will soon take control of the Senate. 

There are other signs that nations may not agree to a production cap at INC-5. In the lead-up to the conference, U.N. Environment Programme Executive Director Inger Andersen appeared to place her thumb on the scale by making several speeches and media appearances in which she emphasized plastics’ utility to society, a common industry talking point. In an interview with the international news agency AFP, she characterized the debate on production caps as “not an intelligent conversation.” 

“These remarks are part of a concerning pattern of statements that risk prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations,” wrote more than 130 environmental organizations in a letter sent to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in October.

Luis Vayas Valdivieso, the chair of INC-5, also drew scrutiny for the way he consolidated the previous meeting’s text — a bloated document filled with just about everyone’s desired language — into a more manageable basis for negotiations. For unclear reasons, he deleted the article that had been titled “primary plastic production,” which presumably would have dealt with a potential cap, and replaced it with a vaguer article on “supply,” focusing mostly on voluntary national commitments.

Instead of production caps, some countries, including the U.S., say they support so-called market mechanisms to indirectly drive down demand for plastic production. This could involve anything from a plastic tax to bans on particular plastic products. They want the treaty to focus on boosting plastics recycling above the abysmal current rate of 9 percent and cleaning up existing plastic pollution.

The American Chemistry Council, or ACC, a U.S. trade group, says a plastic production cap would axe jobs and cause an “increased environmental footprint,” since alternative materials weigh more and thus cause more greenhouse gas emissions during transport.

The ACC did not respond directly to Grist’s request for comment on the financial case for a production cap, but the president of the group’s division representing plastic makers, Ross Eisenberg, implied that demand for plastic products will increase as the global population becomes wealthier. He cited a 2024 report commissioned by the International Council of Chemical Associations, of which the American Chemistry Council is a member, finding that a plastic production cap could increase the costs of many goods and services and that this would “impact those least able to afford it.

“The most efficient way to balance supply and demand is through natural market forces, rather than arbitrary production caps,” Eisenberg said.

Benny Mermans, chair of the World Plastics Council, said in a statement ahead of INC-5 that “we have the power to shape a future where society continues to reap the immense benefits of plastics without them becoming pollution.” He called for an agreement that treats plastics “as valuable resources rather than waste.”

According to an analysis from the nonprofit Center for International Environmental Law, 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered to attend INC-5, more than all of the European Union and its member states combined.

It’s too early to know what will come of the INC-5 discussions, but the first days of the meeting suggest the week will be deeply divisive. At two events last Sunday and Monday, Andersen again faced scrutiny from environmental groups and the media for appearing to try to influence the negotiations — this time by allegedly conducting closed-door meetings with national delegations in which she pressured them to drop production caps from their priorities. Green groups also raised concerns that the decision to base negotiations off of Valdivieso’s streamlined text was being “largely ignored,” with some countries allegedly attempting to overload the document with new suggestions.

By Wednesday, some delegates were expressing frustration at the slow pace of the negotiations, saying that “the end seems far from sight.”

Among the other issues to be resolved — or not — during INC-5 are whether the treaty will ban or restrict lists of toxic chemicals used in plastics, how to pay for the treaty’s provisions, and how the agreement will be structured. Many countries, supported by environmental groups, favor a top-down format with legally binding global provisions; others, including the United States, favor a voluntary approach where countries are free to set their own targets, whether they’re on plastic production and use or pollution management.

Lennox Yearwood Jr, president and CEO of the social justice organization Hip Hop Caucus, told Grist from Busan that countries should gavel a treaty protecting frontline communities most likely to live near petrochemical plants and landfills. “Negotiators at INC-5 must prioritize binding measures that cap plastic production, outline our commitment to address the current harm the fossil fuel industry poses, and address plastic waste,” he said. 

“Without bold action, the treaty negotiations risk becoming another missed opportunity to tackle environmental racism on a global scale.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline At the final round of plastic treaty negotiations, a production cap hangs in the balance on Nov 27, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Joseph Winters.

“The sentencing of journalist Mohamed Boughaleb to six months in prison over social media posts and statements on television and radio is a clear attack against independent journalists and the freedom of the press,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martínez de la Serna, from New York. “Tunisian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Boughaleb and drop all charges against him.”

Police arrested Boughaleb, a reporter with local independent channel Carthage Plus and local independent radio station Cap FM, in the capital, Tunis, on March 22. The arrest followed a complaint filed by an unnamed employee of the Ministry of Religious Affairs over the journalists’ social media posts and statements on television and radio concerning the ministry’s policies and ministry officials’ visits abroad.

CPJ emailed the Tunisian Ministry of Religious Affairs for comment on Boughaleb’s sentence but did not receive a reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

Boughaleb, a reporter with local independent channel Carthage Plus and local independent radio station Cap FM, was arrested by Tunisian police on March 22 and charged with “defaming others on social media platforms” and “attributing false news to a state official without proof.” His arrest followed a defamation complaint filed by an unnamed employee of the Ministry of Religious Affairs over the journalist’s social media posts and statements on television and radio concerning the ministry’s policies and visits abroad.

On Wednesday, a trial court in the capital, Tunis, postponed Boughaleb’s hearing until April 17, according to Hajer Tlili, a local journalist familiar with the case who spoke to CPJ.

If convicted of defamation, Boughaleb faces up to two years imprisonment and a fine of 120 dinars (US$38) under Article 128 of the penal code; attributing false news to a state official carries between one and two years imprisonment and a fine between 100 (US$31) and 1000 (US$320) dinars under Article 86 of the telecommunications code.

“Tunisian authorities’ arrest and prosecution of journalist Mohamed Boughaleb is a clear example of how President Kais Saied’s government is determined to target local journalists and undermine freedom of the press,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna. “Tunisian authorities must immediately and unconditionally release Boughaleb, drop all charges against him, and ensure that all journalists can work freely without fear of detention.”

The state prosecutor at the Tunis trial court ordered Boughaleb’s detention for 48 hours, according to the news reports and Tlili. On March 26, the court ordered his transfer to Mornaguia prison, 20 km (12 miles) west of Tunis.

CPJ emailed the Tunisian Ministry of Religious Affairs for comment on Boughaleb’s arrest and charges but did not receive a reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

In an essay published on January 30, William Burns, who also served as ambassador to Russia and in top State Department positions, urged U.S. lawmakers to pass a new package of weapons and equipment for Ukraine, calling it a "relatively modest investment with significant geopolitical returns for the United States and notable returns for American industry."

"Putin's war has already been a failure for Russia on many levels," Burns wrote in the journal Foreign Affairs.

"His original goal of seizing Kyiv and subjugating Ukraine proved foolish and illusory. His military has suffered immense damage. At least 315,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded, two-thirds of Russia's prewar tank inventory has been destroyed, and Putin's vaunted decades-long military modernization program has been hollowed out."

"His war in Ukraine is quietly corroding his power at home," he said.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Burns' remarks come as Russia's mass invasion of Ukraine nears its second anniversary, with no end in sight to the conflict.

Putin, who is expected to be resoundingly reelected in a March presidential vote, has framed the "special military operation" -- the Kremlin's euphemism for the war -- as a fundamental fight for Russia's historical identity.

The Russian economy has been put on a war footing, hundreds of thousands of people have been mobilized, and many more Russians have fled the country, either to avoid military service or out of protest of internal repression.

"One thing I have learned is that it is always a mistake to underestimate his [Putin's] fixation on controlling Ukraine and its choices," Burns wrote.

"Without that control, he believes it is impossible for Russia to be a great power or for him to be a great Russian leader. That tragic and brutish fixation has already brought shame to Russia and exposed its weaknesses, from its one-dimensional economy to its inflated military prowess to its corrupt political system."

Ukraine, meanwhile, has struggled to hold its battlefield positions after a failed counteroffensive last year. Western and Ukrainian officials had had high hopes for the effort, in part due to NATO training and powerful new Western weaponry.

Both Russia and Ukraine are now dug in to established positions across the 1,200-kilometer front line as winter blankets the country. Some experts fear that Russia will retrench and replenish its forces, and be in a position to launch its own offensive as early as this summer.

Domestically, Ukraine's leadership is facing growing impatience with the status of the war.

News reports this week said that President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is considering pushing out the country's top military officer, General Valeriy Zaluzhniy, a popular figure seen as a possible political rival to Zelenskiy.

"This year is likely to be a tough one on the battlefield in Ukraine, a test of staying power whose consequences will go well beyond the country's heroic struggle to sustain its freedom and independence," Burns said.

Putin "continues to bet that time is on his side, that he can grind down Ukraine and wear down its Western supporters," he added.

Western aid to Ukraine has buoyed its fight against Russia, but enthusiasm for that has waned in Washington and other Western capitals.

In the United States -- the biggest single supplier of arms and equipment to Ukraine -- Republican lawmakers have balked at authorizing President Joe Biden's new $61 billion aid package, insisting it should be tied to a broader reform of U.S. immigration laws.

Burns argued that the U.S. funds were being well-spent by Ukraine, which is wearing down Russia.

"The key to success lies in preserving Western aid for Ukraine," he wrote.

"At less than 5 percent of the U.S. defense budget, it is a relatively modest investment with significant geopolitical returns for the United States and notable returns for American industry," Burns wrote.

"Keeping the arms...offers a chance to ensure a long-term win for Ukraine and a strategic loss for Russia; Ukraine could safeguard its sovereignty and rebuild, while Russia would be left to deal with the enduring costs of Putin’s folly," he added.

The Kremlin had not responded to Burns' essay as of January 31.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

UFA, Russia -- A court in Ufa, the capital of Russia's Republic of Bashkortostan, has sentenced eight men to up to 14 days in jail for taking part in an unprecedented rally earlier this week to support the former leader of the banned Bashqort movement, Fail Alsynov, who has criticized Russia's full-scale aggression against Ukraine.

The Kirov district court on January 18 sentenced activists Salavat Idelbayev and Rustam Yuldashev to 14 and 13 days in jail, respectively, after finding them guilty of taking part in "an unsanctioned rally that led to the disruption of infrastructure activities and obstructed the work of a court" on January 15.

A day earlier, the same court sentenced Ilnar Galin to 13 days in jail, and Denis Skvortsov, Fanzil Akhmetshin, Yulai Aralbayev, Radmir Mukhametshin, and Dmitry Petrov to 10 days in jail each on the same charges.

The sentences were related to a January 15 rally of around 5,000 people in front of a court in the town of Baimak, where the verdict and sentencing of Alsynov, who was charged with inciting ethnic hatred, were expected to be announced. But the court postponed the announcement to January 17 to allow security forces to prepare for any reaction to the verdict in the controversial trial.

On January 17, thousands of supporters gathered in front of the court again, and after Alsynov was sentenced to four years in prison, clashes broke out as police using batons, tear gas, and stun grenades forced the protesters to leave the site. Several protesters were injured and at least two were hospitalized.

Dozens of protesters were detained and the Investigative Committee said those in custody from the January 17 unrest will face criminal charges -- organizing and participating in mass disorder and using violence against law enforcement.

Separately on January 18, police detained two young men in Baimak on unspecified charges. Friends of the men said the detentions were most likely linked to the rallies to support Alsynov.

The head of Bashkortostan, Radiy Khabirov, made his first statement on January 18 about the largest protest rally in Russia since Moscow launched its ongoing invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, saying he "will not tolerate extremism and attempts to shake up the situation," and promising to find the "real organizers" of the rallies.

It was Khabirov who initiated the investigation of Alsynov, accusing him of inciting ethnic hatred as well as calling for anti-government rallies and extremist activities and discrediting Russia's armed forces.

In the end, Alsynov was charged only with inciting hatred, which stemmed from a speech he gave at a rally in late April 2023 in the village of Ishmurzino in which he criticized local government plans to start mining gold near the village, as it would bring in migrant laborers.

Investigators said Alsynov's speech "negatively assessed people in the Caucasus and Central Asia, humiliating their human dignity." Alsynov and his supporters have rejected the charge as politically motivated.

Bashkortostan's Supreme Court banned Alsynov's Bashqort group, which for years promoted Bashkir language, culture, and equal rights for ethnic Bashkirs, in May 2020, declaring it extremist.

Bashqort was banned after staging several rallies and other events challenging the policies of both local and federal authorities, including Moscow's move to abolish mandatory indigenous-language classes in the regions with large populations of indigenous ethnic groups.

With reporting by RusNews

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

One year after it went into effect, Washington’s “cap-and-invest” system has already brought in an eyebrow-raising $2.2 billion for action on climate change. The Climate Commitment Act, signed by Governor Jay Inslee in 2021, establishes a statewide limit on greenhouse gas emissions that steadily lowers over time. The law also creates a market, like California’s, for businesses to buy “allowances” for the carbon pollution they emit, prodding them to cut their emissions — and at the same time generating a boatload of money to tackle climate change. Touted as the “gold standard” for state climate policy, the law requires Washington to slash its emissions nearly in half by 2030, using 1990 levels as the baseline.

The program’s early success has attracted attention — praise from climate advocates and pushback from anti-tax hawks. A hedge fund manager named Brian Heywood has funded a petition drive to repeal the Climate Commitment Act, over its effects on gas prices, along with other petitions to strike down the state’s capital gains tax, give the police more leeway to pursue vehicles, and grant parents access to their kids’ medical records at school. The repeal could be headed to voters as a ballot initiative this November. If voters approve it, Heywood’s initiative wouldn’t just cancel the climate law; it would block the state from creating any other cap-and-trade system in the future.

“This is going to force us to do a better job communicating and defending our policies,” said Joe Nguyễn, a state senator representing White Center, an area just south of Seattle, who chairs the state’s Environment, Energy, and Technology Committee.

Experts said that the law is already having tangible benefits. Businesses, hoping to avoid paying for costly pollution “allowances,” are figuring out how to run their operations while emitting less carbon. Meanwhile, the revenue from the program is spurring clean energy efforts, including a large-scale solar project by the Yakama Nation, and attracting green industries like clean hydrogen. The funding will also help families install energy-efficient (and money-saving) heat pumps and provide incentives for garbage trucks, delivery vans, and buses to go electric.

The fate of the climate law could have ripple effects beyond Washington, the second state to adopt a cap on carbon after California. New York, for example, just unveiled plans for a cap-and-invest program in December. Officials in New York are closely monitoring the backlash in Washington state, and, in turn, other Northeastern states are watching New York to see what it decides. If Washington’s law goes up in flames, states might decide against enshrining similar carbon-cutting laws. But if it survives the backlash, it could boost other politicians’ confidence in putting a price on carbon pollution.

Grist spoke with experts in Washington about the lessons they’ve learned, one year into the program. They suggested that advocates for any stringent carbon price should be ready to play defense right away — and should work to make its benefits tangible to people around the state.

“The success of the Climate Commitment Act will depend on whether real people in real neighborhoods are actually seeing better infrastructure and things like better transit, home weatherization and electrification, and reductions in emissions from industry,” said Deric Gruen, co-executive director of the Front and Centered, an environmental justice coalition based in Seattle.

The gas price debacle

If the state’s residents have heard anything about the law, it’s most likely been about the bane of politics: the price of gasoline. Washington’s gas prices soared to $4.91 a gallon on average in June, the highest in the country. 

Almost as soon as the first auction to sell pollution credits was held in March, raising $300 million, opponents started drawing a connection between the climate law and “pain at the pump.” The price of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide clocked in at $49, nearly double the average price in California’s cap-and-trade market at the time. Kelly Hall, the Washington director for the regional nonprofit Climate Solutions, attributes the higher prices to the stringency of Washington’s program, which requires more ambitious carbon dioxide cuts than California’s.

In a YouTube video promoting the repeal campaign, Heywood calls the law a “sneaky” gas tax and characterizes it as a money-grab by the state government. “Who knows where [the money] goes?” he asks in the video. He maintains that Inslee and state Democrats weren’t upfront about its potential cost to drivers of gas-powered vehicles. Last year, Heywood hired signature gatherers to go around the state, and in November, they turned in more than 400,000 signatures to repeal the climate law. If enough of those signatures pass the verification process, the repeal initiative will be headed to voters this November.

“Once those auctions were high, there were billboards and ad campaigns and everything blaming the price of gas on this,” said David Mendoza, the director of government relations at The Nature Conservancy in Seattle. “Being ready for that pushback as soon as implementation actually gets started, I think is key.”

State officials have estimated that the program added somewhere around 26 cents to the price of a gallon of gas, though some economists have put the number as high as 55 cents. Confidentiality rules around which companies are participating in cap-and-trade auctions make the analysis difficult. Lawmakers like Nguyễn are working on a “transparency bill,” similar to one that went into effect in California last year, that aims to open financial records from oil companies to see if they’re price gouging.

Proponents of the Climate Commitment Act argue that Washington’s gas prices have always been higher than the national average — they reached $5.50 in 2022, before the climate law began — and that oil companies are choosing to pass the costs onto consumers. They also point out that drivers of electric vehicles in the state are paying the equivalent of less than $1.50 a gallon in electricity. Last year, tens of thousands of Washingtonians switched to electric vehicles. 

“If we are concerned about the cost of transportation for Washington businesses and residents, we have to keep our focus away from the arm-waving of the variations of gas prices that we’ve suffered through for decades and really look to true solutions,” said Michael Mann, the executive director for Clean & Prosperous Washington, a climate-friendly business coalition. “And the true solution to lower our transportation costs is to get off of fossil fuels.”

Who’s getting the money?

Legislators are using the revenue from the auctions for dozens of programs to tackle the state’s two biggest sources of carbon emissions: transportation and buildings. They have set aside $400 million for public transit projects, including the free transit for youth program, and $120 million for electrifying garbage trucks, delivery vans, school buses, and other large vehicles. Another $115 million is earmarked for rebates to help low-income households and small businesses install energy-efficient equipment like heat pumps, a key tool for lowering carbon emissions and energy bills.

The Climate Commitment Act requires that at least 35 percent of the investments go toward “overburdened communities,” such as the $25 million that’s for improving air quality in polluted neighborhoods. An additional 10 percent of investments are set aside for projects that directly benefit Native American tribes. The state budgeted $50 million to help tribes address climate change and adapt to its effects, for example, and $20 million for the Yakama Nation’s utility to build solar panels over irrigation canals. 

The rest of the proceeds go to cleaning up transportation, accelerating the shift to clean energy, and helping communities and ecosystems withstand the effects of climate change, without specific percentages attached. 

Front and Centered, which originally opposed the law based on concerns that cap-and-trade would fail to limit pollution, is now focused on making sure that communities get their promised share of the revenue. “The conversation is leaning into this thing about gas prices,” said Gruen, the group’s co-executive director, “but the attention really needs to be on effectiveness in reducing pollution and justice for frontline communities, and that seems to be getting lost in the conversation.” He says that communities should get more of a say in the budgeting process, so they get to be part of climate solutions in their neighborhoods. 

It’s taking a while for some projects to get up and running, but that’s sort of the nature of the work, Mendoza said. “From my own engagement with government agencies, they’re trying to do things differently,” he said. “They know that they need to invest in overburdened communities. They know they want to reach smaller organizations to get in a pipeline to receive these funds that invest directly in communities.”

How things are changing for businesses

Climate policies are often discussed in terms of “carrots” (the rewards) and “sticks” (the punishments for emissions). The “stick” in Washington’s law prompts businesses to clean up their act so they don’t have to pay for pollution credits. Some progress is already happening on that front, according to Mann of Clean and Prosperous. The oil giant BP, which supported the Climate Commitment Act, spent about $270 million on efficiency upgrades at its refinery in Cherry Point near Bellingham, estimated to reduce the facility’s emissions by 7 percent. Washington’s law also gave the U.S. its first all-electric Amtrak bus line when the transportation company MTRWestern, which contracted with Amtrak, swapped its diesel-powered bus between Seattle and Bellingham for one that charges on electricity.

Then there are the carrots. Every dollar invested by the state has yielded $5 in federal money through matching grant programs from the federal Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law, according to Nguyễn. Legislators in other states are jealous, he said, “because we were able to take advantage of these things when they couldn’t, and it’s going to really accelerate the work that we’re doing.”

The global mining company Fortescue, for example, obtained $20 million from the state to build a multibillion-dollar “clean hydrogen” plant in Centralia, Washington, near an old coal-fired power plant that’s set to retire in 2025. (Hydrogen can replace fossil fuels in a range of tough-to-decarbonize industries, from aviation to steelmaking.) The project was recently awarded an additional $1 billion in federal funds. Without the revenue from the Climate Commitment Act, Mann said, getting the grant money from the state that made the project eligible for federal funding “would have been next to impossible.”

Another example is Group14, a Seattle startup that’s building the world’s largest factory for advanced silicon battery materials, which promises to make the lithium-ion batteries used in EVs more powerful and faster-charging. The factory, set to open in Moses Lake, Washington later this year, is expected to provide enough battery materials for 200,000 electric vehicles every year. It’s bolstered by funds from Washington’s program and the federal bipartisan infrastructure law.

Whatever happens next with Washington’s cap-and-invest law, whether it gets overturned or continues to bring in billions for climate action, it’s bound to influence how other states choose to tackle global warming. “It’s so funny when people see these things like this happen, and they say, ‘Oh, well, this went wrong, and that went wrong, and that went wrong,’” Nguyễn said. “And it’s like, of course — that’s what leadership looks like. You know, nobody had a map of how this was supposed to happen.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Washington’s cap on carbon is raising billions for climate action. Can it survive the backlash? on Jan 8, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Kate Yoder.

Minnesota, Oregon, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the Center for Biological Diversity, and 350.org filed a formal notice today of their intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to act on a 2009 petition urging a nationwide greenhouse gas pollution cap under the Clean Air Act.

“In what’s likely the hottest year on record, it’s never been clearer that the EPA should set a national cap on planet-warming pollution,” said Maya Golden-Krasner, deputy director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “We don’t have time to leave powerful climate tools sitting on the shelf. As we approach December’s international climate talks, a limit on greenhouse gas pollution would show the world that the Biden administration is serious about confronting this global emergency.”

In 2009 the Center and 350.org petitioned the EPA to use its full authority under the Clean Air Act to list greenhouse pollution as a criteria pollutant and set a pollution cap in the form of a “national ambient air quality standard,” or NAAQS. The petition notes that the EPA must set the science-based standard at the level that’s necessary to protect human health and welfare and the environment.

The Trump administration denied the petition just before President Biden took office. In March 2021 Biden’s EPA overturned the Trump administration denial and agreed to reconsider the petition. The EPA stated that under Trump “the agency did not fully and fairly assess the issues raised by the petition.”

In response, the Center sent the EPA a letter urging the agency to move ahead with a cap because of the urgency of the climate crisis and growing evidence of global heating’s dangers.

More than two years later, the agency has failed to respond to the petition or the Center’s letter, prompting the notice of intent to file a lawsuit.

“Over the past decade, drought and fires, both exacerbated by climate heating, have increasingly plagued our communities, which already face disproportionate harm from toxic pollution from copper smelters and other sources,” said Terry Rambler, chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. “These conditions pose a real threat to tribal lands and resources.”

In July 2022 seven states, including Oregon and Minnesota, and the territory of Guam joined the call for President Biden and the EPA to set a nationwide greenhouse gas pollution limit under the Clean Air Act.

“Minnesota’s northern climate was once dependable but no longer is,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. “This harms everyone, including farmers and rural communities that depend on agriculture, local economies that rely on recreation, vulnerable urban communities for whom increasingly extreme weather poses real risks of physical harm, and everyone in between. The nationwide climate pollution cap at the heart of the Clean Air Act could bring about significant reductions in pollution that would improve the health, safety and community of every Minnesotan. Minnesota simply can’t afford any more half-measures and delays.”

“Oregon will not be a climate denier!” said Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum. “There is simply no denying it — Oregonians have already experienced the severe impacts of climate change here at home: choking wildfire smoke, deadly heatwaves, floods, landslides, drought, damaged fisheries, and more. The toll on our people’s environmental, economic, and physical and mental health is too high. We refuse to stand on the sidelines — watching this future unfold. We applaud what the Biden administration is doing to reduce emissions from automobiles and power plants. Yet, significant greenhouse gas emissions come from sources that are not covered by any current or proposed regulations. The Clean Air Act has a comprehensive mechanism designed to deal with pollutants that come from numerous or diverse sources through the adoption of NAAQS.”

Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA limited the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from the power sector under a different provision of the Clean Air Act, that ruling suggested that the agency may be better off setting a national greenhouse gas cap to address climate pollution. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion noted that “capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day.”

Today’s notice gives the EPA 180 days to reply to the notice letter and the petition.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Rep. Cori Bush(D-Mo.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would cap the list price of insulin at no more than $20 per vial, substantially reducing the cost of the lifesaving drug for the more than 7 million people who use insulin across the United States and the 1.3 million Americans who were forced to ration insulin last year.

“There is no reason why Americans should pay the highest prices in the world for insulin – in some cases, ten times as much as people in other countries,” said Sen. Sanders. “In 1923, the inventors of insulin sold their patents for $1 to save lives, not to turn pharmaceutical executives into billionaires. Now, 100 years later, unacceptable corporate greed has caused the price of this lifesaving medication to skyrocket by over 1,000 percent since 1996. We can no longer tolerate a rigged health care system that forced 1.3 million people with diabetes to ration insulin while the three major insulin manufacturers made $21 billion dollars in profits. Now is the time for Congress to take on the greed and power of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the price of insulin. In the richest country in the history of the world, no one should die because they cannot afford the medication they need.”

“As a nurse, I’ve seen too many people in our communities struggle to afford their life-saving insulin medication. People are left choosing between insulin or groceries; insulin or rent; insulin or child care. This is unacceptable,” said Congresswoman Bush. “That is why I am so proud to join Senator Sanders in introducing the Insulin for All Act, legislation that will effectively cap the price of insulin at $20 per vial. We cannot solely rely on the whims of pharmaceutical companies to set standards of patient care and determine who can afford medication. Congress must act swiftly to remove the costly burden of insulin for patients with diabetes and save lives.”

While Eli Lilly and Company, after significant public pressure, recently announced a 70 percent price cut for Humalog, the company has not yet moved to reduce the price of other insulin products. Novo Nordisk and Sanofi – which along with Eli Lilly make up 90 percent of the insulin market in the U.S. – have not made any commitment to lower their prices at all. When Eli Lilly first launched Humalog in 1996, it set the price close to $20.

Joining Sanders and Bush on the Insulin for All Act of 2023 are Sens. Ed Markey(D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Reps. Jamaal Bowman(D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.), Jesús G. "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Al Green (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal(D-Wash.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Ayanna Pressley(D-Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib(D-Mich.).

“Big Pharma continues to rake in record profits by gouging patients on insulin prices,” said Sen. Merkley. “Unaffordable high prices are forcing patients to ration their insulin, leading to dire health consequences – heart attacks, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, foot disease and amputations, even death. It’s tragic, it’s unacceptable, and it’s time to end this rip-off. No one should have to go bankrupt just to afford the daily medication they need to stay healthy. It’s time to put people above profits, and tell the big drug companies that their days extorting Americans who need insulin to survive are over.”

“I am proud of capping insulin copays at $35 for Medicare recipients as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, but the work doesn’t stop there. Corporate profit shouldn’t dictate access to vital health care,” said Sen. Markey. “Guaranteeing affordable insulin for all won’t just lessen the burden that is the sky-high cost of health care in this country — it’ll save lives, keep people out of the emergency room, and ensure the seven million Americans who rely on insulin have access to the medicine they need.”

While researchers estimate that a vial of insulin costs just $8 to manufacture, the price of insulin has gone up by over 1,000 percent since 1996. Sanofi’s Lantus costs $292 per vial. Novo Nordisk’s Novolog is listed at $289. Eli Lilly’s Lyumjev can be purchased for $275. People with diabetes face nearly $17,000 per year in medical expenses, more than half of which is directly attributable to their diabetes, and health care for people with diabetes accounts for one in four health care dollars in the U.S.

In 2019, Sanders took a busload of people with diabetes from Michigan to Canada, where they were able to purchase the same insulin products that they bought in the U.S. for one-tenth the price. Earlier this month, Sanders sent letters calling on Sanofi and Novo Nordisk to follow Eli Lilly in reducing the price of insulin.

The Insulin for All Act of 2023 also garnered the support of more than 70 major organizations, including: T1International, The Insulin Initiative, The Diabetes Link, Mutual Aid Diabetes, Social Security Works, Public Citizen, Center for Popular Democracy, People’s Action, American Federation of Teachers, American Medical Student Association, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, National Domestic Workers Alliance, United Mine Workers of America, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Doctors for America, Indivisible, and MoveOn.

Read the bill text, here.
Read the bill summary, here.
Read the full list of supporting organizations, here.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday announced plans to introduce legislation that would cap U.S. insulin prices at $20 per vial after Eli Lilly pledged to cut the list prices of its most commonly used insulin products by 70%.

Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement that "this is what fighting back accomplishes" and urged two other major insulin manufacturers to replicate Eli Lilly's move, which also includes capping monthly out-of-pocket insulin payments at $35 for many people with diabetes.

"At a time when Eli Lilly made over $7 billion in profits last year, public pressure forced them to reduce the price of insulin by 70%," said the Vermont senator. "Now is the time for Sanofi and Novo Nordisk to do the same. Now is the time to end the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs in America."

In letters to the CEOs of Sanofi and Novo Nordisk—which together with Eli Lilly produce more than 90% of the global insulin supply—Sanders wrote that "people with diabetes should not be forced to pay $98 for a vial of insulin that costs just $8 to manufacture and can be purchased in Canada for just $12."

"I urge you to join Eli Lilly in substantially lowering the price your company charges for insulin and make certain that all Americans can purchase this lifesaving drug," added the senator, who has been scrutinizing the trio's business practices—including price collusion—for years.

"Let's be clear: Insulin is not a new drug," Sanders continued. "It was discovered 100 years ago by Canadian scientists who sold the patent rights of insulin for just $1 because they wanted to save lives, not make pharmaceutical executives extremely wealthy. And yet, as a result of unacceptable corporate greed, the price of insulin has gone up by over 1,000% since 1996, causing 1.3 million people with diabetes to ration insulin last year while your companies made billions of dollars in profits. That is absolutely unacceptable."

\u201cPublic pressure forced Eli Lilly to reduce the price of insulin by 70%. Today, I sent a letter demanding Sanofi and Novo Nordisk do the same. Now is the time to end the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and substantially lower the outrageous cost of prescription drugs.\u201d

— Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders) 1677710196

Eli Lilly's announcement was welcomed as a victory for people with diabetes who have been campaigning tirelessly for years to bring down insulin prices in the U.S., where some patients have been forced to pay more than $1,000 a month for the lifesaving medicine.

But the company's move also drew skepticism as advocates remain wary of the limitations of Wednesday's pledge and of Eli Lilly's commitment to keeping prices low, particularly given the pharmaceutical giant's history of lobbying against efforts to rein in prescription drug costs.

In a footnote at the bottom of its Wednesday press release, Eli Lilly states that "government restrictions exclude people enrolled in federal government insurance programs from Lilly's $35 solutions."

People on Medicare are covered by the Inflation Reduction Act's $35-per-month cap on insulin copayments, but low-income people on Medicaid don't appear to be eligible for Eli Lilly's price-cap program.

Additionally, Eli Lilly's 70% price cut for Humalog—the company's most commonly prescribed insulin product—won't take effect until the fourth quarter of this year, "giving Lilly seven more months of high prices even as they are lauded for their corporate responsibility," noted The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner.

"And since Lilly caps out-of-pocket costs to patients but not necessarily prices charged to insurance companies," Kuttner added, "the result could be cost-shifting and higher insurance premiums."

Such caveats led campaigners to emphasize the necessity of federal action to guarantee that insulin is available and affordable for all who need it.

"Insulin manufacturers have shown time and time again that they will put their CEOs' profits over patients' lives," said Kristen Whitney Daniels, the co-leader of T1International's federal working group and a person living with Type 1 diabetes. "That's why the government also needs to regulate insulin manufacturers to hold them accountable to ensuring the human right to insulin."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

On Tuesday, not even two full months into 2023, millionaires will stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year thanks to a cap on taxable income that progressive campaigners and lawmakers want to raise—or eliminate completely.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) marked the occasion by releasing a calculator that allows users to determine the date on which people with certain incomes will be done paying into Social Security for 2023, a tool aimed at highlighting the deep inequality that is depriving the program of crucial funding.

"The vast majority of workers are paid less than $160,200 per year, so they pay the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax on all of the paychecks they receive in 2023," CEPR's Sarah Rawlins wrote Tuesday. "But workers who earn over $160,200 pay no tax on their earnings above this level. For a millionaire, only about 1% or less of their total earnings go to supporting Social Security."

"Despite earning much more than the average worker, a millionaire's effective tax rate is far lower than the average worker's," Rawlins added. "As a result, the burden of supporting Social Security falls most heavily on working-class and middle-class people."

Social Security's payroll cap has long been a target of progressive lawmakers who argue that the program's finances can easily be solidified for the next 70 years by ensuring that the rich contribute a more equitable portion of their income.

Earlier this month, as congressional Republicans weighed schemes to cut benefits, Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts introduced legislation that would increase Social Security's modest payments by making all income above $250,000 subject to the payroll tax.

The bill, which has not garnered any support from GOP lawmakers, would also extend the payroll tax to "certain business income" that is currently exempt, according to Sanders' office. The wealth of many ultra-rich Americans, including billionaires such as Elon Musk, does not come from wages and is therefore not subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

"Here's the crazy situation. Somebody making $10 million in a year is contributing the EXACT SAME AMOUNT into Social Security as somebody making $160,000," Sanders wrote on Twitter last week. "Let's raise the cap and expand Social Security benefits, not cut them."

"This country's billionaires gained more than $2.1 trillion in wealth since the pandemic began and now have total estimated riches of $5.1 trillion. Meanwhile, almost half of all Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all."

In an op-ed for Common Dreams on Tuesday, progressive writer Richard Eskow echoed Sanders, arguing that the widening inequities of the payroll tax limit are "why the idea of 'scrapping the cap' on this tax is so compelling."

"This country's billionaires gained more than $2.1 trillion in wealth since the pandemic began and now have total estimated riches of $5.1 trillion," Eskow wrote. "Meanwhile, almost half of all Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all. The average person on Social Security only gets $1,688 per month. And you're trying to tell us that's what this country can't afford?"

In her blog post, Rawlins of CEPR noted that "the Social Security Trust Fund is projected to fall short of the amount needed to continue paying full benefits in coming years."

"This is largely due to increasing income inequality," Rawlins explained. "When the payroll tax cap was implemented in 1983, only 10% of earnings exceeded it and went untaxed. But by 2021, the amount of earnings above the cap had grown to 18.6%. Continued upward income redistribution has shifted more earnings out of range of the program’s supporting tax."

"Scrapping the payroll tax cap entirely and making everyone pay the same tax rate, along with moderate changes, would close the current projected shortfall and allow for expansions that improve Social Security's adequacy and inclusiveness," Rawlins argued.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

A provision capping Medicare recipients' insulin copayments at $35 a month took effect on the first day of the new year, a change that Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock applauded Tuesday as a crucial victory that lawmakers must work to extend to all people who need the lifesaving medicine.

"If you need insulin, you really need insulin—it is not a choice," said Warnock (D-Ga.), whose December runoff win over Republican Herschel Walker helped Democrats secure a narrow majority in the U.S. Senate.

"I'm thrilled to see my provision to cap insulin costs for Medicare recipients finally take effect because, simply put, this measure will save lives," Warnock added. "I'm going to continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make insulin affordable for all Georgians and Americans."

Warnock spearheaded the push to include the broadly popular insulin copay cap in the Inflation Reduction Act, which contains a number of modest provisions aimed at lowering sky-high prescription drug costs. Under the new law, Medicare Part D recipients won't have to pay more than $35 a month for covered insulin products.

The AARP's Dena Bunis notes that "beginning on July 1, Medicare enrollees who take their insulin through a pump as part of the Part B durable medical equipment benefit will not have to pay a deductible and they will also benefit from the $35 copay cap."

Patricia McKenzie, a Medicare recipient who lives in Lithonia, Georgia, welcomed the new copay cap, saying it will help her pay for the Humalog insulin she uses to treat her diabetes.

"I live with high blood pressure as well as insulin-dependent diabetes," said McKenzie. "I live on a fixed income, so I have to plan carefully in order to afford my prescriptions. The new $35 copay cap for my insulin will ensure I can afford my insulin for as long as I need it."

Another patient, Steven Hadfield of Charlotte, North Carolina, said his insulin "carries a monthly list price of $283, which only adds to the large financial burden of my other drugs."

"Over the past year, I've gone without my Lantus [insulin] at times because of its cost," added Hadfield, who lives with blood cancer and Type 2 diabetes. "Now, it will only cost me $35, which will bring me more consistency and, for the first time, lower my drug costs."

"The new $35 copay cap for my insulin will ensure I can afford my insulin for as long as I need it."

The Inflation Reduction Act originally included a broader $35-per-month insulin copay cap for people with private insurance, but Republicans used a parliamentary maneuver to strip out the provision, leaving only the Medicare cap intact.

The exclusion of people with private insurance and the uninsured from the new insulin copay cap means the majority of people with diabetes in the U.S. won't benefit.

According to a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in October, 1.3 million U.S. adults with diabetes are forced to ration insulin due to the cost of the medicine, which is significantly higher than in other wealthy nations. Skipping insulin treatments is dangerous and can be life-threatening.

The study found that "among adults aged 65 years or older, 11.2% rationed insulin... versus 20.4% of younger persons."

"Universal access to insulin, without cost barriers, is urgently needed," Adam Gaffney, an ICU doctor at the Cambridge Health Alliance and the lead author of the study, toldNBC News following publication of the research. "We have allowed pharmaceutical companies to set the agenda, and that is coming at the cost to our patients."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Eric Draitser.

Photo by Waldemar Brandt

This past week the European Commission, the umbrella political organization for the European Union nations, issued its latest set of sanctions on Russia.

The most important of the measures was the announcement that the EU was establishing a price cap for purchases of Russian crude oil in global markets.  In so doing, the EU in effect plans to become a cartel controlling the price of global oil.

Saudi Arabia and even OPEC in the past failed as a cartel to control the price of global crude by controlling its supply. Yet the EU believes it can become a cartel and control the price of oil even globally even without influence over global supply.

Under the plan, which still requires the approval of all EU economies, the EU will not buy Russian oil at global prices set by market supply and demand. Instead, it will buy Russian oil only at a price that is capped below that of the global market. Reportedly the participants in the Commission discussed a price per barrel of crude capped around $55-$60 a barrel. EU economies will purchase Russian crude only if it is sold to them at or below their ‘cap’.

The plan, if approved, will go into effect only this December 2022.

The idea of the west setting a price cap on Russian oil as a form of sanction originated with Janet Yellen, Secretary of the US Treasury, some months ago.  It was an economically absurd proposition then, and remains no less so today.  The price cap may not prove effective, but it does illustrate the ineffectiveness of sanctions to date on Russian oil and energy products (i.e. natural gas, uranium ore for Europe commercial nuclear facilities, etc.).

Global oil is traded (bought and sold) in the global market solely in US dollars. So too are other critical industrial commodities and many agricultural commodities.  The main focus of US sanctions, including the price cap idea, is to deny the target country—in this case Russia—access to revenue in dollars from the sale of its oil.  Theoretically, the loss of dollars from lower priced oil sales means Russia won’t be able to purchase as much needed imports critical for its economy in general and its war effort in particular.  The lack of dollars in turn further means, again theoretically, Russia would have to print more of its own currency, the Ruble, to make up for lack of dollars in its own economy. That might lead to inflation as excess money supply is created for the domestic Russian economy. In turn excess money supply creation in Russia might lead to devaluation to domestic inflation and devaluation of the Ruble.

US initial sanctions on Russian oil and energy to date have largely failed. Russia’s export revenue from sale of oil has actually risen since sanctions and war began last February. Russia has sold more oil to China, India, and at least half of the world economies that have been ignoring US/EU announced sanctions altogether.

The EU ‘price cap’ idea is supposedly going to what oil sanctions up to now, which have been full of loopholes and exemptions, have failed to do—i.e. reduce Russian revenue from oil sales and its accumulation of dollars from those sales.

It is important to note that the EU itself has all but ignored sanctions on Russian oil to date. Russia has continued to ship oil to Europe.  And the EU hasn’t even bothered to enforce sanctions on Russian natural gas imports or uranium ore shipments.  What reduction in oil and natural gas shipments to Europe that has occurred, has been mostly due to political actions not sanctions. Last spring the Nordstream2 pipeline was quickly closed and more recently  sabotaged. So too was the Nordstream1 pipeline. Prior to sabotage, Nord1 gas flow to Europe was reduced in stages by Russia to about only 30% of capacity.  It wasn’t sanctions but decision by Russia that reduced the gas exports.  There are two remaining large gas pipelines from Russia to Europe still functioning. One crosses the Ukraine and another transverses Turkey and the Aegean Sea into the Balkans. Europe has not tried to reduce gas flow from these with sanctions, although it is likely politics will result in their reduction and shutdown as well eventually.

But to the extent Russian natural gas flow to Europe has been reduced, the causes have been political and have had nothing to do with sanctions.  So sanctions on Russian energy exports to Europe have hardly been implemented, let alone been effective.  The EU price cap idea is supposed to finally result in sanctions on Russian oil sales and revenue.

Sanctions on exports to Europe and US of Russian industrial commodities have also been rife with exemptions, loopholes and work arounds. In the US, for example, Russian nickel and palladium exports needed for catalytic converters in US autos and in steel production have been significantly exempted. The US some time ago implemented sanctions on Russian oil imports to the US. The amounts of Russian oil imports were quite small. In any event, the US—unlike Europe—has a glut of excess oil and natural gas.

Russia has been earning significant export revenues therefore from the sale of its oil, natural gas, as well as many industrial commodities, ever since the US/EU sanctions regime was first imposed last January 2022. The ‘price cap’ is but the latest desperate attempt by the US and EU to make the sanctions on Russian oil to Europe ‘work’. But it won’t work. Here’s why:

First, the price cap is not going to take effect until December (if at all even then since all the EU nations must agree). So why should Russia even bother selling any oil to Europe in the interim. In business contract matters, if one party notifies the other it is breaking its contract and is no longer going to buy from the seller, that seller can simply cancel its contracts early and not wait until December.  Russia will likely therefore cut off its oil exports to Europe sooner rather than later, and just redirect the oil elsewhere to China, India or rest of the world. No need for sanctions of any kind in other words.

But the price cap sanctions idea involves not just the EU buying Russian oil. The price cap is really the US/EU foray into what’s called ‘secondary sanctions’. That is, sanctions on other economies around the world. Up to now, the US has been careful about enforcing sanctions or penalties on other countries that refuse to go along with sanctions to date—and there are many such examples of economies that have been refusing to participate in sanctions.  After all, if the Europeans themselves have allowed various exemptions to oil, gas, and commodities exports from Russia, why should other countries abide by the sanctions?

And there’s another even better reason why China, India and so many other countries globally have continued to buy Russian oil: Russia reportedly is selling its oil at around a 30% discount from the global market price.

The global market price today is around $80-$85 a barrel, depending if it’s west Texas crude or Brent (Northsea) oil.  So Russia’s 30% discount means it’s selling at around $50-$60 a barrel now.  If the EU is talking about setting a price cap at $55, what’s the point? It would have to set a cap even lower than it’s been discussing.  But EU won’t be getting any Russian oil after December if Russia decides to turn off what little is still flowing there, as it responds to the price cap threat.  And if the EU is not getting any Russian oil but it’s demanding the rest of the world economies adhere to the price cap, who believes the rest of the world is going to take that seriously. EU has nothing to lose from a price cap; but the rest of the world does.

Regardless of any EU artificially set price cap on global oil, should China, India and other countries support the idea just because the US and EU say so. Should they cancel their long term oil contracts with Russia at 30% discount from global market prices because US and EU say so? Buyers of oil and energy in global markets want price stability and reliable delivery. Russian oil provides that stability. The idea of a price cap means potential instability. And who would trust an arbitrary price cap set by Europe and the US as a bureaucratic political directive?

The whole idea of a price cap as a form of sanction set by EU/US by directive is absurd. Few if any will follow. But such is the arrogance of western imperialism to think they still have the power to enact and enforce such a measure. Perhaps in decades past. But no longer.

But the EU and US think they have an ‘ace card’ up their sleeve that will enable them to impose a price cap on the rest of the world: most of the shipping insurance companies are based almost exclusively in the west.  What the price cap may have in mind is if other countries don’t follow the cap, then the shipping insurers won’t insure the ships that carry the Russian oil. That would stop the shipment of Russian oil to those countries not following the price cap.  The price cap thus is designed to function as a form of indirect ‘secondary sanction’ on countries that don’t go along with the oil sanctions.

Europe is not the real target of the price cap proposal. It will get its oil from the US which will provide much of what Europe needs, albeit at a higher price than the alternative Russian oil. There’s no price cap on US oil; just Russian in the EU proposal.

Stopping the flow of Russian oil to other countries by means of a price cap combined with shipping insurance denial will likely result in a shift toward alternative shipping not located in the west. That means a loss of profits for western oil shipping companies.  This has not been lost on Greek, Cyprus and Malta shipping companies who spoke out at the recent EU meeting discussing price caps. They are opposed to the price cap idea for good reason.

To sum up: the idea that the EU can become a global price setting cartel in the world oil market is absurd. What OPEC couldn’t do on the supply side, Europe cannot do on the demand side.  Cartels only work if all parties go along, and China, India and the rest of the world simply will ignore and not go along with Europe thinking they can set an arbitrary price of global crude below its market price

The EU’s recent announcement of new sanctions went beyond just the ‘price cap’ idea. It also announced new sanctions on Russian imports to EU of steel, paper, machinery, appliances, chemicals, plastics and other items.  But wait! Weren’t these already sanctioned? If there’s now need for further sanctions on imports of these Russian products, that means sanctions on industrial commodities to date were also full of exemptions and loopholes all along.

China, India, Brazil and other emerging market economies are distrustful of US/EU sanctions to date and justifiably so. That will be especially true of the arbitrary price cap on Russian oil idea. It will be viewed as not imposing much of a cost on Europe, but likely destabilizing world oil markets’ supply and price.

But perhaps they shouldn’t worry that much. The price cap idea is unworkable, probably won’t be supported by all the EU, and carries with it the smell of secondary sanctions by another name, as well as the stink of arrogant western imperialism.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jack Rasmus.

Congress leader and MLA Virendra Chaudhary tweeted this picture and wrote, “Who takes a photo like this (with the lens cap on)?”. (Archived link)

Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member Jawhar Sircar also tweeted this image of PM Modi and wrote, “Keeping the lid on statistics is one thing, but keeping the cover on the camera lens is sheer farsightedness.” (Archived link)

CPI-ML(L) leader and Bihar MLA Sandeep Saurav also tweeted a picture of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, writing, “Camera and fool (pun on the Hindi word for ‘cover’)”. (Archived link)

Similarly, several other social media handles and users, including the Maharashtra Congress Seva Dal, Congress leader Ishita Sedha, Himmat Singh Gurjar of the Kisan Ekta Morcha, amplified the viral photo.

Fact-check

At first glance, this picture appears to be edited, since the angle at which the camera is pointed is different from that of the position of the lens cap. Another noteworthy detail is that this image has been flipped, so the branding of the camera appears to be flipped. Finally, though there is a Nikon camera in the picture, the lens cap is from the brand Canon.

Next, Alt News examined the Government of India website PmIndia(dot)gov(dot)in to investigate whether the image was authentic. This portal contains the latest and updated photos of the prime minister. Here, we found an image gallery on Narendra Modi releasing the cheetahs at the Kuno National Park. We then found the original image. It can be clearly seen that there is no cover on the camera lens in the original version. The image was edited to add the lens cap, and the image has been flipped as well. 

To make these differences easier to see, we have included a side-by-side comparison of the morphed photo and the original version.

To sum it up, many Opposition leaders falsely shared an edited picture of PM Modi taking a photo with a camera with the lens cap on. The photo was morphed.

The post Picture of PM Modi taking photo with lens cap on is morphed appeared first on Alt News.

This content originally appeared on Alt News and was authored by Abhishek Kumar.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Sam Fowles.

The post Whatever Happened to the Public Option and the $35 Insulin Cap? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Eve Ottenberg.

Senate Republicans on Sunday successfully stripped a proposed $35 per month cap on out-of-pocket spending on insulin for patients enrolled in private insurance from the tax and climate bill making its way through the Senate.

The Senate parliamentarian had earlier ruled that the provision, sponsored by Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock, is not primarily related to the federal budget and thus not eligible for a reconciliation bill. The ruling gave Republicans a chance to kill the proposal.

Waiving the rules required 60 votes to succeed. Only seven Republicans sided with Democrats to keep the insulin cap in the bill with a 57-43 vote.

“Republicans have just gone on the record in favor of expensive insulin,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden said. “After years of tough talk about taking on insulin makers, Republicans have once against wilted in the face of heat from Big Pharma. Fortunately, the $35 insulin copay cap for insulin in Medicare remains in the bill, so seniors will get relief from high insulin costs. I will continue working to deliver lower insulin costs to all Americans.”

"Republicans just forced out of the reconciliation bill a $35/month out-of-pocket cap for insulin users with private health insurance. What the hell is wrong with them? Really, what the hell is wrong with them?" said Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen in a tweet.

Congressman Bill Pascrell Jr.,representing the 9th District of New Jersey, said in a tweet "Here are the McConnell republican senators who just killed capping insulin at $35. Republicans told millions of Americans who use insulin to go to hell. Remember their names."

“Diabetic Americans are being used as political props to play partisan politics while 1 in 4 of us must ration the insulin we need to survive [because] both parties in Congress refuse to regulate insulin’s price,” tweeted Laura Marston, an intellectual property attorney and a patient advocate for affordable insulin.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Common Dreams staff.

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Thursday in unveiling legislation that would expand Social Security's modest annual benefits by $2,400 and ensure the program is fully funded for the next 75 years.

The benefit boost under the Social Security Expansion Act would be funded by lifting the cap on the maximum amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. This year the cap was $147,000—meaning millionaires stopped paying into the program in late February.

"It is time to scrap the cap, expand benefits, and fully fund Social Security."

If passed, the expansion bill would apply the payroll tax to all income, including capital gains, above $250,000 a year, a change that would only raise taxes on around 7% of U.S. households.

"At a time when half of older Americans have no retirement savings and millions of senior citizens are living in poverty, our job is not to cut Social Security," Sanders (I-Vt.), head of the Senate Budget Committee and a co-chair of the Expand Social Security Caucus, said in a statement.

"Our job must be to expand Social Security so that every senior citizen in America can retire with the dignity they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need," the senator continued. "And we will do that by demanding that the wealthiest people in America finally pay their fair share of taxes. It is absurd that a billionaire in America today pays the same amount of Social Security taxes as someone making $147,000 a year. It is time to scrap the cap, expand benefits, and fully fund Social Security."

The legislation comes a week after the annual Social Security trustees report showed that—contrary to Republicans' claims that it is barreling toward insolvency—the program is positioned to fully fund benefits until 2035. Thereafter, even if Congress takes no action, the program is projected to be 90% funded for the next 25 years and 81% funded for the next 75 years.

"Social Security is an economic lifeline for millions of Americans, but many seniors are struggling with rising costs," said Warren (D-Mass.). "As Republicans try to phase out Social Security and raise taxes on more than 70 million hardworking Americans, I'm working with Senator Sanders to expand Social Security and extend its solvency by making the wealthy pay their fair share, so everyone can retire with dignity."

Sanders announced the new bill Thursday during a Senate Budget Committee hearing, at which Republicans—including Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who has previously voiced support for privatizing Social Security—made clear they would oppose the legislation, which has been endorsed by more than 50 advocacy organizations and labor unions.

In addition to increasing annual benefits and lifting the tax cap, the Social Security Expansion Act would also boost the program's cost-of-living adjustments by switching to a more accurate measure of inflation. According to the Social Security Administration, the average monthly Social Security benefit payment was around $1,540 as of April 2022.

"With the cost of living at an all-time high, Social Security has never been more important, yet congressional Republicans continue to play games with its funding," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the lead sponsor of a companion bill in the House.

"This legislation would ensure that the Social Security Trust Fund remains solvent for another 75 years, increase monthly benefits for most recipients by $200, and alter the cost-of-living-adjustment formula to meet the everyday needs of our nation's seniors," DeFazio added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Simple social decency, most all of us understand, requires a floor under income, a minimum wage. Does simple social decency also demand an income ceiling, a "maximum wage"?

Each week last year, Apple CEO Tim Cook inhaled 28 times more in compensation than the most typical worker at his company earned for an entire year's labor.

A nod in that ceiling direction has just come from an unlikely source: the two finalists in the 2022 French presidential election.

Neither of these two candidates, the incumbent French President Emmanuel Macron and his far-right challenger Marine Le Pen, have historically evinced much interest in wage justice. But last week, in the final days of their electoral face-off, both Macron and Le Pen raged when news reports revealed that the CEO of France's largest automaker had pocketed the equivalent of a sweet $20.6 million last year.

Macron quickly labeled those millions "shocking and excessive" and pledged a European Union-level "fight" against over-the-top corporate executive compensation.

"At some stage we have to lay out ceilings and bring in a governance structure at the European level that makes things acceptable," the former investment banker intoned. "Otherwise, at one point society will explode."

"Of course it's shocking," agreed an equally indignant Le Pen.

In contemporary France, an outlay of $20 million for a year of CEO labor clearly still has the power to shock. On this side of the Atlantic, by contrast, annual compensation for chief execs far above $20 million has become par for the corporate course.

Just how outrageously high does executive compensation in the United States now reach? We won't have a complete rundown of last year's CEO pay figures until later this spring. But we do have some preliminary figures. Equilar, the corporate data firm, has just released its annual look at executive compensation at the 100 largest U.S. firms that have released their CEO pay totals by March 31.

The lushest pay package in the new Equilar 100 belongs to Intel chief Patrick Gelsinger. He pocketed just shy of $178 million last year. The second-cushiest total on Equilar's list, Apple CEO Tim Cook's $98.7 million, comes with an asterisk. Cook also received last year another $754 million—in Apple stock—as the final installment of his original 10-year Apple pay package.

The generosity of Apple's board of directors, to be sure, does extend beyond CEO Cook. In 2021, four other Apple execs walked off with at least $26 million in compensation.

And what about the rest of Apple's 150,000-plus employees? Apple's median—most typical—employee last year earned $68,254. Tim Cook's $98.7 million outpaced that median employee pay by 1,447 times. Each week last year, in other words, Cook inhaled 28 times more in compensation than Apple's most typical employee earned for an entire year's labor.

Overall, CEOs on this year's Equilar 100 list pulled down 254 times more compensation than their most typical workers. In less than one day of labor, in effect, these execs made more than their workers earned over the course of the entire year.

As You Sow, a California-based shareholder advocacy group, has also just released a CEO pay top 100, this one focused on the nation's 100 most "overpaid" execs in 2020, the most recent year with complete CEO pay numbers available. Paycom Software CEO Chad Richison tops this As You Sow list. He grabbed $211.1 million in 2020, some 2,963 times what the typical Paycom worker pocketed.

As You Sow found, all told, some 20 top execs who walked off 2020 with over 1,000 times the pay of their most typical workers.

Researchers at the Economic Policy Institute have been working for years to contextualize ratio numbers like these. Back in 1965, EPI calculates, CEOs at America's top 350 corporations realized just 21.1 times more compensation than typical U.S. workers. By a generation later, in 1990, that multiple had tripled, but still sat at "only" 61.4 times. We've come another corporate compensation generation since then. The CEO-worker pay divide that EPI charts for 2020: a 351.1-to-1 differential.

EPI released that 351.1 figure last August. This past week, EPI researchers joined with Harvard University's Shift Project to dramatically detail how little many of America's most generous corporations—to chief execs—are paying their core workers.

At Walmart, where the current CEO somehow manages to get by with just $34.3 million in annual pay, 51 percent of the workforce makes under $15 an hour, with 14 percent earning under $12 an hour. At Starbucks, nearly two-thirds of workers—63 percent—pocket below $15 an hour. At Dollar General and McDonald's, nearly one of every four workers makes less than $10.

We now have, thanks to research like this, more info than ever on the breadth of the pay gaps that divide our workers and top execs. What we can we do with all this new knowledge? We can start placing consequences on it. And that process has already begun.

In Oregon, the city of Portland has had a pay-ratio tax on the books for the past six years. Companies doing business in Portland that have CEO-to-median-worker pay ratios higher than 100-to-1 pay a 10 percent surtax on the city's annual business license tax. Ratios over 250-to-1 elevate that surtax to 25 percent. In 2019, the last pre-pandemic year, Portland's pay-ratio surtax raised nearly $5 million.

Voters in San Francisco established a similar pay-ratio levy in 2020. This Bay Area tax kicks in on companies with top execs making over 100 times the median pay of their local workers. Corporations with ratios over 600-to-1 can pay up to 2.4 percent of their payroll in tax. In 2022, city officials estimate, this pay-ratio levy could add as much as $140 million to San Francisco's general fund.

The level of inequality that surrounds us has been and always will be a human construct. We can choose to be more equal. Struggles around pay ratios can help make these choices much plainer.

Various federal proposals follow the same pattern, most notably the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act introduced last year. This legislation places escalating tax-rate hikes on corporations with pay gaps wider than 50-to-1. If this legislation had been law in 2020, Walmart would have faced an additional $859 million in taxes.

Other recent proposals at the state and federal level have tied executive-worker pay ratios to government contracts and subsidies. Their basic thrust: to direct government subsidies only to businesses that keep executive-worker pay gaps within reasonable limits and steer government contracts to firms that keep their executive pay within a modest multiple of worker pay.

Elsewhere in the world, progressive political leaders have picked up on a broader income-cap proposal that President Franklin Roosevelt put before Congress in 1942. FDR called back then for a 100 percent tax on individual income over $25,000, just over $440,000 in today's dollars.

FDR didn't get his 100 percent top rate, but Congress did place a 94 percent top rate on income over $200,000. That top tax rate would hover around 90 percent until the mid-1960s, years that saw the United States give birth to the first mass middle class in world history.

Five years ago, in the 2017 French presidential election, the veteran radical pol Jean-Luc Mélenchon fell just shy of reaching the voting's final round. His signature proposal: an FDR-like 100 percent tax rate on income over 400,000 euros, then the equivalent of about $430,000. In this year's French presidential election, Mélenchon once again fell just short of making the final pairing. He ran this time on a platform that called for limiting a corporation's maximum pay to 20 times its lowest.

Emmanuel Macron's nod to the notion of a ceiling on executive pay, in the campaigning since the presidential voting's first round, no doubt reflects Macron's bid for the support of voters who opted for Mélenchon in the initial balloting. No independent French political observers seriously believe that Macron will actually advance anything close to Mélenchon's income cap.

But Macron, if he does face some legislative prodding, might well move forward with less ambitious proposals for taming runaway CEO compensation. He might, for instance, back measures that link corporate tax rates or government contracting decisions to CEO-worker pay ratios. And any progress on this pay ratio-related front, no matter how modest, would help ever more people better understand that no force of nature leaves some of us enormously richer than others. The level of inequality that surrounds us has been and always will be a human construct.

We can choose to be more equal. Struggles around pay ratios can help make these choices much plainer.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Sam Pizzigati.