I am the FIRST
regular 4 post ff
infinite scroll 4 pff
Elon Musk suspends Tesla purchases with bitcoin
Consumers can no longer buy Tesla vehicles with bitcoin, CEO Elon Musk announced on Twitter Wednesday.
What he's saying: Musk cited the environmental concerns associated with bitcoin — the cryptocurrency has a massive carbon footprint — as his reasoning behind Wednesday's decision.
"Tesla has suspended vehicle purchases using bitcoin," Musk said.
- "We are concerned about rapidly increasing use of fossil; fuels for bitcoin mining and transactions, especially coal, which has the worst emissions of any fuel."
- "Cryptocurrency is a good idea on many levels and we believe it has a promising future."
- "[W]e intend to use it as soon as mining transitions to more sustainable energy," he said, adding that Tesla is considering other cryptocurrencies that consume less energy.
Flashback: Musk in March approved the use of the cryptocurrency for Tesla purchases in the U.S. Some critics at the time said the move could tarnish the company's environmentally friendly image.
Our thought bubble, from Axios' Ina Fried: The energy issues related to Bitcoin have been long known and less energy consuming options have been available for some time.
Governors’ pandemic-fueled powers dissipate
Governors are seeing their pandemic-related broad reach and executive powers wane as the public health emergency subsides and the necessity for restrictions and emergency action ends.
Why it matters: Governors took on outsize roles from Maine to California as much of the burden fell to the states. In some, their powers are about to revert to the norm. In others, their expanded reach is triggering a re-examination of whether they should have such authority in the future.
- In Texas, led by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the state House and Senate have been deliberating laws that would move the needle away from the Executive Branch and toward the legislature in a future pandemic.
- In Connecticut, Gov. Ned Lamont’s expanded pandemic powers will be extended until mid-July.
- The Democrat's ability to enforce the waning number of COVID-related executive orders was set to lapse on May 20, local media reported.
Between the lines: Emergency situations often test the limits of executive reach, regardless of political party. And it’s usually met with opposition from the other side of the aisle.
- In the case of the pandemic, such sweeping executive powers allowed governors to close schools and businesses, apply mask mandates and issue stay-at-home orders.
- The totality of the measures has sparked debates in the states about the reach of gubernatorial power.
In Pennsylvania, voters will decide today whether the governor should continue to have the same powers that have been executed this past year.
- The vote effectively was a referendum on Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf's pandemic response — but at the same time, it will shape the extent of the governors’ power for the future, a Pennsylvania paper notes.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, another Democrat, has faced significant backlash in the exercise of his gubernatorial power.
- He is facing federal and state investigations, including one looking into his reporting of nursing home deaths during the pandemic.
- Such revelations have sparked bipartisan ire and prompted legislators to introduce a series of resolutions to revoke his executive orders.
- “The reality is we had this power to do this since Day One … when the governor was granted these unprecedented and unconstitutional executive powers,” New York state Sen. George Borrello, a Republican, said during a floor debate.
Of note: Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, entered the pandemic with polls consistently showing him as the most popular governor in the country.
- His reputation took hits as the state experienced troubles with its unemployment assistance computers and vaccine registration program.
- He rebounded as the state went on to be one of the nation's leaders in vaccination delivery.
- Baker announced this week he will end the pandemic state of emergency on June 15 — dissolving his sweeping emergency powers, Massachusetts Playbook author Lisa Kashinsky noted.
Earth's carbon dioxide levels hit 4.5 million-year high
The amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has reached its annual peak, climbing to 419 parts per million (ppm) in May, according to scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Why it matters: It's the highest CO2 reading since reliable instrument data began 63 years ago, but evidence shows it's also a peak since well before the start of human history.
- The rate of increase showed "no discernible impact" from the pandemic-induced economic slowdown, the scientists found.
- Carbon dioxide is a long-lived greenhouse gas emitted through human activities such as fossil-fuel burning, deforestation and agriculture.
Threat level: Not only is CO2 now at its highest levels in human history, but one would have to go all the way back beyond the beginning of human history — to the Pliocene Epoch, between 4.1 to 4.5 million years ago — to find a time when Earth's atmosphere held a similar amount of carbon.
- Data gleaned from ice core records and other indicators of what Earth was like at that time serve as a stark warning for our future on this planet, scientists say.
- Global average sea levels, for example, were nearly 80 feet higher during the Pliocene than they are today, while the global average temperature was about 7°F above the preindustrial era.
- Studies show that large forests were located in areas of the Arctic that are now home to tundra.
Quick take: The world first passed the 400 ppm threshold in 2013, but took just eight years to climb toward the 420 ppm mark. It's an indication of how countries are failing so far to bend the emissions curve dramatically downward in order to slow, and eventually reverse, global warming.
- The CO2 concentration figures may seem abstract, but they correspond to the risk of tipping points in the climate system that would have profound societal consequences, such as the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
- Numerous studies show that the lower CO2 concentrations are stabilized, the greater the chances that climate change will be more manageable for society and the planet's natural systems.
Details: The 1.8 ppm rate of increase from 2020 was slightly slower than other recent years, but within the range of natural variability.
- According to NOAA senior scientist Pieter Tans, the temporary pandemic-related dent in global carbon emissions got drowned out by natural variations that affect the rate at which carbon builds up in the air.
- Tans, as well as Ralph Keeling, who oversees the Mauna Loa observations from his post at Scripps, told Axios they were not surprised the pandemic, which caused a global emissions cut of about 7% in 2020, failed to slow or halt the growth of atmospheric CO2.
- They each said net carbon emissions have not declined significantly and for long enough to be noticeable. "As long as we keep emitting, CO2 will keep going up. And that's what we see. Even if we manage to freeze net emissions," Tans said, emphasizing the need to reach net-zero emissions as soon as possible.
What they're saying:
- Keeling told Axios that 420 ppm, which the planet is almost certain to exceed next year, is "a psychological threshold." He added, "We're moving deeper and deeper into a territory we almost certainly never would have wanted to get to."
- Tans emphasized the long-lived nature of CO2, with each molecule lasting in the air for as long as 1,000 years. "In terms of human civilization, these emissions are forever," he said, endorsing plans to drive emissions down to net zero as soon as possible.
Why infrastructure talks are setting climate advocates up for an anxious summer
Infrastructure talks between the White House and Congress have entered a phase that's making climate advocates extremely nervous.
Why it matters: Environmental groups and even some Democratic lawmakers are increasingly vocal with their fears that the White House will jettison central components of President Biden's climate plan during the talks, which could cause the U.S. to fall short of its new emissions targets.
Driving the news: The anxiety burst into the open following a statement that Biden's national climate adviser Gina McCarthy made to Politico on Tuesday, which pointed to the Clean Electricity Standard (CES) as one of the policies that might fall short.
- "While every piece like a clean electricity standard may not end [up] in the final version, we know that it is necessary, we know that the utilities want it, we are going to fight like crazy to make sure that it's in there," McCarthy said.
- "And then we're going to be open to a range of other investment strategies."
Zoom in: Biden's proposed CES would mandate that electric utilities generate 80% of their electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2030, with that figure hitting 100% by 2035.
- To backers of the policy, the CES is the most important policy in Biden's climate agenda. And some utilities are in favor of it.
- Although it's with some asterisks, the Edison Electric Institute, an investor-owned utility association, supports it as well.
- Proponents say a CES would have a ripple effect throughout the economy, making electric vehicles cleaner by connecting them to a renewable grid, for example.
The details: Biden has also proposed huge clean energy-related investments that advocates want to survive, but let's look at the CES...
- It would be difficult to accomplish Biden's ambitious emissions reduction targets without the CES, according to Leah Stokes, a political science professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Stokes sits on the advisory board of Evergreen Action, a group that supports the CES.
- "If you want to do 50% by 2030, you have to make progress in the electric power sector. The electric power sector is the most important sector for decarbonization. It's the first linchpin," Stokes told Axios, referring to the administration's overall climate goal of cutting emissions by 50 to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030.
- "It enables decarbonization in buildings, transportation, parts of heavy industry, it could enable up to potentially 75% economy-wide emissions reductions in carbon," she added.
The big picture: It's not just activists who are getting nervous watching the legislative clock tick down. Senate Democrats are increasingly staking their ground on climate, too.
- Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a stalwart climate advocate, has taken to Twitter to vent his concerns about watered down climate provisions.
I tweeted earlier this week about climate failure. Well, I’m still nervous. We must get Senate Dems unified on climate on a real reconciliation bill, lest we get sucked into “bipartisanship” mud where we fail on climate.
— Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) June 9, 2021
- So have Democratic Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Michael Bennet of Colorado, and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.(McCarthy sent a clarifying tweet of her own Wednesday.)
What we're watching: How any infrastructure bill or bills balances the thorny politics on Capitol Hill with the stark math of climate change will be one of the key stories to watch this summer.