

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Aaron Huertas, 202-331-5458
The Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a partnership among seven
states and four Canadian provinces, today issued final recommendations
for a regional, economy-wide cap-and-trade system that represents the
most ambitious program of its kind. The WCI regime will cover the
region's electricity, industrial and transportation sectors with the
goal of reducing the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming
15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
"The region just took a big step forward," said Erin Rogers,
California climate strategy manager at the Union of Concerned
Scientists, "but it will be up the states and provinces to decide how
far they really go."
Christopher Bush, a UCS climate economist, noted that new economic
analyses conclude that region's economy would benefit from investments
in global warming solutions. The analyses show that improved energy
efficiency can reduce electric bills and save drivers money at the
pump, he said. They also would lead to changes in consumer spending
that would help create new jobs.
(For a regional analysis, go to: westernclimateinitiative.org/ewebeditpro/items/O104F19869.PDF. For a California-centric analysis, go to: arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/economic_analysis_supplement.pdf.)
The WCI recommendations provide a general outline for the regional
cap-and-trade program and suggest minimum requirements for
participation in the program. Each state and province will have the
opportunity to tighten program requirements through legislation or
administrative action over the next few years.
"There's a right way and wrong way to do cap and trade," Busch
said. "Doing it the right way means making sure that the program speeds
the transition to a clean energy economy in a way that protects
consumers. The added bonus is a successful cap-and-trade program in the
region will have a ripple effect that reaches Washington, D.C., and the
rest of the world."
Busch identified two areas where states and provinces may be able
to significantly strengthen the program beyond WCI's minimum
recommended standards: auctioning permits -- also called allowances --
for global warming pollution, and limiting the use of "offsets," which
allow a polluter to earn credit for reducing emissions by paying others
to reduce their emissions.
The WCI program acknowledges the value of auctioning permits to
polluters, and in principle the region aspires to reach 100 percent
auctioning. In practice, however, the program allows states and
provinces determine how they will distribute allowances beyond a
minimum level of auctioning, starting with 10 percent in 2012 and
increasing to a minimum of 25 percent by 2020. Conversely, the 10
Northeastern states involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
decided to auction nearly or fully 100 percent of their permits. The
European Union also is moving toward a 100-percent auction.
"Auctioning permits allows states to spend money on projects that
can further reduce pollution and benefit their residents," Busch said.
"Giving them away for free could result in windfall profits for
polluters."
The WCI agreement also recognizes the value of limiting the use of
offsets. The WCI allows offsets to cover no more than half of the
program's expected global warming pollution reductions. Specifically,
it requires that a majority of reductions occur directly in the
region's highly polluting electricity, transportation and industrial
sectors. The WCI permits states and provinces to set even tighter
limits on offsets. This is an improvement over the draft
recommendations the WCI issued in July.
UCS recommends that states and provinces limit offsets and
maximize pollution reduction in the region. Doing so, UCS experts say,
would spur more clean technology development and protect public health
by reducing conventional smog-forming and toxic air pollutants.
"States and provinces should close the offsets loophole," said
Rogers. "Outsourcing half the effort would undercut the benefits of
reducing pollution and make it difficult to achieve the region's
long-term climate goals."
The WCI-member states are Arizona, California, Montana, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington. The member provinces are British
Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
BACKGROUND ON CAP-AND-TRADE SYSTEMS
Under cap-and-trade
programs, governments establish a cap on global warming emissions and
tighten it over time. Governments then distribute emissions permits, or
allowances, that correspond to a specific number of metric tons of
global warming pollution. The total number of allowances match the cap
and decrease over time.
A cap-and-trade program requires polluters to acquire a permit for
each ton of emissions from a government auction or giveaway program.
Polluters then trade for permits in a carbon market.
Such a market enables polluters that are able to reduce their
emissions relatively cheaply to sell allowances to other polluters that
are unable to do so, thereby establishing a market price for carbon.
The program creates an incentive for polluting facilities to implement
the most cost-effective emissions reduction options and, by putting a
price on global warming pollution, encourages investments in new
low-carbon technologies.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
“Not merely negative-number-so-what unpopular, but worst-ever-support-for-war-when-it-started unpopular.”
President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran is historically unpopular among US voters.
In an analysis published Friday, polling expert G. Elliott Morris calculated an average of eight high-quality polls conducted over the last week about the war and found just 38% of Americans approve of the military strikes against Iran, while 49% are opposed.
Morris noted that there is simply no precedent for a US war being this unpopular from the very outset.
"The big takeaway from these numbers is that the new war in Iran is very unpopular," he wrote. "Not merely negative-number-so-what unpopular, but worst-ever-support-for-war-when-it-started unpopular. With just 38% of Americans in favor, support for bombing Iran is lower than retrospective support for the war in Iraq was in 2014."
Morris then offered some comparisons to past US military conflicts to show that the lack of support for Trump's Iran war is simply in uncharted territory.
"No president in modern polling history has launched a major military operation with the public already against him," he wrote. "After the September 11 attacks, a November 2001 Gallup poll found 90% of Americans approved of military action in Afghanistan, with just 5% opposed. The Gulf War in 1991 hit 79-80% approval. Gallup measured 76% support for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Pew had it at 71%)."
Even comparatively unpopular operations, such as Trump's strikes against Syria in 2017 or former President Barack Obama's 2011 military operation in Libya, still had net-positive approvals at the times they occurred.
Morris added that Trump should be concerned about this because historically "wars only get less popular" over time as "casualties mount and costs become clear."
CBS News polling director Anthony Salvanto on Tuesday also highlighted this phenomenon when analyzing a poll on the Iran war commissioned by his network that showed US voters' support for the conflict dropped precipitously the longer they believed it would last.
"If you think it's going to be a long conflict, months, even years... the numbers tilt toward disapproval overall," he said.
The longer Americans believe the conflict in Iran will last, the more they disapprove, a new CBS News poll finds. Half the country believes it'll be months, or even years before it's over. CBS News' @SalvantoCBS breaks down the new findings. https://t.co/KyjZB3PriP pic.twitter.com/N4yXnlKgLS
— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 3, 2026
Trump so far has not offered any kind of timeline for his war against Iran, and Politico reported on Wednesday that the US military is preparing for the conflict to last until at least September.
Trump on Friday insisted he would not end the conflict with Iran until its government offered its "unconditional surrender."
The president has stacked a planning commission with three of his staffers, but organizers hailed a "huge victory" Thursday after the panel delayed a vote following an outpouring of public opposition.
President Donald Trump has gone to significant lengths to ensure the 90,000-square-foot, $400 million ballroom he wants to replace the East Wing of the White House with is constructed swiftly—appointing his own associates and staffers to key commissions that must approve the project.
But even under the leadership of chairman Will Scharf, Trump's former personal lawyer and the White House staff secretary, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on Thursday was forced to delay a planned vote on approving the ballroom until April 2—unable to ignore tens of thousands of public comments that have poured in denouncing the proposed ballroom as well as a parade of dozens of people who showed up at the commission's meeting to express opposition.
Scharf “cited the expected length of testimony from the more than 100 people who had signed up to say what they thought of the project, which he said might require the meeting to stretch into Friday," reported the Washington Post.
A longtime architect, David Scott Parker, told the panel that he had "grave concerns" about the exaggerated size of the planned ballroom, which "is nearly three times the original White House, in violation of classical architecture principles mandating balance.”
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, told the commission—which also includes two other White House staffers, deputy chief of staff James Blair and chief statistician Stuart Levenbach—that the proposed ballroom "is disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterized presidential events for centuries,” while Kyle Rowan, who described himself as an "ordinary citizen," had a succinct criticism.
“It’s ugly,” Rowan told the commissioners. “It’s too much.”
Just one speaker out of 30 expressed approval of the project.
The critics who arrived at the commission's meeting in person represented just a fraction of the criticism that has inundated officials since the panel began collecting public comments on the proposed ballroom.
More than 35,000 comments were sent in, and a New York Times artificial intelligence-powered analysis of the responses found that 98% of them were negative. The Post also used AI to determine that more than 97% of the comments were critical, and measured that finding against a sampling of comments that were manually checked.
Some of the remarks alluded to Trump's plan to fund the ballroom construction through private donations, which he has insisted will benefit taxpayers—but which Democratic lawmakers and government watchdogs have warned is an example of blatant corruption, as companies with billions of dollars in federal contracts, including Amazon, Google, and Palantir, are among the donors.
"I am sick that Trump has torn down the East Wing of the People’s House, our house, and plans to build a monstrosity ballroom funded by not 'We the People' but by corrupt, out of touch, unaccountable to anyone, billionaires. It is beyond sickening," wrote a commenter named Donna Smith.
Julie Mason added that the ballroom plan has "opened the door to excessive corruption by the president and his billionaire backers through quid pro quo," and a South Carolina resident named Barbara Bryant added that the "financing of the project is perhaps its most troubling aspect."
"The $400 million private corporate donation scheme is a blatant attempt to evade congressional oversight," Bryant wrote. "By allowing corporations with active business before the government to fund a presidential vanity project, the administration has created a fertile ground for corruption, turning a national landmark into a billboard for private interests."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed without evidence on Thursday that the public comments "are clearly stemming from an organized campaign of Trump-deranged liberals who clearly have no style or taste."
"It’s a shame that some people in this country are so debilitated with Trump derangement syndrome, they can’t even recognize or respect beauty when they see it," said Leavitt.
An Economist-YouGov poll taken last month found that 58% of Americans opposed tearing down the East Wing to build the ballroom, while just 25% supported it.
The public comments echoed those of protesters who assembled outside the NCPC's offices on Thursday at a demonstration organized by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The group has closely followed Trump's decision to staff the commission with his own administration officials and the "myriad of conflicts of interest concerns" that have arisen as wealthy corporations have lined up to fund the ballroom.
Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate for Public Citizen who testified at the NCPC meeting Thursday, noted that one federal judge had accused the Trump administration of erecting a "Rube Goldberg contraption" to collect donations from "corporations, billionaires, and an unknown number of secret donors" while evading "congressional and public oversight and [shielding] the donors and recipients of the money from scrutiny."
“According to news reports, the expectation is that those names will be etched on the White House as part of the ballroom's brick or stone," said Golinger. "It is outrageous that the Trump administration would engrave the names of corporations with government contracts who gave them checks on the White House like a big tacky advertising billboard. I urge NCPC to explicitly prohibit them from doing so.”
At the meeting, Golinger condemned Trump's decision to stack the commission with his own staffers and said Scharf, Blair, and Levenbach lack the legally required experience in city or regional planning to sit on the panel.
“The fix is in for this project and this vote,” said Golinger.
Scharf argued he is qualified for the position due to his past work in the Missouri governor's office.
At the protest, Golinger said the commission's decision to delay the vote on the ballroom was a "huge victory," considering Trump has filled the commission with his "cronies."
"Public pressure has mattered," he said. "It's not the end of the fight, no doubt they're going to come back and try to ram it through next time, but this [delay] isn't something I even conceived."
"Both practically and politically, a vote to fund the war is a vote for the war—a war Americans cannot afford and do not want."
Democratic members of Congress are facing renewed pressure to oppose any Trump administration funding requests to help bankroll its illegal, open-ended war on Iran after congressional Republicans—along with a handful of pro-war Democrats—voted this week to defeat efforts to end the assault, which is costing US taxpayers roughly $1 billion per day.
In a statement after House Republicans and four Democrats voted down an Iran war powers resolution late Thursday, the ACLU implored Congress "to use its funding authority to block all supplemental funding requests for war funding from the Department of Defense while President Trump is engaging in this unconstitutional war."
"Without Congress authorizing additional funds, the military will simply run out of money to spend on the war," the group added.
The Trump administration is reportedly crafting a $50 billion supplemental funding request aimed at financing its war, which has killed more than 1,000 Iranians and counting. Politico reported Thursday that Republicans are "debating whether to attach wildfire aid and $15 billion in tariff relief for farmers" to the supplemental funding measure in an effort to attract Democratic support.
The National Priorities Project (NPP) has noted that $50 billion would be enough to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for a year, restore federal nutrition assistance to millions who are set to lose it due to the Trump-GOP budget law, and expand Medicaid to nearly 2 million people.
"The question isn’t whether the money exists—it's what we choose to spend it on," NPP's Alliyah Lusuegro and Lindsay Koshgarian wrote Thursday. "There’s never been a better time to call your members of Congress. We need to oppose this war before it’s too late."
"Any member of Congress who rubber stamps another dime for this war of choice should expect to hear from our members."
Some Senate Democrats—including Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee—have not ruled out voting for a possible supplemental funding bill for the Pentagon, even as the annual US military budget cleared $1 trillion.
“We have to look at what they need,” Reed said earlier this week. “Some of it might be to fill in critical issues and other theaters of war they’ve taken things from.”
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told HuffPost that she "would like to understand the goals of the war before I decide how I feel about the funding of the war."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Thursday that "both practically and politically, a vote to fund the war is a vote for the war—a war Americans cannot afford and do not want."
The progressive advocacy group MoveOn said its members "consider a vote for the supplemental a vote in favor of Donald Trump's war."
"Any member of Congress who rubber stamps another dime for this war of choice should expect to hear from our members," the group added.
To break the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate, Republicans would need at least seven Democrats to cross the aisle.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) expressed emphatic opposition to the floated supplemental funding bill in a social media post on Thursday.
"I’m a hell no on funding for Trump’s illegal, disastrous Iran War," Murphy wrote.