When Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced their Green New Deal resolution, Markey said it would be “the greatest blue-collar job creation program in a generation.”

President Donald Trump, on the other hand, said it would “put millions of Americans out of work.”

Battle lines have been drawn with the first major U.S. proposal to tackle climate change in nearly a decade: Does stopping global warming mean wrecking the economy? Or is failing to act worse? 

In the coming months, Voice of America will explore the prospects for salvaging the environment without killing off jobs.

We will meet winners and losers in the energy transition. Our first stop will be in Markey’s home state of Massachusetts, where an energy transition is well underway. We will visit a town where one of the state’s last coal-fired power plants closed, shedding coal jobs but gaining a cutting-edge solar farm. We will see how Massachusetts’ investments in the green economy are paying dividends in jobs and economic growth. 

Though the Senate has voted down Markey and Ocasio-Cortez’s nonbinding Green New Deal resolution, the proposal has put climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions back on the agenda on Capitol HIll. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a steadfast opponent of measures to reduce carbon emissions, now acknowledges global warming is a real and human-induced threat.

Trump, by contrast, has called climate change a hoax and sees unfettered production of coal, oil and natural gas as the path to economic expansion. 

Hotter, drier, wetter

Pressure is growing on elected officials to do something. The impacts of climate change are increasingly obvious. 

Eight of the 10 hottest years on record have piled up in just the last decade. 

Hotter and drier conditions in California helped spread the wildfires that caused $24 billion in damage and claimed 106 lives last year. Those fires broke the record for area burned, a record that was set just the year before.

A warmer atmosphere holds more water, making epic soakers like last year’s Hurricane Florence more likely. That $24 billion disaster followed 2017’s Hurricane Harvey, which did $127.5 billion in damage to Houston and the surrounding areas. 

And this is just the beginning. Scientists from 13 government agencies estimated that if emissions remain high, extreme heat would slice $155 billion annually from labor productivity by 2090 as more days are too hot to work. Dwindling water supplies for cities and industries would take a $316 billion toll each year. Annual health care costs for West Nile Virus, just one of several diseases expected to rise with warming temperatures, would be $3 billion higher.

Polls show Americans feel the threat of a changing climate more strongly than ever. Seventy-three percent say global warming is happening, and 62 percent say it is mostly human-caused. Both figures are the highest since the Yale Program on Climate Communication started polling in 2008. 

Two-thirds say they are “worried” or “very worried” about global warming. For the first time, that includes a third of conservative Republicans.

Meanwhile, the federal government is moving in the opposite direction. Trump has moved to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate treaty. His administration is working to loosen Obama administration regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and vehicles. 

That has left states, local governments and businesses to fill in the gap. But it will not be easy or cheap. 

Pricing pollution

One possible tool: Put a price on the carbon pollution that is causing global warming in the first place.

Raising the price reduces demand for more-polluting fuels and encourages companies and consumers to find cheaper, cleaner alternatives, economists say.

Pricing carbon would also raise revenue that can be returned to taxpayers or invested in reducing emissions.

Nine U.S. states price carbon through a cap-and-trade system, a market-based approach in which polluters buy permits for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit. California has its own program.

And economic growth in these states has continued as greenhouse gas emissions have declined.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric about how a carbon tax or a greenhouse gas tax would wreck the economy,” said Brookings Institution economist Adele Morris. “There’s absolutely no peer-reviewed evidence that supports that assertion.”

But these policies are not politically popular. A national cap-and-trade proposal died in Congress in 2010. Last November, Washington state voters rejected a carbon tax.

And they would not solve the problem on their own. Pledges the United States and others made in Paris will not achieve the ultimate goal of the accord: Keep global warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.” 

That would take a carbon price of at least $40 to $80 per ton, rising to $50 to $100 by 2030, according to a World Bank-backed commission. It’s only about $15 per ton in California, and $5 in the nine-state market. 

“There’s an open question whether politically, it’s achievable to hit some of the temperature targets that scientists have recommended,” Morris said. “That’s the conundrum. What’s the willingness to pay (in carbon taxes) of the American electorate? How far can we go before we hit a wall?”

Filling the federal vacuum

As Trump moves to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate treaty, many states are moving forward on their own. 

Most require power providers to source a percentage of their energy from renewable or zero-carbon sources. Several have recently increased these requirements. New Mexico recently joined California in aiming to be 100 percent renewable by mid-century. 

And the private sector is stepping up, as well. 

After Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris agreement, more than 2,000 businesses and investors declared that they continue to support the climate accord.

A group of large investors managing more than $30 trillion in assets is pushing major corporations in their portfolios to get on board. 

“Any company that’s a high-emitting sector, we need to work with them to radically change their emissions or divest from them,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, a sustainability nonprofit. Ceres is a founding partner of the initiative known as Climate Action 100+. 

Under pressure from the group, oil giants Shell and BP recently said they will tie executives’ bonuses to reaching climate goals. Major mining corporation Glencore agreed not to expand its coal mining business.

For investors, Lubber says, the economic risk comes not from fighting climate change. 

“If we don’t stop global warming, we wreck the economy,” she said. 
…

From: MeNeedIt

The World Trade Organization has cut its forecast for trade growth this year by more than a percentage point, to 2.6 percent, due to an economic slowdown and amid a trade conflict between the United States and China.

The downgrade — from 3.7 percent forecast issued in September — reflects how quickly the prospects for global business are fading as, among other things, the U.S. and China struggle to agree on how to lift tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of trade.

“With trade tensions running high, no one should be surprised by this outlook,” WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo said Tuesday.

Beyond the trade war, the WTO has cited weaker economic growth in North America, Europe and Asia — largely as the effect of fiscal stimulus by the Trump administration wears off. It noted a “phase-out” of monetary stimulus in Europe and China’s efforts to shift its economy away from its traditional reliance on manufacturing and investment toward services and consumption.

In 2018, trade grew by just 3 percent — far below the WTO’s forecast for 3.9 percent, which had itself been downgraded last year. And next year, the Geneva-based trade body expects only a small uptick in trade growth by volume next year, to 3 percent.

The WTO oversees international trade rules and settles disputes between countries. The Trump administration has also been critical of the WTO, accusing it of being “unfair” with the United States.

The U.S. has slowly squeezed the WTO by blocking appointments to its dispute settlement group, the Appellate Body, which could in December fall below the minimum number of members required.

Azevedo pointed to the “fundamental importance of the rules-based trading system,” saying that its weakening would “be an historic mistake with repercussions for jobs, growth and stability around the world.”

 
…

From: MeNeedIt

The World Trade Organization has cut its forecast for trade growth this year by more than a percentage point, to 2.6 percent, due to an economic slowdown and amid a trade conflict between the United States and China.

The downgrade — from 3.7 percent forecast issued in September — reflects how quickly the prospects for global business are fading as, among other things, the U.S. and China struggle to agree on how to lift tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars-worth of trade.

“With trade tensions running high, no one should be surprised by this outlook,” WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo said Tuesday.

Beyond the trade war, the WTO has cited weaker economic growth in North America, Europe and Asia — largely as the effect of fiscal stimulus by the Trump administration wears off. It noted a “phase-out” of monetary stimulus in Europe and China’s efforts to shift its economy away from its traditional reliance on manufacturing and investment toward services and consumption.

In 2018, trade grew by just 3 percent — far below the WTO’s forecast for 3.9 percent, which had itself been downgraded last year. And next year, the Geneva-based trade body expects only a small uptick in trade growth by volume next year, to 3 percent.

The WTO oversees international trade rules and settles disputes between countries. The Trump administration has also been critical of the WTO, accusing it of being “unfair” with the United States.

The U.S. has slowly squeezed the WTO by blocking appointments to its dispute settlement group, the Appellate Body, which could in December fall below the minimum number of members required.

Azevedo pointed to the “fundamental importance of the rules-based trading system,” saying that its weakening would “be an historic mistake with repercussions for jobs, growth and stability around the world.”

 
…

From: MeNeedIt

On April 4th, 2019, NATO members will mark the 70th anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty — part of a successful effort to contain Soviet expansionism and to cajole the war-torn nations of Western Europe to forsake ancient enmities and to forge solidarity. 

But for the transatlantic alliance to continue, Europe will have to make a greater contribution and share more of the burden, warn analysts.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO appeared uncertain about what part to play, but the return of Russian assertiveness under President Vladimir Putin has partly changed that — and the alliance’s supporters say NATO’s traditional role of collective security has never been more important.

Nonetheless, the U.S.-European alliance has been shaken by President Donald Trump’s episodic questioning of the very value of the transatlantic pact in periodically bruising encounters with European leaders and using tweets or brusque off-the-cuff remarks to do so. 

The resignation in December of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis highlighted strained ties between the Trump administration and European allies. 

In his resignation letter, the outgoing defense secretary said: “One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies.”

​Weeks earlier, Trump suggested he might cut U.S. force levels in Europe, if the European allies didn’t boost their military spending. “They kill us with NATO,” Trump said during a speech in Montana. “They kill us,” he repeated. 

Last July, during his visit to the annual summit of NATO allies in Brussels, President Trump expressed frustration with German Chancellor Angela Merkel over a planned Russia-to-Germany undersea gas pipeline, saying, “We’re supposed to protect you from Russia, but Germany is making pipeline deals with Russia. You tell me if that’s appropriate. Explain that.”

There have also been sharp disagreements over Iran and the U.S. decision to withdraw from a landmark nuclear arms pact with Russia in reaction to alleged cheating by Moscow. Washington has also expressed growing frustration with European partners over what it sees as a lax attitude to Chinese security threats to the West.

Such clashes have added to the uncertainty about the future of NATO, which is founded on a US security guarantee to Europe. 

Much of the media coverage on the current strains in the transatlantic relationship focus on President Trump’s characteristically confrontational style. European newspapers have highlighted the U.S. leader’s general distrust of multilateral organizations and his wanting a return of powerful, independent nation states that deal with each other bilaterally rather than via international organizations

But some analysts say the problems with the alliance predate the current American incumbent and at the heart of the strains has been a European reluctance to help to rebalance NATO. “The deeper reasons for the uncertainty go beyond him [Trump],” argues Hans Kundnani of Britain’s Chatham House. 

He says Europe has failed to uphold its part of a bargain. Even before Trump was elected there was a consensus in Washington that, as the United States increasingly focuses on Asia, Europe needs to take more responsibility for its own security. Presidents before Trump, including his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama, have also pressed the European members to increase their defense expenditure and to share more of a burden.

“It seems pretty clear that the only way the U.S. security guarantee to Europe might be made sustainable in the long term is for Europeans to make a greater contribution to their own security,” Kundnani argues.

And the U.S. President has his defenders when it comes to his table-thumping approach to NATO — both in the U.S. and Europe — who say Trump’s confrontational style may be the only way to shake up the alliance’s European members. 

Many in Britain’s military and intelligence establishments have been supportive of Trump’s complaints. A group of eight former British military and intelligence chiefs, who worry Britain could slip from being a “tier one” military power, argued in a newspaper advertisement that the U.S. leader’s criticism of the Europeans (and Canadians) over burden-sharing was valid.

They argued the threats the West faces demand increased military expenditure, even though Britain is one of only four European countries that already meets an agreed two percent of GDP in defense spending.

Combat readiness across the board among European militaries is woefully inadequate.

Last year, the German parliament’s military commissioner issued a scathing report on the readiness of Germany’s armed forces, noting that only a fraction of crucial weapons systems was operational. At the end of 2017, six out of six of the navy’s submarines were out of commission and none of the air force’s 14 large transport planes were available for deployment due to repairs. More than 20,000 officer and non-commissioned officer positions were unfilled. Many fighter jets, tanks and ships are outdated or in disrepair, the commissioner noted.

The report urged the government to pursue reforms “with greater urgency” and to increase defense spending.

In the face of U.S. complaints, a division has emerged among European policymakers — between those who argue they must take into greater account U.S. interests in a bid to try to improve strained transatlantic relations and those officials and leaders who want to adopt a more aggressive “Europe First” strategy to counter Trump’s “America First” approach.

French President Emmanuel Macron has advocated ambitiously a Euro-army and talks of Europe needing to free itself from military dependence on America. But both Britain and Germany are deeply skeptical of Macron’s idea for such an army. Skeptics say such an army could never make up for American military might and its importance for European defense. Others point out that it would end up with European governments having to increase their spending dramatically.

Central European states much closer to Russia place greater faith in an American security guarantee than one from their Western neighbors — for good historical reasons, they say. And despite Trump’s sharp criticism of NATO’s European members, they note, Washington remains committed to expanding a military presence in the Black Sea, the Baltic states and Poland and supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

On Monday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced an agreement to invest $260 million to fund a military storage site in central Poland in support of U.S. forces that operate in the region. “This will fund storage and maintenance of pre-positioned military equipment — which will speed up reinforcement for Europe,” Stoltenberg said during a news conference at the alliance’s Brussels headquarters.
…

From: MeNeedIt

The boom times for the U.S. lobster industry are imperiled this year because of a shortage of a little fish that has been luring the crustaceans into traps for hundreds of years.

Members of the lobster business fear a looming bait crisis could disrupt the industry during a time when lobsters are as plentiful, valuable and in demand as ever. America’s lobster catch has climbed this decade, especially in Maine, but the fishery is dependent on herring — a schooling fish other fishermen seek in the Atlantic Ocean.

Federal regulators are imposing a steep cut in the herring fishery this year, and some areas of the East Coast are already restricted to fishing, months before the lobster season gets rolling. East Coast herring fishermen brought more than 200 million pounds of the fish to docks as recently as 2014, but this year’s catch will be limited to less than a fifth of that total.

The cut is leaving lobstermen, who have baited traps with herring for generations in Maine, scrambling for new bait sources and concerned about their ability to get lobster to customers who have come to expect easy availability in recent years.

“If you don’t have bait, you’re not going to fish. If the price of bait goes up, you’re not going to fish,” said Patrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association. “We have to take the big picture, and make sure our communities continue to have viable fisheries.”

The cut in the herring quota stems from a scientific assessment of the fish’s population last year by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The assessment found a below-average number of young herring are surviving in the ocean.

The loss of herring has sounded alarms among scientists and conservationists, because the fish also serve a critical role in the ocean food chain and they’re valuable as food for humans.

It’s unclear exactly what factors are causing young herring to fail to survive to maturity, said Jonathan Deroba, lead assessment scientist for herring with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. He said it’s “premature to predict the sky is falling,” though he added the herring population could be suffering from multiple stresses at once.

“We’d be foolish not to look at climate change. The abundance of haddock, which are egg predators. And fishing activity on Georges Bank disrupting herring,” Deroba said. Georges Bank is a key fishing area off New England.

Fishermen bring herring to shore mostly in Maine and Massachusetts, which are also the biggest lobster fishing states. Lobstermen also load traps with other kinds of bait, such as menhaden, and some herring is available in freezers, but fishermen said they’re concerned there won’t be enough to go around.

The New England Fishery Management Council is also considering herring catch quota for 2020 and 2021 later this year, and fishermen said they’re concerned the cuts could be maintained for those years. The loss of herring is also a heavy blow to the fishermen who harvest the species, said Jeff Kaelin, who works in government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, a herring harvester based in Cape May, New Jersey.

“It’s going to be tough on everyone,” Kaelin said, not just the people who catch the herring, but also “the lobstermen who depend on it for historic bait supply.”

The U.S. lobster fishery set an all-time record for value at docks in 2016, when the catch was worth more than $670 million. That was also the year the herring catch fell to its lowest point since 2002, though it was still more than 138 million pounds.

Lobsterman Jeffrey Peterson, who fishes out of the island town of Vinalhaven, Maine, said he’s sure he’ll be able to load his traps with bait this summer. He’s just concerned about how expensive it’ll be to do so.

“It’ll be around,” he said. “It’s just how much they gouge you for it.”
…

From: MeNeedIt

The streets around The Stonewall Inn are quiet now.

But 50 years ago in June 1969, this popular gay bar in New York’s Greenwich Village was the site of violent confrontation when an unprovoked police raid triggered widespread outrage, resulting in several days of riots and demonstrations.

Many believe the uprising was the catalyst for the modern gay rights movement.

Now, a groundbreaking new exhibit titled “Rise Up: Stonewall and the LGBTQ Rights Movement” at the Newseum in Washington explores that tumultuous period in American history.

Exhibit writer Christy Wallover says the numerous displays focus on the courageous efforts of everyday Americans.

“This big movement was spurred on by people who wanted to make a change, whether that’s fighting for the right to work and serve, whether that’s parading in the streets and celebrating who you are, or whether that’s winning the right to marry.”​

WATCH: New Exhibit Commemorates 50 Years of Gay Rights Movement

​Marriage equality

Jim Obergefell was one of those people. He fought for marriage equality in the state of Ohio for him and his longtime partner, John Arthur.

They had been together for 18 years when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, and within two years was in at-home hospice care.

“Because we lived in Ohio, we were not able to get married,” Obergefell explained. So, the two chartered a medical jet and flew to Baltimore, Maryland, where same-sex marriage had become legal Jan.1, 2013.

They were married that year inside the airplane on the tarmac at Baltimore Washington International Airport by Arthur’s aunt Paulette Roberts.

Arthur died a few months later.

But Ohio did not recognize their marriage. Upon Arthur’s death, Obergefell could not be listed as Arthur’s surviving spouse. Obergefell sued the state.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Obergefell won. On June 26, 2015, marriage equality became the law of the land.

​Symbolic artifacts

Obergefell loaned some of his most prized possessions to the Newseum to illustrate his story: the couple’s wedding rings that he had fused together after Arthur’s death; the jacket Obergefell wore when they married; and the bowtie he wore when the Supreme Court decision was announced.

Fighting back tears, Obergefell explained why he did it.

“Because it’s my marriage. It’s the love of my life. It’s the man I was willing to do anything for and to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to defend, and to protect, and to live up to my promises to him.”

Other items featured in the exhibit represent trailblazers such as Frank Kameny, who many consider the father of the LGBTQ rights movement.

His portable typewriter — on view in a display case — was used to create memos, pamphlets, “and everything he used to petition and protest the government,” Wallover explained.

There are also items from several U.S. politicians.

A red suit from Tammy Baldwin, who in 1998 became the first openly gay woman elected to Congress, and artifacts from Congressman Barney Frank, who revealed he was gay in an interview with The Boston Globe in 1987 after having served for three terms.

Also prominently featured is Harvey Milk, a leading human rights activist who became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States, and who was assassinated in 1978 after only a year in office.

There’s a letter of his that was in his jacket pocket when he was shot, according to Wallover.

For many, it’s personal

John Lake, who works for one of the sponsors of the exhibit, found it deeply personal.

“The 50th anniversary of Stonewall is so important to me personally, because I look back and all of the progress that’s been made has really happened within the course of my lifetime,” he explained.

Walking through the exhibit, he says he saw things that impacted his life “in a very real way.”

“Like seeing Jim Obergefell’s jacket that he was married in — that happened around the same time that I proposed to my husband,” he said. “So, to get that kind of grounding and to see those moments really coming to life for the community, it just really brings it home.”

While there have been great strides made in the gay rights movement over the past 50 years, many acknowledge there’s still much work to be done for the 4.5 percent of Americans — roughly 10 million people — who identify as LGBTQ, or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer or Questioning.

“In the exhibit, we highlight the strides and the setbacks,” Wallover explained, pointing out that challenges remain for members of the LGBTQ community who are still striving for equality, such as transgender people.

“We talk about the transgender ban that’s currently in effect that the Supreme Court just upheld, and we also talk about the violence against that group, primarily transgender women of color,” she added. “So, we still have work to do.”

The exhibit, which will travel nationally after its run at the Newseum, includes educational resources for students and teachers.
…

From: MeNeedIt

The streets around The Stonewall Inn are quiet now.

But 50 years ago in June 1969, this popular gay bar in New York’s Greenwich Village was the site of violent confrontation when an unprovoked police raid triggered widespread outrage, resulting in several days of riots and demonstrations.

Many believe the uprising was the catalyst for the modern gay rights movement.

Now, a groundbreaking new exhibit titled “Rise Up: Stonewall and the LGBTQ Rights Movement” at the Newseum in Washington explores that tumultuous period in American history.

Exhibit writer Christy Wallover says the numerous displays focus on the courageous efforts of everyday Americans.

“This big movement was spurred on by people who wanted to make a change, whether that’s fighting for the right to work and serve, whether that’s parading in the streets and celebrating who you are, or whether that’s winning the right to marry.”​

WATCH: New Exhibit Commemorates 50 Years of Gay Rights Movement

​Marriage equality

Jim Obergefell was one of those people. He fought for marriage equality in the state of Ohio for him and his longtime partner, John Arthur.

They had been together for 18 years when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, and within two years was in at-home hospice care.

“Because we lived in Ohio, we were not able to get married,” Obergefell explained. So, the two chartered a medical jet and flew to Baltimore, Maryland, where same-sex marriage had become legal Jan.1, 2013.

They were married that year inside the airplane on the tarmac at Baltimore Washington International Airport by Arthur’s aunt Paulette Roberts.

Arthur died a few months later.

But Ohio did not recognize their marriage. Upon Arthur’s death, Obergefell could not be listed as Arthur’s surviving spouse. Obergefell sued the state.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Obergefell won. On June 26, 2015, marriage equality became the law of the land.

​Symbolic artifacts

Obergefell loaned some of his most prized possessions to the Newseum to illustrate his story: the couple’s wedding rings that he had fused together after Arthur’s death; the jacket Obergefell wore when they married; and the bowtie he wore when the Supreme Court decision was announced.

Fighting back tears, Obergefell explained why he did it.

“Because it’s my marriage. It’s the love of my life. It’s the man I was willing to do anything for and to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to defend, and to protect, and to live up to my promises to him.”

Other items featured in the exhibit represent trailblazers such as Frank Kameny, who many consider the father of the LGBTQ rights movement.

His portable typewriter — on view in a display case — was used to create memos, pamphlets, “and everything he used to petition and protest the government,” Wallover explained.

There are also items from several U.S. politicians.

A red suit from Tammy Baldwin, who in 1998 became the first openly gay woman elected to Congress, and artifacts from Congressman Barney Frank, who revealed he was gay in an interview with The Boston Globe in 1987 after having served for three terms.

Also prominently featured is Harvey Milk, a leading human rights activist who became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States, and who was assassinated in 1978 after only a year in office.

There’s a letter of his that was in his jacket pocket when he was shot, according to Wallover.

For many, it’s personal

John Lake, who works for one of the sponsors of the exhibit, found it deeply personal.

“The 50th anniversary of Stonewall is so important to me personally, because I look back and all of the progress that’s been made has really happened within the course of my lifetime,” he explained.

Walking through the exhibit, he says he saw things that impacted his life “in a very real way.”

“Like seeing Jim Obergefell’s jacket that he was married in — that happened around the same time that I proposed to my husband,” he said. “So, to get that kind of grounding and to see those moments really coming to life for the community, it just really brings it home.”

While there have been great strides made in the gay rights movement over the past 50 years, many acknowledge there’s still much work to be done for the 4.5 percent of Americans — roughly 10 million people — who identify as LGBTQ, or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer or Questioning.

“In the exhibit, we highlight the strides and the setbacks,” Wallover explained, pointing out that challenges remain for members of the LGBTQ community who are still striving for equality, such as transgender people.

“We talk about the transgender ban that’s currently in effect that the Supreme Court just upheld, and we also talk about the violence against that group, primarily transgender women of color,” she added. “So, we still have work to do.”

The exhibit, which will travel nationally after its run at the Newseum, includes educational resources for students and teachers.
…

From: MeNeedIt

Several Republican-led state legislatures are advocating for women to gain over-the-counter access to birth control in what they say is an effort to reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

State legislatures in Arkansas and Iowa, for example, are working on legislation that would allow women older than 18 the ability to receive birth control from a pharmacist rather than going first to a doctor for a prescription. The measures are seeing bipartisanship support in those states and come after similar laws have passed in nearly a dozen other states.

​Arkansas legislation

Arkansas state Representative Aaron Pilkington, a Republican, said he started working on the bill after seeing “about a 15 percent decrease of teen births” after other states passed similar legislation. Arkansas consistently has one of the highest birth rates among teenagers in the country.

Pilkington said support for the bill “in many ways, it’s very generational. … I find that a lot of younger people and women are really in favor of this, especially mothers.”

According to the Oral Contraceptive (OCs) Over the Counter (OTC) Working Group, a reproductive rights group, more than 100 countries, including Russia, much of South America and countries in Africa, allow access to birth control without a prescription. 

Women are required to get a doctor’s prescription to obtain and renew birth control in most of the U.S., much of Europe, Canada and Australia, according to the reproductive rights group.

Pilkington, who identifies as a “pro-life legislator,” said he brought the bill forward partly as an effort to counter unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The bill would require a doctor’s visit about every two years to renew the prescription.

Rural residents

Arkansas has a population of about 3 million people, a third of whom live in rural areas. Pilkington said the bill would likely benefit women who reside in rural areas or those who have moved to new cities and aren’t under a doctor’s care yet.

“A lot of times when they’re on the pill and they run out, they’ve gotta get a doctor’s appointment, and the doctor says, ‘I can’t see you for two months,’” he said. “Some people have to drive an hour and a half to see their PCP (primary care physician) or OB-GYN (obstetrician-gynecologist), so this makes a lot of sense.”

What Pilkington is proposing is not new. In 2012, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsed the idea of making birth control available without a prescription. Today, at least 11 other states have passed legislation allowing for patients to go directly to the pharmacist, with some caveats.

In October, ahead of a tight midterm race, Iowa Republican Governor Kim Reynolds raised a few eyebrows when she announced she would prioritize over-the-counter access to birth control in her state. Like Pilkington, she cited countering abortion as a main driver behind the proposed legislation. The bill closely models much of the language used in another Republican-sponsored bill In Utah that passed last year with unanimous support.

The planned Iowa legislation comes after the Republican-led state Legislature passed a bill in 2017 that rejected $3 million in federal funds for family-planning centers like Planned Parenthood.

The loss of federal funds forced Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit organization that provides health care and contraception for women, to close four of its 12 clinics in the state.

Since then, Jamie Burch Elliott, public affairs manager of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in Iowa, said that anecdotal evidence shows that sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies have gone up.

“With family planning, it takes time to see the impacts, so there are long-term studies going on to really study the impact of this,” said Burch Elliott. “Right away, we saw STI (sexually transmitted infections) and STD (sexually transmitted diseases) rates go up, particularly chlamydia and gonorrhea. As far as unintended pregnancy rates, we are hearing that they are rising, although the data is not out yet.”

Pro-life pushback

So far the Iowa legislation has received some pushback, mostly from a few pro-life groups.

The Iowa Right to Life organization has remained neutral on the issue of birth control, but the Iowa Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the bishops of Iowa, and Iowans for LIFE, a nonprofit anti-abortion organization, have come out against the bill, citing concerns that birth control should not be administered without a visit to a physician.

Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for LIFE, also pointed out that oral contraception can be an “abortifacient [that] sometimes cause abortions,” challenging Reynolds’ motivation for introducing the bill.

On the other hand, Iowa family-planning organizations and Democratic legislators are mostly on board.

“Policywise, I think this is really good,” said Heather Matson, a state representative of a district located just outside the state capital, Des Moines. She appreciated that insurance will still cover birth control, but took issue with the age restriction, saying she would like to see an option for people younger than 18. “Is it exactly the bill that I would have written, if given the opportunity? Not exactly.”

While Matson represents one of the fastest-growing districts in the country, she pointed to the number of “health care deserts” in rural Iowa, where a shortage of OB-GYNs is leading to the closure of some maternity wards.

Like Planned Parenthood’s Burch Elliott, Matson agreed that this bill would be just one step in providing more access to birth control for women in rural parts of the state.

“Even before Planned Parenthood was defunded, there wasn’t great access to birth control in Iowa to begin with,” Burch Elliott said. “Having said that, [this bill] is not a solution. Pharmacists are never going to be a replacement for Planned Parenthood, for example, where you’ll get STI and STD screenings, and any other cancer screenings or other preventive care that you might need.”

Regardless of whether the bills pass in Des Moines or Little Rock, Arkansas Representative Pilkington expects other states to follow suit.

“As the times have changed and you have a lot of conservative states like Tennessee, Arkansas, Utah (pass this legislation), I think it makes it way less of a partisan issue” and more of a good governance issue, he said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we see other states kind of pushing this as well. Especially when they see the success that other states are having with this.”
…

From: MeNeedIt

A groundbreaking new exhibit at the Newseum in Washington marks the 50th anniversary of a police raid on a gay bar in New York’s Greenwich Village, and highlights key moments in the modern gay rights movement in America that many believe was born out of that historic event. For some members of the LGBTQ community, the exhibit is deeply personal. VOA’s Julie Taboh has more.
…

From: MeNeedIt

For decades, it was virtually unknown outside a small circle of investors, corporate lawyers and government officials. 

But in recent years, the small interagency body known as the Committee for Investment in the United States has grown in prominence, propelled by a U.S. desire to use it as an instrument of national security and foreign policy. 

This week, the panel made headlines after it reportedly directed Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech to divest itself of Grindr, a popular gay dating app, because of concern the user data it collects could be used to blackmail military and intelligence personnel. 

Operating out of the Treasury Department, the nine-member CFIUS (pronounced Cy-fius) reviews foreign investments in U.S. businesses to determine whether they pose a national security threat.  

Notification was voluntary

Until last year, notifying the panel about such investments was voluntary, something Kunlun and California-based Grindr took advantage of when they closed a deal in 2016.  

But given growing U.S. concern about Chinese companies with ties to Beijing buying businesses in sensitive U.S. industries, the committee’s rare intervention to undo the deal was hardly a surprise, said Harry Broadman, a former CFIUS member.   

“I think anyone who was surprised by the decision really didn’t understand the legislative history, legislative landscape and the politics” of CFIUS, said Broadman, who is now a partner and chair of the emerging markets practice at consulting firm Berkley Research Group. 

The action by CFIUS is the latest in a series aimed at Chinese companies investing in the U.S. tech sector and comes as the Trump administration wages a global campaign against  telecom giant Huawei Technologies and remains locked in a trade dispute with Beijing. The U.S. says the state-linked company could gain access to critical telecom infrastructure and is urging allies to bar it from participating in their new 5G networks.   

While the administration has yet to formulate a policy on Huawei, the world’s largest supplier of telecom equipment, the latest CFIUS action underscores how the U.S. is increasingly turning to the body to restrict Chinese investments across a broad swath of U.S. technology companies.  

“CFIUS is one of the few tools that the government has that can be used on a case-by-case basis to try to untangle [a] web of dependencies and solve potential national security issues, and the government has become increasingly willing to use that tool more aggressively,” said Joshua Gruenspecht, an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Washington, who represents companies before the committee. 

CFIUS’s history has long been intertwined with politics and periodic public backlash against foreign investment in the U.S.  

OPEC investments

In 1975 it was congressional concern over the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) investments in U.S. stocks and bonds that led President Gerald Ford to set up the committee through an executive order. It was tasked with monitoring the impact of foreign investment in the United States but had little other authority.  

In the years that followed, backlash against foreign acquisitions of certain U.S. firms led Congress to beef up the agency.  

In 1988, spurred in part by a Japanese attempt to buy a U.S. semiconductor firm, Congress enshrined CFIUS in law, granting the president the authority to block mergers and acquisitions that threatened national security.  

In 2007, outrage over CFIUS’s decision to approve the sale of management operations of six key U.S. ports to a Dubai port operator led Congress to pass new legislation, broadening the definition of national security and requiring greater scrutiny by CFIUS of certain types of foreign direct investment, according to the Congressional Research Service.  

But by far the biggest change to how CFIUS reviews and approves foreign transactions came last summer when Congress passed the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018. 

Slated to be fully implemented in 2020, the new law vastly expanded CFIUS’s jurisdiction and authority, requiring foreign companies that take even a non-controlling stake in a sensitive U.S. business to get the committee’s clearance.  

While the new law did not mention China by name, concern about Chinese investments and national security dominated the debate that led to its enactment. 

“There is no mistake that both the congressional intent and the executive intent has a clear eye on the role of China in the transactions,” Broadman said. 

Threats to ‘technological superiority’

Under interim rules issued by the Treasury Department last fall, investments in U.S. businesses that develop and manufacture “critical technologies” in one or more of 27 designated industries are now subject to review by CFIUS. Most of the covered technologies are already subject to U.S. export controls. The designated industries are sectors where foreign investment “threatens to undermine U.S. technological superiority that is critical to U.S. national security,” according to the Treasury Department. They range from semiconductor machinery to aircraft manufacturing.  

The new regulations mean that foreign companies seeking to invest in any of these technologies and industries must notify CFIUS at least 45 days prior to closing a deal. CFIUS will then have 30 days to clear the deal, propose a conditional approval or reject it outright. If parties to a transaction do not withdraw in response to CFIUS’s concerns, the president will be given 15 days to block it.   

To date, U.S. presidents have blocked five deals — four of them involving Chinese companies. One was blocked by the late President George H.W. Bush in 1990, two by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and 2016, and two by President Donald Trump. 

The number is deceptively small. A far greater number of deals are simply withdrawn by parties after they don’t get timely clearance or CFIUS opens a formal investigation. According to the Treasury Department, of the 942 notices of transactions filed with CFIUS between 2009 and 2016, 107 were withdrawn during the review or after an investigation.  

In recent years, CFIUS has reviewed between 200 and 250 cases per year, according to Gruenspecht. But the number is likely to exceed 2,000 a year under the new CFIUS regime, he added.  

The tighter scrutiny has raised questions about whether the new law strikes the right balance between encouraging foreign investment and protecting national security.  

“I think the short answer is it’s too early to tell,” Gruenspecht said. However, he added, if the new law “becomes a recipe for taking foreign investment off the table for whole realms of new emerging technology, that crosses a lot of boundaries.” 

Concern in Europe

The U.S. is not the only country toughening screening measures for foreign investment. In December, the European Union proposed a new regulation for members to adopt “CFIUS-like” foreign investment review processes. 

Gruenspecht said that while foreign investors are not  “thrilled” about the additional CFIUS scrutiny, “a lot of Western nations are also saying, actually, ‘We totally understand the rational behind CFIUS and we’re looking to implement our own internal versions of CFIUS ourselves.’ ”
…

From: MeNeedIt

For decades, it was virtually unknown outside a small circle of investors, corporate lawyers and government officials. 

But in recent years, the small interagency body known as the Committee for Investment in the United States has grown in prominence, propelled by a U.S. desire to use it as an instrument of national security and foreign policy. 

This week, the panel made headlines after it reportedly directed Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech to divest itself of Grindr, a popular gay dating app, because of concern the user data it collects could be used to blackmail military and intelligence personnel. 

Operating out of the Treasury Department, the nine-member CFIUS (pronounced Cy-fius) reviews foreign investments in U.S. businesses to determine whether they pose a national security threat.  

Notification was voluntary

Until last year, notifying the panel about such investments was voluntary, something Kunlun and California-based Grindr took advantage of when they closed a deal in 2016.  

But given growing U.S. concern about Chinese companies with ties to Beijing buying businesses in sensitive U.S. industries, the committee’s rare intervention to undo the deal was hardly a surprise, said Harry Broadman, a former CFIUS member.   

“I think anyone who was surprised by the decision really didn’t understand the legislative history, legislative landscape and the politics” of CFIUS, said Broadman, who is now a partner and chair of the emerging markets practice at consulting firm Berkley Research Group. 

The action by CFIUS is the latest in a series aimed at Chinese companies investing in the U.S. tech sector and comes as the Trump administration wages a global campaign against  telecom giant Huawei Technologies and remains locked in a trade dispute with Beijing. The U.S. says the state-linked company could gain access to critical telecom infrastructure and is urging allies to bar it from participating in their new 5G networks.   

While the administration has yet to formulate a policy on Huawei, the world’s largest supplier of telecom equipment, the latest CFIUS action underscores how the U.S. is increasingly turning to the body to restrict Chinese investments across a broad swath of U.S. technology companies.  

“CFIUS is one of the few tools that the government has that can be used on a case-by-case basis to try to untangle [a] web of dependencies and solve potential national security issues, and the government has become increasingly willing to use that tool more aggressively,” said Joshua Gruenspecht, an attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Washington, who represents companies before the committee. 

CFIUS’s history has long been intertwined with politics and periodic public backlash against foreign investment in the U.S.  

OPEC investments

In 1975 it was congressional concern over the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) investments in U.S. stocks and bonds that led President Gerald Ford to set up the committee through an executive order. It was tasked with monitoring the impact of foreign investment in the United States but had little other authority.  

In the years that followed, backlash against foreign acquisitions of certain U.S. firms led Congress to beef up the agency.  

In 1988, spurred in part by a Japanese attempt to buy a U.S. semiconductor firm, Congress enshrined CFIUS in law, granting the president the authority to block mergers and acquisitions that threatened national security.  

In 2007, outrage over CFIUS’s decision to approve the sale of management operations of six key U.S. ports to a Dubai port operator led Congress to pass new legislation, broadening the definition of national security and requiring greater scrutiny by CFIUS of certain types of foreign direct investment, according to the Congressional Research Service.  

But by far the biggest change to how CFIUS reviews and approves foreign transactions came last summer when Congress passed the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018. 

Slated to be fully implemented in 2020, the new law vastly expanded CFIUS’s jurisdiction and authority, requiring foreign companies that take even a non-controlling stake in a sensitive U.S. business to get the committee’s clearance.  

While the new law did not mention China by name, concern about Chinese investments and national security dominated the debate that led to its enactment. 

“There is no mistake that both the congressional intent and the executive intent has a clear eye on the role of China in the transactions,” Broadman said. 

Threats to ‘technological superiority’

Under interim rules issued by the Treasury Department last fall, investments in U.S. businesses that develop and manufacture “critical technologies” in one or more of 27 designated industries are now subject to review by CFIUS. Most of the covered technologies are already subject to U.S. export controls. The designated industries are sectors where foreign investment “threatens to undermine U.S. technological superiority that is critical to U.S. national security,” according to the Treasury Department. They range from semiconductor machinery to aircraft manufacturing.  

The new regulations mean that foreign companies seeking to invest in any of these technologies and industries must notify CFIUS at least 45 days prior to closing a deal. CFIUS will then have 30 days to clear the deal, propose a conditional approval or reject it outright. If parties to a transaction do not withdraw in response to CFIUS’s concerns, the president will be given 15 days to block it.   

To date, U.S. presidents have blocked five deals — four of them involving Chinese companies. One was blocked by the late President George H.W. Bush in 1990, two by former President Barack Obama in 2012 and 2016, and two by President Donald Trump. 

The number is deceptively small. A far greater number of deals are simply withdrawn by parties after they don’t get timely clearance or CFIUS opens a formal investigation. According to the Treasury Department, of the 942 notices of transactions filed with CFIUS between 2009 and 2016, 107 were withdrawn during the review or after an investigation.  

In recent years, CFIUS has reviewed between 200 and 250 cases per year, according to Gruenspecht. But the number is likely to exceed 2,000 a year under the new CFIUS regime, he added.  

The tighter scrutiny has raised questions about whether the new law strikes the right balance between encouraging foreign investment and protecting national security.  

“I think the short answer is it’s too early to tell,” Gruenspecht said. However, he added, if the new law “becomes a recipe for taking foreign investment off the table for whole realms of new emerging technology, that crosses a lot of boundaries.” 

Concern in Europe

The U.S. is not the only country toughening screening measures for foreign investment. In December, the European Union proposed a new regulation for members to adopt “CFIUS-like” foreign investment review processes. 

Gruenspecht said that while foreign investors are not  “thrilled” about the additional CFIUS scrutiny, “a lot of Western nations are also saying, actually, ‘We totally understand the rational behind CFIUS and we’re looking to implement our own internal versions of CFIUS ourselves.’ ”
…

From: MeNeedIt

Facebook said Friday it is further tightening requirements for European Union political advertising, in its latest efforts to prevent foreign interference and increase transparency ahead of the bloc’s parliamentary elections.

However, some EU politicians criticized the social media giant, saying the measures will make pan-European online campaigning harder.

Under the new rules, people, parties and other groups buying political ads will have to confirm to Facebook that they are located in the same EU country as the Facebook users they are targeting.

That’s on top of a previously announced requirement for ad buyers to confirm their identities. It means advertisements aimed at voters across the EU’s 28 countries will have to register a person in each of those nations.

“It’s a disgrace that Facebook doesn’t see Europe as an entity and appears not to care about the consequences of undermining European democracy,” Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the parliament’s liberal ALDE group, said on Twitter. “Limiting political campaigns to one country is totally the opposite of what we want.”

The response underscores the balancing act for Silicon Valley tech companies as they face pressure from EU authorities to do more to prevent their platforms being used by outside groups, including Russia, to meddle in the May elections. Hundreds of millions of people are set to vote for more than 700 EU parliamentary lawmakers.

Facebook, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, said it will start blocking ads that don’t comply in mid-April.

The company will ask ad buyers to submit documents and use technical checks to verify their identity and location.

Facebook statement

“We recognize that some people can try and work around any system but we are confident this will be a real barrier for anyone thinking of using our ads to interfere in an election from outside of a country,” Richard Allen, Facebook’s vice president of global policy solutions, said in a blog post.

Facebook said earlier this year that EU political ads will carry “paid for by” disclaimers. Clicking the label will reveal more detailed information such as how much money was spent on the ad, how many people saw it, and their age, gender and location.

The ad transparency rules have already been rolled out in the U.S., Britain, Brazil, India, Ukraine and Israel. Facebook will expand them globally by the end of June.

Twitter and Google have introduced similar political ad requirements.

Facebook is also making improvements to a database that stores ads for seven years, including widening access so that election regulators and watchdog groups can analyze political or issue ads.
…

From: MeNeedIt