Rechercher dans ce blog

Wednesday, July 3, 2024

The world is sitting on a $91 trillion problem. ‘Hard choices’ are coming - CNN

hard.indah.link
London CNN  — 

Governments owe an unprecedented $91 trillion, an amount almost equal to the size of the global economy and one that will ultimately exact a heavy toll on their populations.

Debt burdens have grown so large — in part because of the cost of the pandemic — that they now pose a growing threat to living standards even in rich economies, including the United States.

Yet, in a year of elections around the world, politicians are largely ignoring the problem, unwilling to level with voters about the tax increases and spending cuts needed to tackle the deluge of borrowing. In some cases, they’re even making profligate promises that could at the very least jack up inflation again and could even trigger a new financial crisis.

The International Monetary Fund last week reiterated its warning that “chronic fiscal deficits” in the US must be “urgently addressed.” Investors have long shared that disquiet about the long-term trajectory of the US government’s finances.

“(But) continuing deficits and a rising debt burden have (now) made that more of a medium-term concern,” Roger Hallam, global head of rates at Vanguard, one of the world’s largest asset managers, told CNN.

As debt burdens mount around the world, investors are growing anxious. In France, political turmoil has exacerbated concerns about the country’s debt, sending bond yields, or returns demanded by investors, soaring.

The first round of snap elections Sunday suggested that some of the market’s worst fears might not come to pass. But even without the specter of an immediate financial crisis, investors are demanding higher yields to buy the debt of many governments as shortfalls between spending and taxes balloon.

Higher debt servicing costs mean less money available for crucial public services or for responding to crises such as financial meltdowns, pandemics or wars.

Since government bond yields are used to price other debt, such as mortgages, rising yields also mean higher borrowing costs for households and businesses, which hurt economic growth.

As interest rates rise, private investment falls and governments are less able to borrow to respond to economic downturns.

Tackling America’s debt problem will require either tax hikes or cuts to benefits, such as social security and health insurance programs, said Karen Dynan, former chief economist at the US Treasury and now professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. “Many (politicians) are not willing to talk about the hard choices that are going to need to be made. These are very serious decisions… and they could be very consequential for people’s lives.”

Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University, agrees that the US and other countries will have to make painful adjustments.

Debt is “not free anymore,” he told CNN.

“In the 2010s, a lot of academics, policymakers and central bankers came to the view that interest rates were just going to be near zero forever and then they started thinking debt was a free lunch,” he said.

“That was always wrong-headed because you can think of government debt as holding a flexible-rate mortgage and, if the interest rates go up sharply, your interest payments go up a lot. And that’s exactly what’s happened all over the world.”

‘Conspiracy of silence’

In the United States, the federal government will spend $892 billion in the current fiscal year on interest payments — more than it has earmarked for defense and approaching the budget for Medicare, health insurance for older people and those with disabilities.

Next year, interest payments will top $1 trillion on national debt of more than $30 trillion, itself a sum roughly equal to the size of the US economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’s fiscal watchdog.

The CBO sees US debt reaching 122% of GDP a mere 10 years from now. And in 2054, debt is forecast to hit 166% of GDP, slowing economic growth.

So how much debt is too much? Economists don’t think there is a “predetermined level at which bad things happen in markets,” but most reckon that if debt hits 150% or 180% of gross domestic product, that means “very serious costs for the economy and society more broadly,” said Dynan.

Despite growing alarm over the federal government’s debt pile, neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump, the main 2024 presidential candidates, are promising fiscal discipline ahead of the election.

During the first televised presidential debate last week, hosted by CNN, each candidate accused the other of making America’s debt situation worse, either through tax cuts by Trump or additional spending by Biden.

British politicians have also buried their heads in the sand ahead of a general election Thursday. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, an influential think tank, has decried a “conspiracy of silence” between the country’s two main political parties, over the poor state of public finances.

“Regardless of who takes office following the general election, they will — unless they get lucky — soon face a stark choice,” IFS director Paul Johnson said last week. “Raise taxes by more than they have told us in their manifestos, or implement cuts to some areas of spending, or borrow more and be content for debt to rise for longer.”

Countries trying to tackle the debt issue are struggling. In Germany, ongoing infighting over debt limits has put the country’s three-way governing coalition under enormous strain. The political standoff could come to a head this month.

In Kenya, blowback over attempts to address the country’s $80 billion debt burden has been much worse. Proposed tax hikes have sparked nationwide protests, which have claimed 39 lives, prompting President William Ruto to announce last week that he would not sign the proposals into law.

Enter the scary bond market

But the problem with putting off efforts to rein in debt is that it leaves governments vulnerable to far more painful disciplining by financial markets. The United Kingdom offers the most recent example in a major economy. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss triggered a collapse in the pound in 2022 when she tried to force through big tax cuts funded by increased borrowing.

And the threat hasn’t gone away. Take France. The risk of a financial crisis there became a serious concern virtually overnight after President Emmanuel Macron called a snap election last month.

Investors were worried voters would elect a parliament of populists bent on spending more and cutting taxes, further swelling the country’s already-high debt and budget deficit.

Even though this worst-case scenario now looks less likely, what happens after next Sunday’s second round of voting is far from certain. Yields on French government bonds have continued creeping up, reaching their highest level in eight months Tuesday.

Dynan at the Harvard Kennedy School says financial markets can quickly become unnerved by “political dysfunction” that causes investors to doubt a government’s willingness to make good on its debt.

“We tend to have a lack of imagination about the scope for things going wrong. If there’s a big event in which the market freaks out about (US) debt, it’s not going to be something that was on our radar,” she said.

Adblock test (Why?)

The Link Lonk


July 02, 2024 at 08:44PM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiRGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAyNC8wNy8wMi9lY29ub215L2dsb2JhbC1kZWJ0LWNyaXNpcy9pbmRleC5odG1s0gE9aHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vMjAyNC8wNy8wMi9lY29ub215L2dsb2JhbC1kZWJ0LWNyaXNpcw?oc=5

The world is sitting on a $91 trillion problem. ‘Hard choices’ are coming - CNN

https://news.google.com/search?q=hard&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

America, we love you. But it’s hard. - The Washington Post

hard.indah.link

It’s the week of the Fourth of July and the word patriotism is as divisive as the rest of American politics. Theodore Johnson, Karen Attiah and Jason Rezaian discuss the good and the bad about the United States, and how to reconcile its shortcomings while pushing for a better future.

Adblock test (Why?)

The Link Lonk


July 03, 2024 at 05:03PM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiU2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9wb2RjYXN0cy9pbXByb21wdHUvYW1lcmljYS13ZS1sb3ZlLXlvdS1idXQtaXRzLWhhcmQv0gEA?oc=5

America, we love you. But it’s hard. - The Washington Post

https://news.google.com/search?q=hard&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Tuesday, July 2, 2024

'Hard Knocks' offers behind-the-scenes look at Giants' trade for Brian Burns from Panthers - NFL.com

hard.indah.link

Hard Knocks: Offseason with the New York Giants airs Tuesdays at 9 p.m. ET on HBO through July 30 and is available to stream on Max.

Sometimes, it doesn't hurt to just simply ask.

Giants general manager Joe Schoen bolstered New York's pass rush this offseason with the acquisition of Brian Burns, and it all began with a seemingly casual conversation with Panthers GM Dan Morgan on the practice field during this year's Senior Bowl.

The behind-the-scenes look at what led up to the Giants' deal for Burns can be seen in Tuesday night's season premiere of Hard Knocks: Offseason with the New York Giants.

Related Links

It all began with Schoen asking Morgan if the Panthers had any interest trading into the first round for the Giants' No. 6 overall pick. Morgan quickly declined, saying, "If I'm going anywhere, it's going back." But he'd soon let Schoen know that the Panthers' franchise-tagged pass rusher was certainly available.

"You wanna give us two ones for Burns?" Morgan asked.

That question piqued Schoen's interest as he let out a mouthwatering "Ooh!" His excitement led to early talks of what would soon become a blockbuster trade.

"No. I mean, yes, but...," Schoen sheepishly replied.

"Or a one and something," Morgan haggled.

"OK," Schoen said. "You're headed in the right direction."

One month later, the Giants traded 2024 second- and fifth-round selections (Nos. 39 and 141 overall, respectively) and a 2025 conditional fifth-rounder to the Panthers for Burns and a 2024 fourth-round pick (No. 166). New York quickly locked in Burns for the long haul upon acquiring the linebacker, signing him to a five-year, $150 million contract.

A long-term deal was certainly part of the Giants' trade discussions for Burns, who'd been on the market dating back to last year as negotiations with the Panthers hit a continuous rut.

In the end, all parties involved seemingly found a resolution and the Giants have no doubt turned their defensive front into a bona fide strength for the foreseeable future.

Burns, 26, produced 46.0 sacks, 95 QB hits, 59 tackles for loss, eight forced fumbles and two fumble recoveries (one TD return) in five seasons with Carolina. He'll team up with budding pass rusher Kayvon Thibodeaux, who's coming off a breakout 11.5-sack season in 2023 and is now eyeing the single-season sack record upon Burns' arrival. With two-time Pro Bowler Dexter Lawrence manning the interior, opposing quarterbacks will certainly be weary of the Giants in 2024.

Perhaps the best part of it all for Schoen is that he never did have to give up a first-round pick for Burns, let alone two. The Giants drafted wide receiver Malik Nabers with that sixth-overall selection, and Daniel Jones' targets have never been beaming with such talent ahead of what many believe to be a make-or-break season for the quarterback.

Schoen's third offseason as Giants GM certainly set New York for success coming off a disappointing 2023. It might not have happened without him kicking the tires.

Adblock test (Why?)

The Link Lonk


July 03, 2024 at 01:10AM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMicGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5mbC5jb20vbmV3cy9oYXJkLWtub2Nrcy1vZmZlcnMtYmVoaW5kLXRoZS1zY2VuZXMtbG9vay1hdC1naWFudHMtdHJhZGUtZm9yLWJyaWFuLWJ1cm5zLWZyb20tcGFudGhlcnPSAQA?oc=5

'Hard Knocks' offers behind-the-scenes look at Giants' trade for Brian Burns from Panthers - NFL.com

https://news.google.com/search?q=hard&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

The world is sitting on a $91 trillion problem. ‘Hard choices’ are coming - CNN

hard.indah.link
London CNN  — 

Governments owe an unprecedented $91 trillion, an amount almost equal to the size of the global economy and one that will ultimately exact a heavy toll on their populations.

Debt burdens have grown so large — in part because of the cost of the pandemic — that they now pose a growing threat to living standards even in rich economies, including the United States.

Yet, in a year of elections around the world, politicians are largely ignoring the problem, unwilling to level with voters about the tax increases and spending cuts needed to tackle the deluge of borrowing. In some cases, they’re even making profligate promises that could at the very least jack up inflation again and could even trigger a new financial crisis.

The International Monetary Fund last week reiterated its warning that “chronic fiscal deficits” in the US must be “urgently addressed.” Investors have long shared that disquiet about the long-term trajectory of the US government’s finances.

“(But) continuing deficits and a rising debt burden have (now) made that more of a medium-term concern,” Roger Hallam, global head of rates at Vanguard, one of the world’s largest asset managers, told CNN.

As debt burdens mount around the world, investors are growing anxious. In France, political turmoil has exacerbated concerns about the country’s debt, sending bond yields, or returns demanded by investors, soaring.

The first round of snap elections Sunday suggested that some of the market’s worst fears might not come to pass. But even without the specter of an immediate financial crisis, investors are demanding higher yields to buy the debt of many governments as shortfalls between spending and taxes balloon.

Higher debt servicing costs mean less money available for crucial public services or for responding to crises such as financial meltdowns, pandemics or wars.

Since government bond yields are used to price other debt, such as mortgages, rising yields also mean higher borrowing costs for households and businesses, which hurt economic growth.

As interest rates rise, private investment falls and governments are less able to borrow to respond to economic downturns.

Tackling America’s debt problem will require either tax hikes or cuts to benefits, such as social security and health insurance programs, said Karen Dynan, former chief economist at the US Treasury and now professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. “Many (politicians) are not willing to talk about the hard choices that are going to need to be made. These are very serious decisions… and they could be very consequential for people’s lives.”

Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University, agrees that the US and other countries will have to make painful adjustments.

Debt is “not free anymore,” he told CNN.

“In the 2010s, a lot of academics, policymakers and central bankers came to the view that interest rates were just going to be near zero forever and then they started thinking debt was a free lunch,” he said.

“That was always wrong-headed because you can think of government debt as holding a flexible-rate mortgage and, if the interest rates go up sharply, your interest payments go up a lot. And that’s exactly what’s happened all over the world.”

‘Conspiracy of silence’

In the United States, the federal government will spend $892 billion in the current fiscal year on interest payments — more than it has earmarked for defense and approaching the budget for Medicare, health insurance for older people and those with disabilities.

Next year, interest payments will top $1 trillion on national debt of more than $30 trillion, itself a sum roughly equal to the size of the US economy, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’s fiscal watchdog.

The CBO sees US debt reaching 122% of GDP a mere 10 years from now. And in 2054, debt is forecast to hit 166% of GDP, slowing economic growth.

So how much debt is too much? Economists don’t think there is a “predetermined level at which bad things happen in markets,” but most reckon that if debt hits 150% or 180% of gross domestic product, that means “very serious costs for the economy and society more broadly,” said Dynan.

Despite growing alarm over the federal government’s debt pile, neither Joe Biden nor Donald Trump, the main 2024 presidential candidates, are promising fiscal discipline ahead of the election.

During the first televised presidential debate last week, hosted by CNN, each candidate accused the other of making America’s debt situation worse, either through tax cuts by Trump or additional spending by Biden.

British politicians have also buried their heads in the sand ahead of a general election Thursday. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, an influential think tank, has decried a “conspiracy of silence” between the country’s two main political parties, over the poor state of public finances.

“Regardless of who takes office following the general election, they will — unless they get lucky — soon face a stark choice,” IFS director Paul Johnson said last week. “Raise taxes by more than they have told us in their manifestos, or implement cuts to some areas of spending, or borrow more and be content for debt to rise for longer.”

Countries trying to tackle the debt issue are struggling. In Germany, ongoing infighting over debt limits has put the country’s three-way governing coalition under enormous strain. The political standoff could come to a head this month.

In Kenya, blowback over attempts to address the country’s $80 billion debt burden has been much worse. Proposed tax hikes have sparked nationwide protests, which have claimed 39 lives, prompting President William Ruto to announce last week that he would not sign the proposals into law.

Enter the scary bond market

But the problem with putting off efforts to rein in debt is that it leaves governments vulnerable to far more painful disciplining by financial markets. The United Kingdom offers the most recent example in a major economy. Former Prime Minister Liz Truss triggered a collapse in the pound in 2022 when she tried to force through big tax cuts funded by increased borrowing.

And the threat hasn’t gone away. Take France. The risk of a financial crisis there became a serious concern virtually overnight after President Emmanuel Macron called a snap election last month.

Investors were worried voters would elect a parliament of populists bent on spending more and cutting taxes, further swelling the country’s already-high debt and budget deficit.

Even though this worst-case scenario now looks less likely, what happens after next Sunday’s second round of voting is far from certain. Yields on French government bonds have continued creeping up, reaching their highest level in eight months Tuesday.

Dynan at the Harvard Kennedy School says financial markets can quickly become unnerved by “political dysfunction” that causes investors to doubt a government’s willingness to make good on its debt.

“We tend to have a lack of imagination about the scope for things going wrong. If there’s a big event in which the market freaks out about (US) debt, it’s not going to be something that was on our radar,” she said.

Adblock test (Why?)

The Link Lonk


July 02, 2024 at 08:44PM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiRGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAyNC8wNy8wMi9lY29ub215L2dsb2JhbC1kZWJ0LWNyaXNpcy9pbmRleC5odG1s0gEA?oc=5

The world is sitting on a $91 trillion problem. ‘Hard choices’ are coming - CNN

https://news.google.com/search?q=hard&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Monday, July 1, 2024

Hungary taunts allies as it takes up presidency of the Council of the E.U. - The Washington Post

hard.indah.link

BRUSSELS — Hungary has spent the past few years railing against the European Union. For the next six months, Hungary will help lead it — and it’s set to be a wild and revealing ride.

On July 1, Hungary, the E.U.’s disruptor-in-chief, takes up the rotating presidency of the Council of the E.U., a job that shapes the E.U. agenda but rarely makes headlines beyond sleepy Brussels.

But the country’s slogan for its stint — ‘Make Europe Great Again’ — suggests Hungary plans to make the most of its turn at the E.U. microphone, likely by taunting E.U. allies and talking up a resurgent right.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban takes center stage at a moment when the success of hard- and far-right parties in recent elections has shaken Europe’s establishment and the world is mulling the possible return of a different populist firebrand, former president Donald Trump.

In France, a strong showing from Marine Le Pen’s far-right party led President Emmanuel Macron to dissolve Parliament and call snap elections that have thrown a key E.U. power into political chaos. Germany, meanwhile, is reeling over the success of the far-right Alternative for Germany, a party the country’s domestic intelligence service considers extreme.

Orban has strong ties to Trump’s political movement and is using this moment to send a message to far-right figures on both sides of the Atlantic: We are in this together and on the rise.

“National conservative, sovereignist and Christian forces are on the rise all across Europe,” he wrote on X this spring. “We are the worst nightmare of the #Brussels bureaucrats.”

“#MakeEuropeGreatAgain,” he added, “#MEGA” — a play on Make America Great Again, minus (for now) the red caps.

Orban and the E.U. have been feuding for years, but he is particularly unpopular in Brussels right now because he’s held up financial support for Ukraine and appeared to use the issue as leverage in his quest to get the union to unblock billions in funding frozen over concerns about Hungarian democracy.

Daniel Freund, a German member of the European Parliament who is a vocal critic of Orban, recently wrote a letter calling for the suspension of the Hungarian presidency on these grounds. “It is time the EU stands up against the bullying of a government that clearly has issues subscribing to the most basic of our European principles and values,” he wrote.

“Hungary in its current state would never pass the accession criteria to join the EU,” the letter continued. “Its criminal leadership should therefore not be allowed to represent the Union.”

But the presidency is going ahead. And, over the next six months, Hungary will need to find a balance between lambasting the E.U. and using it to promote its interests.

Hungarian diplomats in Brussels have set out an agenda that sounds relatively mainstream: curbing migration, improving E.U. competitiveness and bolstering European defense. But Orban and close allies seem to see the next six months as an opportunity to troll Brussels, particularly with support dipping at home.

In a briefing on the Hungarian presidency, Zoltan Kovacks, an Orban spokesman, said the goal was “change in Brussels.” However, E.U.-watchers are skeptical about how much Hungary will actually be able to do, because of the nature both of the job and of this particular political moment.

The rotating presidency of the Council of the E.U. requires countries to put aside their national interest and serve as E.U.-level conveners, setting and shaping the agenda. Hungary is stepping in just after the European Parliament elections, at a moment when E.U. officials and diplomats are more focused on securing new jobs than working on big files.

In recent years, Hungary has been a persistent E.U. holdout, most notably by slowing efforts to help Ukraine and thwart Russia. Member states have pushed ahead in seeking to prevent disruption, open accession talks — with Ukraine and Moldova, for instance — and approve more military aid for Ukraine.

“Even if Hungary wanted to block things or to orientate discussions in one way or the other, there won’t be that many legislative fights to conclude,” said Eric Maurice, a policy analyst at the European Policy Center, a Brussels-based think tank.

Instead, expect Hungary to focus on rhetorical wins, MAGA (or MEGA?) style. “The biggest challenge over the next six months will be to separate noise from actual impact,” said Zselyke Csaky, senior research fellow at the Center for European Reform, a London-based think tank, “because I expect a lot of noise.”

Adblock test (Why?)

The Link Lonk


July 01, 2024 at 09:00PM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiYGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS93b3JsZC8yMDI0LzA3LzAxL2h1bmdhcnktb3JiYW4tcHJlc2lkZW5jeS1jb3VuY2lsLWV1cm9wZWFuLXVuaW9uL9IBAA?oc=5

Hungary taunts allies as it takes up presidency of the Council of the E.U. - The Washington Post

https://news.google.com/search?q=hard&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Crimea Tourism Hit Hard by ATACMS Strikes - Newsweek

hard.indah.link

Tourism bookings to annexed Crimea have fallen sharply after Russia accused Ukrainian forces of using U.S.-made ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems) to attack the peninsula.

The Russian Union of Travel Industry (RUTI) said Sunday that there has been a 25 to 30 percent decline in bookings in Crimea after debris from Ukrainian missiles intercepted by air defenses landed on a beach in the port city of Sevastopol on June 23.

RUTI noted, however, that overall visitor numbers to the peninsula are still up this year compared with 2023.

The Kremlin accused Ukraine of attacking the region with ATACMS missiles. Kyiv has denied targeting civilians. A U.S. official said it appeared that occupying Russian forces intercepted an ATACMS missile that was targeting a missile launcher in Crimea, and the resulting debris fell on the beach, Reuters reported.

People relax on a beach in Crimea
People relax on a beach in Sevastopol, the largest city on the Crimean Peninsula, on July 15, 2022. Tourism in Crimea has been hit hard because of fears and uncertainties over Russia's war in Ukraine.... People relax on a beach in Sevastopol, the largest city on the Crimean Peninsula, on July 15, 2022. Tourism in Crimea has been hit hard because of fears and uncertainties over Russia's war in Ukraine. OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP/Getty Images

Security video footage of the attack showed tourists fleeing a beach. The Kremlin said at least four people were killed and a further 151 were injured.

Attacks on Crimea have ramped up throughout Russian President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022, as Kyiv looks to reclaim the region annexed by Moscow in 2014.

On Monday, Ukrainian navy spokesman Dmitry Pletenchuk urged Russian tourists to leave the Black Sea peninsula. He said Crimea houses many military installations that "no one will leave alone."

Pletenchuk was speaking after reports emerged that more than 1,000 cars were queueing on the Kerch Strait Bridge to exit the peninsula to mainland Russia. There was no immediate explanation for the sudden exodus.

The Kerch Strait Bridge serves as a key supply route for Russia's forces. Ukraine struck the 19-kilometer (nearly 12-mile) road and rail bridge in October 2022 and again in July 2023. The bridge is crucial to sustaining Moscow's military offensives in southern Ukraine and Kyiv has vowed future strikes on the structure as it seeks to recapture Crimea.

Ukrainian presidential adviser Mikhail Podolyak said in June that there can be "no beaches, tourist areas and other fictitious signs of peaceful life" in Crimea.

"Crimea is undoubtedly a foreign territory occupied by Russia, where military actions are taking place, a full-scale war is underway. The very war that Russia unleashed exclusively with genocidal and aggressive intent," he said.

"Crimea is also a large military camp and warehouse, with hundreds of direct military targets, which the Russians cynically try to mask and cover with their own civilians. Who, in turn, are civilian occupiers," Podolyak added.

Do you have a tip on a world news story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about the Russia-Ukraine war? Let us know via worldnews@newsweek.com.

Uncommon Knowledge

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.

Adblock test (Why?)

The Link Lonk


July 01, 2024 at 11:06PM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiRmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5ld3N3ZWVrLmNvbS9jcmltZWEtdG91cmlzbS1hdGFjbXMtc3RyaWtlcy11a3JhaW5lLTE5MTk2MTTSAQA?oc=5

Crimea Tourism Hit Hard by ATACMS Strikes - Newsweek

https://news.google.com/search?q=hard&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

A String of Supreme Court Decisions Hits Hard at Environmental Rules - The New York Times

hard.indah.link

A spate of decisions over the past two years by the Supreme Court has significantly impaired the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to limit pollution in the air and water, regulate the use of toxic chemicals and reduce the greenhouse gasses that are heating the planet.

This term, the court’s conservative supermajority handed down several rulings that chip away at the power of many federal agencies.

But the environmental agency has been under particular fire, the result of a series of cases brought since 2022 by conservative activists who say that E.P.A. regulations have driven up costs for industries ranging from electric utilities to home building. Those arguments have resonated among justices skeptical of government regulation.

On Friday, the court ended the use of what is known as the Chevron doctrine, a cornerstone of administrative law for 40 years that said that courts should defer to government agencies to interpret unclear laws. That decision threatens the authority of many federal agencies to regulate the environment and also health care, workplace safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

But more remarkable have been several decisions by the court to intervene to stop environmental regulations before they were decided by lower courts or even before they were implemented by the executive branch.

On Thursday, the court said the E.P.A. could not limit smokestack pollution that blows across state borders under a measure known as the “good neighbor rule.” In that case, the court took the surprising step of weighing in while litigation was still pending at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The court also acted in an unusually preliminary fashion last year when it struck down a proposed E.P.A. rule known as Waters of the United States that was designed to protect millions of acres of wetlands from pollution, acting before the regulation had even been made final.

Similarly, in a 2022 challenge to an E.P.A. climate proposal known as the Clean Power Plan, the court sharply limited the agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, even though that rule had not yet taken effect.

That kind of intervention has little in the way of precedent. Usually, the Supreme Court is the last venue to hear a case, after arguments have been made and opinions have been rendered by lower courts.

“This court has shown an interest in making law in this area and not having the patience to wait for the cases to first come up through the courts,” said Kevin Minoli, a lawyer who worked in the E.P.A.’s office of general counsel from the Clinton through the Trump administrations. “They’ve been aggressive on ruling. It’s like, we’re going to tell you the answer before you even ask the question.”

Collectively, those decisions now endanger not only many existing environmental rules, but may prevent future administrations from writing new ones, experts say.

“These are among the worst environmental law rulings that the Supreme Court will ever issue,” said Ian Fein, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They all cut sharply against the federal government’s ability to enforce laws that protect us from polluters.”

The march of environmental cases is not over: The court has agreed to hear a case next term that could limit the reach of National Environmental Policy Act, the 1970 law that requires federal agencies to analyze whether their proposed projects have environmental consequences. Businesses and industries have long complained that the reviews can take years, inflate costs and be used by community groups to block projects.

For a coalition of industries, conservative advocacy groups and Republican attorneys general and their campaign donors, the recent decisions are a victory in a multiyear strategy to use the judicial system to influence environmental policy.

Many of the petitioners on the cases overlap, including the Republican attorneys general from at least 18 states, the National Mining Association, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The lead plaintiff on last year’s wetlands protection case, the Pacific Legal Foundation, is part of the network of conservative research organizations that has received funding from the billionaire Charles Koch, who is chairman of the petrochemical company Koch Industries and a champion of anti-regulatory causes.

“You see much more coordination now than you used to, coalitions of states and trade groups to change administrative law,” said Damien M. Schiff, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation. “Trade groups, the chamber, P.L.F., we very consciously take cases that we hope will win in a precedent-setting way. The strategy, the tactics are the same. It’s coordinated internally.”

The Supreme Court has “shown a greater willingness to exercise its authority earlier in the litigation process,” Mr. Schiff said.

The plaintiffs are also strategizing for the future.

President Biden has pledged that the United States will cut its carbon dioxide pollution in half by 2030 and eliminate it by 2050, which scientists say all major economies must do if the world is to avoid the most deadly and costly impacts of climate change. This year, the E.P.A. has rushed to finalize new rules to slash pollution from cars, trucks, power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas wells.

If he wins a second term, Mr. Biden wants to cut emissions from steel, cement and other heavy industries that have never been required to reduce their planet-warming emissions.

But the string of recent losses before the Supreme Court could make it difficult for the E.P.A. to follow through on those plans.

“There has been a steady erosion of environmental law,” said Patrick Parenteau, an expert on environmental law at Vermont Law School. “These decisions mean that Biden, if he gets a second term, is not going to be able to do much else on the environment, particularly on climate.”

Christine Todd Whitman, a onetime Republican and former governor of New Jersey who served as the administrator of the E.P.A. during the George W. Bush administration, said that environmental regulations sometimes could go too far and needed to be tempered by courts. But she said she saw the Supreme Court’s recent decisions as an alarming new precedent.

“What this activist conservative court is now doing, which really upsets me, is trying to implement a political agenda,” Ms. Whitman said. “They are looking for an opportunity to make a statement. And it circumvents and undermines the agencies. It’s as if they take the attitude that all regulations are bad and we’re going to stop them all before they go too far.”

That will have harmful consequences, she said.

“If you don’t have clean air to breathe and water to drink it’s going to cost a lot,” Ms. Whitman said. “This is putting a lot of people’s lives in jeopardy.”

For example, the court’s decision to curtail the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate wetlands and so-called ephemeral streams means that about half the nation’s wetlands could be polluted or paved without federal penalty, potentially harming thousands of species of plants and animals. In addition, new research has shown that the court’s decision also makes major American river basins vulnerable to pollution.

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said in a statement that the legal decisions properly shift authority over decisions with great economic impact from the executive to the legislative branch.

“For too long, unaccountable bureaucrats in D.C. have been imposing destructive regulations that harm farmers, fishermen, and countless small business owners who are already struggling to survive in our global economy, and the Supreme Court has an opportunity to restore accountability to that process by putting power back in the hands of Congress where it belongs,” she said.

On that last point, environmentalists and conservatives say they agree: If the federal government wants to protect the environment, Congress should update existing laws and pass new legislation.

The nation’s bedrock environmental laws, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, were both written more than 50 years ago, before the effects of climate change and a global economy that has reshaped the environmental and economic landscape.

Since then, Congress has passed one major law to address climate change, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. It includes more than $370 billion in incentives for clean energy technologies, including wind and solar power and electric vehicles. Climate experts call it a strong first step in cutting the nation’s emissions, but say that far more is needed to eliminate them entirely in the next 25 years.

“The agencies for more than 30 years have needed to use old, existing laws to deal with new environmental problems,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “And this new court is now making that extraordinarily difficult. Unless Congress is extremely specific, agencies can’t act. But since Congress is largely immobilized, this in turn freezes what they can do.”

Adblock test (Why?)

The Link Lonk


June 29, 2024 at 04:00PM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiQWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm55dGltZXMuY29tLzIwMjQvMDYvMjkvY2xpbWF0ZS9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LWVwYS5odG1s0gEA?oc=5

A String of Supreme Court Decisions Hits Hard at Environmental Rules - The New York Times

https://news.google.com/search?q=hard&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Featured Post

The world is sitting on a $91 trillion problem. ‘Hard choices’ are coming - CNN

hard.indah.link London CNN  —  Governments owe an unprecedented $91 trillion, an amount almost equal to the size of the global economy ...

Popular Posts