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.
After half a year of delay, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe
Lieberman (I-Conn.) are set to release their nuclear
energy/cap-and-trade bill today. Until we see legislative text, we can
comment only on the broad outline made available yesterday and an
additional summary being circulated among legislative staff.
It's not accurate to call this a climate bill. This is nuclear
energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting
legislation with a weak carbon-pricing mechanism thrown in. What's
worse, it guts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current
authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air
Act.
Here's our take on what we know is in the new bill:
Nuclear Power Incentives
At its core, this legislation is all about promoting nuclear power
and handing taxpayers the bill. Consider:
- Sections 1101 and 1105 would prioritize the needs of nuclear power
corporations over the rights of citizens to have full, public hearings
about the risks and dangers of locating nuclear power plants in their
communities.
- Section 1102 increases loan guarantees primarily for nuclear power to a
jaw-dropping $54 billion. These loans are a terrible deal for the
taxpayer, especially considering the high risk of default that even the
government acknowledges.
- Section 1103 provides $6 billion in taxpayer-subsidized risk insurance
for 12 new nuclear reactors.
- Section 1121 allows nuclear power plant owners to write off their
depreciation much faster. Section 1121 provides a 10 percent investment
tax credit for new reactors.
- Section 1123 extends the Advanced Energy Project credit to nuclear
reactors.
- Section 1124-6 allows municipal power agencies to derive certain tax,
bond and grant benefits from investing in nuclear power.
Oil
Apparently oblivious to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the
legislation expands offshore drilling. In fact, all new offshore
drilling, leasing and permitting should be halted.
Section 1202 allows states to keep 37.5 percent of oil and gas
royalty money. That's like saying because more rich people live in
California and New York compared to Mississippi and New Mexico, those
higher-income states should be able to keep more federal dollars raised
from income taxes. Royalty revenue sharing is patently unfair -
especially because the disaster in Gulf shows that an oil spill does not
respect state boundaries.
Coal
Section 1412 establishes a carbon tax paid by ratepayers and collected
by utilities to fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) - with no money
allocated to rooftop solar or energy efficiency investments. Section
1431 will provide valuable emissions allowances for free to coal
utilities pursuing CCS - an untested, risky strategy that benefits the
coal industry and is gobbling up a lion's share of subsidies that
otherwise could go to renewable energy development.
Merchant coal power plants (whose rates are not regulated) will get
roughly 5 percent of the free allowances, which will provide
opportunities for them to gouge consumers.
And while the nuclear and coal industries will receive a lot of
taxpayer money and loan guarantees, Section 1604 states that "voluntary"
renewable energy markets are "efficient and effective programs" and
states that "the policy of the United States is to continue to support
the growth of these markets." This is backward: Renewable energy should
be getting the guarantees, rather than the coal and nuclear industries.
Offsets
The legislation allows entities to "reduce" their domestic greenhouse
gas emissions by purchasing offsets from projects located in the U.S.
and around the world. The recent offset crisis in Europe, where the
offset market collapsed due to fraud, underscores the lack of
accountability and transparency with offsets.
Consumer Protections
Rather than follow President Barack Obama's cap-and-dividend plan, which
would have required polluters to pay and would have distributed 80
percent of the money directly to families through the Making Work Pay
tax credit, or the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act, which calls for
distributing monthly checks to households, the Kerry-Lieberman approach
relies on distributing valuable free allowances to utilities from
2013-2029, then requiring that utilities use the money "exclusively for
the benefit of the ratepayers." But Congress won't be defining
"benefit"; rather, 50 different state utility commissions will. Some
will do a great job, but most will allow utilities to structure
expensive energy efficiency programs that benefit shareholders more than
ratepayers.
Wall Street
It appears that Wall Street may not have gotten everything it wanted -
yet. The legislation appears to incorporate elements of S.1399,
sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which creates an Office
of Carbon Market Oversight at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC), giving the agency authority to regulate spot and futures
emission markets. It requires all entities seeking to trade emissions
derivatives to register and be approved by the CFTC, and all
transactions must be cleared through a CFTC-regulated Carbon Clearing
Organization. This is a good start to ensure that Wall Street plays no
role in gambling on climate policy.
Danger remains, however, in creating carbon trading markets open to
non-energy producers. Strong regulations in place today may be easily
subverted tomorrow, leaving Wall Street positioned to control our
climate future.
Conclusion
The Kerry-Lieberman bill represents a missed opportunity. By meeting
behind closed doors, the lawmakers empowered corporate polluters to play
an oversized role in influencing the legislation to the detriment of
the climate and consumers. President Obama had it right when he
successfully campaigned on a theme of making polluters pay and
delivering benefits directly to households.
We need a bill that does not incentivize failed and dangerous
technologies like nuclear power and does not enrich utilities at the
expense of consumers.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"They are leveraging this platform to share untruths about vaccines to scare people," said one doctor Kennedy fired from the panel.
Health officials working under Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may seek to restrict access to the Covid-19 vaccine for people under 75 years old.
The Washington Post reported Friday that the officials plan to justify the move by citing reports from an unverified database to make the claim that the shots caused the deaths of 25 children.
The reports come from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a federal database that allows the public to submit reports of negative reactions to vaccines. As the Post explains, VAERS "contains unverified reports of side effects or bad experiences with vaccines submitted by anyone, including patients, doctors, pharmacists, or even someone who sees a report on social media."
As one publicly maintained database of "Batshit Crazy VAERS Adverse Events" found, users have reported deaths and injuries resulting from gunshot wounds, malaria, drug overdoses, and countless other unrelated causes as possible cases of vaccine injury.
As Beth Mole wrote for ARS Technica, "The reports are completely unverified upon submission, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention staff follow up on serious reports to try to substantiate claims and assess if they were actually caused by a vaccine. They rarely are."
Nevertheless, HHS officials plan to use these VAERS reports on pediatric deaths in a presentation to the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) next week as the panel considers revising federal vaccine guidelines.
One person familiar with the matter told the Post that HHS officials attempted to interview some of the families who claimed their child died from the vaccine, but it is unclear how many were consulted and what other information was used to verify their claims.
In June, Kennedy purged that panel of many top vaccine experts, replacing them with prominent anti-vaccine activists, after previously promising during his confirmation hearing to keep the panel intact.
The Food and Drug Administration under Kennedy has already limited access to the Covid-19 vaccine. Last month, it authorized the vaccines only for those 65 and over who are known to be at risk of serious illness from Covid-19 infections.
While the vaccine is technically available to others, the updated guidance has created significant barriers, such as the potential requirement of a doctor's prescription and out-of-pocket payment, making it much harder for many to receive the shot.
The Post reports that ACIP is considering restricting access to the vaccination further, by recommending it only for those older than 75. It is weighing multiple options for those 74 and younger—potentially requiring them to consult with their doctor first, or not recommending it at all unless they have a preexisting condition.
Prior to the wide availability of Covid-19 vaccinations beginning in 2021, the illness killed over 350,000 people in the US. And while the danger of death from Covid-19 does increase with age, CDC data shows that from 2020 to 2023, nearly 47% of the over 1.1 million deaths from the illness occurred in people under 75.
According to the World Health Organization, the US reported 822 deaths from Covid over a 28-day period in July and August this year, vastly more deaths than anywhere else in the world. CDC data reported to ACIP in June shows that Covid deaths were lower among all age groups—including children—who received the mRNA vaccine.
Nicole Brewer, one of the vaccine advisers eliminated by Kennedy, lamented that Kennedy and his new appointees are ignoring the dangers of Covid-19 while amplifying the comparatively much lower risk posed by vaccines.
"They are leveraging this platform to share untruths about vaccines to scare people," she told the Post. “The U.S. government is now in the business of vaccine misinformation.”
ACIP is also reportedly mulling the rollback of guidelines for other childhood vaccines for deadly diseases like measles, Hepatitis B, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV).
While ACIP's guidelines are not legally binding, the Post writes that its meeting next week "is critical because the recommendations determine whether insurers must pay for the immunizations, pharmacies can administer them, and doctors are willing to offer them."
"If you haven't gotten your updated Covid vaccine by now, book an appointment fast before next week's ACIP meeting," warned Dr. David Gorski, the editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine. "After that, you might not be able to get one."
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” said one free speech advocate.
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about a bill in the US House of Representatives that they fear could allow Secretary of State Marco Rubio to strip US citizens of their passports based purely on political speech.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), will come up for a hearing on Wednesday. According to The Intercept:
Mast’s new bill claims to target a narrow set of people. One section grants the secretary of state the power to revoke or refuse to issue passports for people who have been convicted—or merely charged—of material support for terrorism...
The other section sidesteps the legal process entirely. Rather, the secretary of state would be able to deny passports to people whom they determine “has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.”
Rubio has previously boasted of stripping the visas and green cards from several immigrants based purely on their peaceful expression of pro-Palestine views, describing them as "Hamas supporters."
These include Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after Rubio voided his green card; and Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts student whose visa Rubio revoked after she co-wrote an op-ed calling for her school to divest from Israel.
Mast—a former soldier for the Israel Defense Forces who once stated that babies were "not innocent Palestinian civilians"—has previously called for "kicking terrorist sympathizers out of our country," speaking about the Trump administration's attempts to deport Khalil, who was never convicted or even charged with support for a terrorist group.
Critics have argued that the bill has little reason to exist other than to allow the Secretary of State to unilaterally strip passports from people without them actually having been convicted of a crime.
As Kia Hamadanchy, a senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, noted in The Intercept, there is little reason to restrict people convicted of terrorism or material support for terrorism, since—if they were guilty—they'd likely be serving a long prison sentence and incapable of traveling anyway.
“I can’t imagine that if somebody actually provided material support for terrorism, there would be an instance where it wouldn’t be prosecuted—it just doesn’t make sense,” he said.
Journalist Zaid Jilani noted on X that "judges can already remove a passport over material support for terrorism, but the difference is you get due process. This bill would essentially make Marco Rubio judge, jury, and executioner."
The bill does contain a clause allowing those stripped of their passports to appeal to Rubio. But, as Hamadanchy notes, the decision is up to the secretary alone, "who has already made this determination." He said that for determining who is liable to have their visa stripped, "There's no standard set. There’s nothing."
As Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted in The Intercept, the language in Mast's bill is strikingly similar to that found in the so-called "nonprofit killer" provision that Republicans attempted to pass in July's "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act. That provision, which was ultimately struck from the bill, would have allowed the Treasury Secretary to unilaterally strip nonprofit status from anything he deemed to be a "terrorist-supporting organization."
Stern said Mast's bill would allow for "thought policing at the hands of one individual."
“Marco Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think and say,” he said, "even if what they say doesn’t include a word about a terrorist organization or terrorism."
"Trump explicitly threatened to use the state to target anyone he and MAGA scapegoat for Kirk's murder," said New Republic writer Greg Sargeant.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller vowed Friday that he and President Donald Trump would use this week's assassination of Charlie Kirk to "dismantle" the organized left using state power.
In a rant on Fox News, Miller—the architect of Trump's mass roundups and deportations of immigrants—shouted that the best way to honor Kirk's memory was to carry out a political purge against the left, which he called a "domestic terrorism movement in this country."
Miller provided few details on what specific left-wing figures or groups he believed were stoking this violence. He claimed the left was waging "doxxing campaigns" against right-wing figures, though he cited no specific examples.
He did, however, cite many examples of harsh, but nevertheless First Amendment-protected, speech that he considered an incitement to violence, including that "the left calls people enemies of the republic, calls them fascists, says they're Nazis, says they're evil," and claimed that many people online were "celebrating" Kirk's assassination.
"The last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his creator in heaven," Miller said, was, "that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence, and we are going to do that."
"Under President Trump's leadership," Miller vowed to shut down these unspecified leftist groups.
"I don't care how," he said. "It could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection. But we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, that are committing acts of wanton violence."
RICO refers to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which the government has traditionally used to prosecute organized crime groups. Trump later said one of his targets for these charges may be the billionaire liberal donor George Soros, the owner of the Open Society Foundations nonprofit, whom Trump accused of funding "riots," a charge Soros denied.
Miller did not limit his call to destroying those who commit crimes. He also spoke of those "spreading this evil hate," telling them, "You will live in exile. Because the power of law enforcement under President Trump's leadership will be used to find you, will be used to take away your money, to take away your power, and if you've broken the law, to take away your freedom."
An official White House account on X reposted a clip of Miller's comments calling for the "dismantling" of left-wing organizations:
"Trump signaled he intended to use Kirk's shooting as a pretext for a broad crackdown on the left," said Jordan Weissman, a journalist at The Argument. "Here's Stephen Miller being much more explicit. He's talking about RICO and terrorism charges, echoing right-wing influencers."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, meanwhile, pointed out the irony of the threat coming from Miller, noting that he "routinely slanders his political opponents with vile language that treats disagreement as if it’s treason."
Little is still known about what, if any, political ideology precisely motivated Kirk's alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, who was apprehended in Utah on Friday. Robinson was not affiliated with any political party, and the scrawlings he left behind at the scene of the crime contain a mishmash of hyper-online but only vaguely political symbols and phrases.
But even before the suspect had been identified or apprehended, efforts had begun on the right to use Kirk's murder as an excuse to crack down on their left-wing enemies. In an ominous speech Thursday night, Trump blamed the shooting on the "radical left," saying it was “directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now."
On Fox News Friday, Trump indicated that he was extending this dragnet to anyone who has expressed harsh words for figures on the right. The president said:
For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges and law enforcement officials.
(Graphic by The Economist, data from the Prosecution Project)
The portrayal of the left as a unique "national security threat" is not borne out by data. On Friday, The Economist published an analysis of data from the Prosecution Project, an open-source database that catalogues crimes that seek "a socio-political change or to communicate."
The findings reaffirm what has been found in previous studies: That "extremists on both left and right commit violence, although more incidents appear to come from right-leaning attackers."
During the same Fox interview, when a host noted the prevalence of right-wing extremism, Trump said: "I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They’re saying, ‘We don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centers. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street.’”
Trump concluded: “The radicals on the left are the problem.”
Meanwhile, virtually all prominent figures and groups on the left—from politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani to writers for left-wing publications like Jacobin or The Nation to activist groups like Public Citizen, MoveOn, the ACLU, and Indivisible—have unequivocally condemned violence against Kirk, even while repudiating his views.
"Trump explicitly threatened to use the state to target anyone he and MAGA scapegoat for Kirk's murder," said New Republic writer Greg Sargeant. "We really could see Stephen Miller and Kash Patel use the FBI for 60s-style domestic persecution."