St. Paul City Council advocates for a Green New Deal
Spurred on by students from Macalester College and other young people, the St. Paul City Council on Wednesday voted 6-0 to call on Congress to enact a 'Green New Deal.'
The resolution, authored with the help of the Sunrise Movement Twin Cities — the Macalester-based chapter of a national youth-led environmental movement — was sponsored by council members Saura Jost, HwaJeong Kim and Nelsie Yang.
Progressive politicians from U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein have called without success for a raft of federal environmental policies aimed at simultaneously combatting economic inequality and rising global temperatures.
St. Paul in 2019 adopted a 'Climate Action and Resiliency Plan' with the stated goals of carbon neutrality in city operations by 2030, a 50% reduction in citywide carbon emissions by 2030 and citywide carbon neutrality by 2050.
The resolution calls for the city to align its policies — including the 2050 Comprehensive Plan and a renewal of the existing Climate Action plan — with the values of a Green New Deal, in part by allocating future proceeds from utility-related franchise fees toward 'making St. Paul a more climate-resilient city.'
The resolution also calls for the city clerk to send copies of the resolution to U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, and U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum.
Politics | Downtown St. Paul's historic Commerce Building sold, but apartments will retain 'affordable' designation
Politics | St. Paul City Council to hear appeal of FCC Environmental trash truck site on March 19
Politics | Contest for St. Paul City Council's Ward 4 seat draws Cole Hanson, Molly Coleman, Cristen Incitti
Politics | St. Paul: Tree preservation ordinance on hold for 6 months
Politics | Letters: 'It doesn't cost anything to be nice to someone'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As Russia inches closer to Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, new Ukrainian region might soon be at war
Moscow said its troops had crossed into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and were conducting offensive operations in the region, a claim Kyiv quickly denied as 'Russian disinformation.' Russian troops have been pushing toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast for months, trying to solidify the southern flank to capture Pokrovsk and the remaining parts of the adjacent Donetsk Oblast. Western military experts who spoke to the Kyiv Independent said it was clear that Russian troops would eventually penetrate the southeastern region. But they didn't expect either side to throw 'a significant amount of forces' in this sector, as the capture of Donetsk Oblast remains Moscow's main objective. Emil Kastehelmi, an analyst at the Finland-based Black Bird Group, confirmed that geolocation shows Russian troops entered Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in recent days. Russian troops will likely advance 'at least somewhat' deeper in the coming months, though it won't change the overall dynamic of the front line, he added. Kastehelmi believes that Russian troops could try advancing northwest from the southern flank of Pokrovsk to encircle the city that is already penetrated from the southern and eastern sides. 'The Russians probably have understood that if they want to make a proper encirclement threat, they need to widen the flanks and then continue operations near Pokrovsk,' Kastehelmi told the Kyiv Independent. The Russian Defense Ministry said on June 8 that its troops were pushing forward in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — a region adjacent to Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts but have thus not seen combat actions. It added that the Russian military's 90th Guards Tank Division units had reached the western border of Donetsk Oblast and were thrusting forward into the industrial Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. The Ukrainian military immediately denied the claim, saying that the fighting continued inside Donetsk Oblast, calling Russia's claims 'disinformation.' The Ukrainian monitoring project DeepState has put the proximity of Russian troops to the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border at about two kilometers, yet painting that distance between the regional border and the alleged position of Russian troops as no man's land. The Kyiv Independent requested a comment to the General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces but has not heard back in time of publication. Even if militarily not as significant, the Russian penetration into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast would mean yet another Ukrainian region would be now a warzone. It could also help strengthen the Russian negotiation position as the U.S. continues to push both sides to hold peace talks to end the war at all costs. "If they [russians] find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Russia had begun its long-expected offensive in April but has only made limited gains since then, besides opening a new front in the northeastern Sumy Oblast by occupying a number of border villages there. Kastehelmi from the Black Bird Group said that the Ukrainian defense of Pokrovsk would be compromised if Russian troops are able to widen their flanks, which would enable them to bring their support elements forward. 'It can mean that they may be able in the summer to threaten the remaining supply routes to the city in a way which makes it even more dangerous for Ukrainian units,' Kastehelmi said. Kastehelmi added that it would be 'an operational success' for Moscow if it is able to first expand its flank westward toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast and then begin attacking northward, while also building on the eastern flank. But he stressed that Russian troops have not been the best at coordinating attacks, even if it looks 'doable' on paper. Jakub Janovsky, a Prague-based military analyst at the Oryx open-source project tracking Ukrainian and Russian equipment losses, said that it likely won't make 'any difference' if Russian troops advanced a kilometer or two into Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. He added that Russia appears to be continuing to rely heavily on small infantry group assaults, either on foot or motorcycles, thus decreasing the use of Soviet-era BMP fighting vehicles or tanks. 'It seems more likely that Russia will focus on Donetsk Oblast,' Janovsky told the Kyiv Independent. 'But it's entirely possible that if they find a weak spot, they will try to exploit it.' Read also: Inside Russia, calls for peace come with conditions — and Kremlin talking points We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
China's Petrochemical Reliance on U.S. Outweighs Rare Earth Trade
US petrochemical producers may have found themselves on the front line of global trade wars, BNEF reports, with China's dependence on the US for feedstocks (see "Chinese Plastics Factories Face Mass Closure As US Ethane Supply Evaporates") blunting the impact of its dominations of exports of rare earth metals. China imported more than 565,000 barrels per day of petrochemical feedstocks from the US in 2024 according to the Energy Information Administration, with a value of over $4.7 billion. That dwarfed the $170 million of rare earths the US imported last year, about 70% of which came from China, according to the US Geological Survey. The figures show the dependence the US and China have developed on each other by ever tightening trade links over the past few decades. While China has a tight grip on refining many metals crucial for industry, it also takes in niche chemicals from the US that are difficult to buy elsewhere. China leans on naphtha to produce most base chemicals, which are processed further to end up in everyday items like electronics and clothing. However, some plants can switch to cheaper propane when the economics make sense, which they do regularly. Propane dehydrogenation plants however can't process alternatives like naphtha. The US accounted for over half of all China's propane imports in 2024. US producers have looked to China to buy their ballooning volumes of feedstock, the market value of which has almost quadrupled since 2020. China accounts for almost half of all new mixed-feed ethylene and propylene production capacity set to come online globally over the next four years, based on data compiled by BloombergNEF. A forced divorce The honeymoon period may be about to end. Following the implementation of tariffs by President Donald Trump's administration in April, China retaliated with its own on US imports — including a 125% tariff on feedstocks like propane and ethane. The duty effectively killed the economics of importing US feedstocks. Alternative sources of propane may be hard or expensive to come by, with producers in the Middle East sending most of their supplies to India, South Korea and Japan. While some rerouting could take place, Middle Eastern players could use the lack of alternatives for China's propane dehydrogenation plants to charge a premium. China's propane dehydrogenation operators, like Hengli Petrochemical, have already suffered from weak margins over the past years. Many may opt to shut their operations temporarily. A messy settlement China moved quickly to remove tariffs on US ethane as trade talks commenced. However, while China seems willing to buy US ethane, the US administration may no longer allow it. Enterprise Products Partners — the largest US-based exporter of petrochemical feedstocks — received a notice on Wednesday from the Bureau of Industry and Security at the US Department of Commerce, denying licenses to export ethane to China on the basis that such flows 'pose an unacceptable risk of use in or diversion to a 'military end use' in China.' Energy Transfer received a similar communication. China's ethane cracking capacity is dwarfed by its capacity to process naphtha and propane, but almost all of its ethane imports come from the US. The restrictions will have a significant impact on the Lianyungang and Tianjin plants, owned by Satellite Chemical, Sinopec and INEOS. SP Chemicals, a Singapore-based producer, sources most of its feedstock from Enterprise Products Partners. As the trade war continues, it appears commodities may lead the confrontation, with players on both sides set to feel the pain. By More Top Reads From this article on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Panama Ports Buyers Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The consortium seeking to finalize a $23 billion deal to acquire dozens of ports from Hong Kong-based port operator CK Hutchison has reportedly held in-person discussions with China's antitrust regulator in recent weeks as the transaction remains in limbo. According to a report from the Financial Times, the talks came as Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) and BlackRock are exploring options to ensure China's State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) approves the acquisition in some form. More from Sourcing Journal US Pushes Global Partners for Trade Deals by Wednesday Trade Truce Crumbles as China Says US Violated Terms TuSimple Reportedly Shared Self-Driving Data With China The report indicates that the parties are discussing amendments that they hoped would satisfy the respective presidents of the U.S. and China—Donald Trump and Xi Jinping—amid their ongoing trade war. CK Hutchison supposedly has mulled a sale of some or all of its remaining 10 ports in China, separate from the existing deal. The report said that transaction was unlikely to occur until the MSC-BlackRock deal was complete. When the initial deal was first announced, all eyes were on the transfer of two ports on opposite sides of the Panama Canal from CK Hutchison to the BlackRock-MSC consortium. Hutchison can still opt to delay the Panama port sale. That part of the transaction came after weeks of rhetoric from Trump, who had repeatedly cited he wanted to 'take back' the Panama Canal. Concerns over Chinese influence over the waterway were a central sticking point in Trump's threats, with Washington considering Hutchison's ownership of the canal-adjacent Balboa and Cristobal ports a threat to U.S. national security. In the March announcement, CK Hutchison co-managing director Frank Sixt insisted that the acquisition of subsidiary Panama Ports Company, which operates the Balboa and Cristobal ports, was 'purely commercial in nature and wholly unrelated to recent political news reports.' But China's reaction to Hutchison's sale to a U.S.-headquartered asset management giant and the world's largest container shipping company suggested otherwise. National state media had gone on record to post their gripes with the deal, calling it 'spineless kneeling' and 'profit-seeking.' Additionally, reports had indicated that President Xi was angered over the transaction since Hutchison did not ask for approval of the deal in advance. Although the transaction was initially expected to be signed on April 2, the date went by without the ports changing hands. That portion of the deal would have shifted control of 43 global ports over to the consortium, with the two Panama ports handed over on a separate deadline. The Panamanian government also needs to approve the second part of the agreement. SAMR said after the sale's reported postponement that it would vet the deal. After an April report indicated that MSC's founding Aponte family had considered separating the Panama ports from the deal altogether, the regulator publicly warned CK Hutchison against a split as a means to circumvent antitrust review. Separating the Panama ports would ultimately require the parties to reach a new agreement. The BlackRock-MSC consortium and Hutchison are still under a 145-day exclusive negotiating window that lasts until late July. During CK Hutchison's annual meeting on May 22, the company put out a statement in rebuttal to SAMR, saying 'it is absolutely impossible for this transaction to take place in any unlawful or non-compliant circumstances.' At the meeting, Hutchison co-managing director Dominic Lai confirmed that MSC would be the main investor in the ports acquisition, and that his own firm would cooperate with Chinese authorities. Lai said during the meeting that the deal is subject to multiple reviews by different authorities, and reiterated the company's position that the group won't proceed with the sale until it obtains all necessary approvals. The Financial Times report said Hutchison could potentially bring in other investors or participants to amend the deal, including terminal operator DP World and Chinese ocean carrier Cosco Shipping. It remains unclear what roles either would have in a potential deal or possible agreement. While so much focus of the deal has been widened based on interests of the U.S. and China, Panama has had its own scrutiny of CK Hutchison and its prior agreement to run the canal-adjacent ports. Following the conclusion of a three-month audit, Panama's comptroller general said the Hong Kong conglomerate owed the country's government $300 million based on a contract breach. Hutchison subsidiary Panama Ports Company has denied the allegations. Others in Panama's government have been critical of Hutchison's operation of the two ports, with attorney general Luis Carlos Gómez finding in March that the 25-year contract extension signed in 2021 was unconstitutional. Panama's Supreme Court has yet to rule on the finding. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
