Flawed Energy Pragmatism Invites Defeat on Climate Change
The call to be pragmatic is inherently an instruction to give something up — a view, a demand, an ambition. Yet pragmatism is a bit like pornography: self-defined. Take the high-stakes debate over the energy transition, where both sides claim the mantle of realist.
Enter Daniel Yergin. The Pulitzer-winning author of oil history The Prize and master of ceremonies at CERAWeek, the world's preeminent energy conference, has just co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs titled ' The Troubled Energy Transition.' Sub-head: 'How to find a pragmatic path forward.' Yergin's credentials are impeccable and the title is uncontroversial. The problem arises with that sub-head on pragmatism, largely because of what gets left out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
39 minutes ago
- Axios
The U.S.-China leverage game
Negotiations usually boil down to leverage — specifically, who has more of it. In the U.S.- China talks underway Monday in London, the question of who has the upper hand boils down to macro- versus micro-economics. The big picture: A slew of data out of China shows the massive cost that U.S. tariffs impose on the Chinese economy, reflecting both underlying economic weakness and what the nation stands to lose if no trade peace is reached. The U.S., meanwhile, has had a run of perfectly solid macroeconomic data, but has much to lose if China continues throttling supplies of rare earth minerals and other specific goods that U.S. industries desperately need. State of play: All is not well for the fundamentals of China's economy, and plunging trade with the U.S. exacerbated those problems. Chinese exports to the U.S. fell 34.5% in May from a year ago, according to Chinese National Bureau of Statistics data out Monday. Its imports from the U.S. also fell, by 18%. Consumer prices fell for the fourth consecutive month, the bureau said, while producer prices fell the most in nearly two years. The mix of moribund export activity and falling prices compounds the nation's challenges grappling with a property bust and debt overhang. Yes, but: That might make Chinese negotiators eager to make a deal. After all, the nation's leadership views maintaining stable economic conditions and good living standards as crucial for their own hold on power, and collapsing exports to the U.S. undermine that goal. But they have plenty of leverage of their own, tied to U.S. reliance on very specific Chinese exports. Reality check: China's power in this standoff is tied to its ability to restrict exports of rare earth minerals, certain electronics, and pharmaceuticals. By throttling a handful of export categories, China can potentially exact damage on the U.S. economy that's far larger than the dollar value of the lost trade flows. Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, argued in an influential essay this spring that this means China has "escalation dominance," the power to escalate or de-escalate according to its goals. What they're saying: "The United States gets vital goods from China that cannot be replaced any time soon or made at home at anything less than prohibitive cost," Posen wrote in Foreign Affairs. In the event of aggressive escalation, he wrote, the U.S. "will face shortages of critical inputs ranging from basic ingredients of most pharmaceuticals to inexpensive semiconductors used in cars and home appliances to critical minerals for industrial processes including weapons production." The intrigue: The Wall Street Journal reported Monday morning that President Trump has authorized his negotiating team to loosen export restrictions on jet engines and other products as part of the talks, citing people familiar.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Billie Eilish's brother Finneas tear-gassed at Los Angeles immigration protests, accuses National Guard of ‘inciting' violence
Singer-songwriter and producer Finneas has claimed he was tear-gassed by the National Guard at a protest in Downtown Los Angeles. The 27-year-old Oscar and Grammy-winning artist — and older brother of pop star Billie Eilish — was among thousands protesting the immigration raids over the weekend. 'Tear gassed almost immediately at the very peaceful protest downtown — they're inciting this,' Finneas wrote on his Instagram Story Sunday night. Earlier, he had shared choice words with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), writing: 'F*** ICE.' He also reshared posts directly calling out the National Guard and Active Duty military that read: If you are 'being ordered to violate the Constitution rights of US citizens then this is the number to the GI Rights Hotline. There is support, you don't have to go through with it.' In another post, the 'For Cryin' Out Loud' singer reshared a warning from TV producer Travis Helwig about the media coverage of the protests. 'In the coming days, the national media is gonna call LA a war zone. But the truth is, the folks protesting today were worried about their friends, their neighbors, and their community,' Helwig's message said. 'A few idiots will throw a rock and it'll take over the entire narrative. But just know LA is afraid right now because their coworkers were kidnapped at work. Because the guy who sold them dinner was snatched by masked men. And because a bunch of neighbors' parents straight up never came home.' It continued: 'As Trump gleefully escalates this with the National Guard, violence is inevitable. But just know this protest started from a place of protection. A place of love.' Protests first erupted on Friday after ICE officers began conducting raids at multiple locations. One search was executed outside a clothing warehouse in the Fashion District after a judge found probable cause that the employer was using fictitious documents for some of its workers, according to representatives for Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S Attorney's Office. Crowds tried to stop ICE agents from driving away following the arrests. Another protest was sparked outside a federal building in downtown LA, after demonstrators discovered detainees were allegedly being held in the basement of the building. The following day, President Donald Trump deployed at least 2,000 National Guard troops to LA. 'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!' he wrote on Truth Social. California Governor Newsom disagreed with Trump's involvement of the National Guard, writing on social media that the 'federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' He added deployment is 'the wrong mission and will erode public trust.' The state National Guard, usually mobilized by the governor, has not been activated by a president since 1965. Newsom said Monday that California will sue the Trump administration. 'He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard,' Newsom said of Trump on X.
