Congress's Fight Over Trump's Agenda Runs Through Alaska
Twice a month, planes land on the gravel airstrip in Noatak, Alaska, about 70 miles north of the Arctic Circle, carrying the diesel that residents need to heat their homes in the bitter cold.
And once a month, they receive electricity bills four times higher than those for most of the rest of the country that include two separate charges: one for the cost of the energy itself, and another for the cost of the fuel used to fly it there.
'The fuel cost is the thing that kills,' Bessie Monroe, 56, who works as an assistant to the village's tribal administrator, said as she pulled up her bill. Even though she supplements the heat from her generator with a wood-burning stove — and can still sometimes feel the chill of wind through one of her walls — Ms. Monroe has paid roughly $250 a month for electricity for her small one-bedroom house this winter. Image Bessie Monroe in her kitchen in Noatak. Ms. Monroe's electric bill has been about $250 a month this winter. Even with an oil heater, she sometimes feels the cold seep through the walls of her one-bedroom home.
So a few years ago, in an effort to build a local source of electricity and save residents money, the Inupiat village of 500 worked with its utility company to install a small farm of solar panels. And when Congress approved new tax credits for clean energy projects in 2022 through the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the village saw an opportunity to buy more.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Maddow Says the ‘Interesting Question' About Trump Is ‘What the Country Lets Him Get Away With'
Rachel Maddow belittled Donald Trump on Monday night whilechatting with her MSNBC colleague Lawrence O'Donnell, declaring that Trump's latest 'dictator' actions have made him 'very boring.' Not that she argued the current situation isn't serious, only that Trump is acting like, as she joked, a blonde copy of the extremely corrupt former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. But Maddow also clarified that the 'really interesting question' about all of this is 'what the country lets him get away with. The comment came up at the start of 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell,' as the duo discussed how Trump's current actions — calling in the national guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom to quell lawful protests — are the exact opposite of what he said he could legally do in 2020 during the George Floyd protests. At that time, Trump said it would be unlawful for him to do so without a request of a state governor. 'I mean the difference,' Maddow said, is that 'he's decided that he's throwing it all out. You know, 'dictator on day from day one,' and you know, going to terminate parts of the Constitution. And he's decided that he doesn't matter what Congress does, and it doesn't matter what the courts do, that he's just the strong man he's going to be.' 'He's decided to throw out all the rules,' Maddow continued. 'The thing that that has done, as far as I'm concerned, is make him very boring, because it's like it's all on the table. We know exactly what he's doing. We know exactly what his intentions are. He's blonde Berlusconi. This is, I mean, he's just trying to do the same thing all the other strongmen and would be dictators do all over the country. I think the really interesting question is, what the country lets him get away with, and we're seeing a really interesting test of that right now, all over the country, especially this week.' Later in the discussion, Maddow argued that the issue isn't that Trump has changed his mind over what he can and cannot legally do, it's that 'we can probably intuit that what he's being told is, 'yeah, it's illegal, therefore, go do it.' I think that the more laws he breaks, the more blatantly unconstitutional things he both proposes and tries, I think the more they think power accrues to him, because he's less constrained by things that don't actually stop him.' 'And so ultimately, I mean, the courts are pushing him back. Congress, to a certain extent, is pushing him back a little bit, although I think a little bit more than they're giving credit for, but mostly it's people pushing him back. He's deeply, deeply, deeply unpopular and underwater on every issue, and he is absolutely panicked by the protests against him, to the point where he's already playing the biggest cards that he's gotten. He's not even six months into this term. I just think, I think we're getting the test really early, and I think that he's failing.' Maddow later noted that Trump's rhetoric and response to the protests is vastly out of proportion with the scope of them, but 'even if these protests were 100 times the size that they are, there still wouldn't be an operational reason to bring in active duty troops or federalized National Guard. I mean, it's just, it's not, it's not that sort of thing. This is obviously not operationally necessitated, right, in terms of the security of the city. He's doing this because he's panicking and thinks that he looks weak, and therefore he has to do something that seems strong.' 'And so we will have tanks destroying the streets of Washington this Saturday, and we will have National Guardsmen and active duty US Marines standing around Los Angeles, wondering what their what this has to do with their military careers. And it's all because he has no freaking idea how to deal with this politically. And he's absolutely panicking about the, I think, trenchant and joyful and sustainable opposition against him.' Maddow added. Watch the whole conversation below: The post Rachel Maddow Says the 'Interesting Question' About Trump Is 'What the Country Lets Him Get Away With'| Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House approves pair of resolutions condemning antisemitic attack in Colorado
The House on Monday approved a pair of resolutions condemning the antisemitism attack in Boulder, Co., as the chamber looks to crack down on the spate of incidents targeting Jewish individuals. The first resolution, led by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), was adopted in a 400-0-2 vote, with just Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) voting 'present.' The second measure, spearheaded by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), cleared the chamber in a 280-113-6 vote, with 113 Republicans voting 'no.' 'Antisemitic violence will not be ignored, excused, or tolerated in the United States of America,' Van Drew wrote on X after the vote. While both measures were adopted in a bipartisan fashion, the resolution sponsored by Evans drew Democratic ire. Lawmakers were frustrated that Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), who represents Boulder, was not included as a co-sponsor of the legislation. Some also took issue with the inclusion of details about the suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman's, immigration status. Evans' resolution also said the attack 'demonstrates the dangers of not removing from the country aliens who fail to comply with the terms of their visas,' leaning into the politically polarizing issue of immigration. And it 'expresses gratitude' to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement 'for protecting the homeland.' 'In times like these I would have hoped that my colleagues would be willing to come together to properly honor the victims, to condemn antisemitism as I have said and as our resolution does. It's not hard to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker,' Neguse said on the House floor. 'And the question that Mr. Evans should answer is why? Why not join his two other Republican colleagues in Colorado and join the bipartisan resolution that thanks the Boulder Police Department, that thanks the FBI? The purpose of these resolutions is to unite the congress, not divide it.' Neguse and other members of the Colorado congressional delegation — including two Republicans — introduced their own resolution condemning the attack last week. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Evans resolution was 'not a serious effort.' 'Who is this guy? He's not seriously concerned with combating antisemitism in America,' Jeffries said. 'This is not a serious effort. This guy is going to be a one-term member of Congress. He's a complete and total embarrassment.' Soliman was charged with 118 counts of attempted murder after he threw Molotov cocktails at a group of people who were gathered peacefully and calling for the release of Israeli hostages taken by Hamas amid the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. He was also charged with a federal hate crime after acknowledging that he planned the attack for a year and said he 'walked to kill all Zionist people.' In a statement on X after the vote, Greene said she voted 'present' on Van Drew's resolution because Congress has not condemned hate crimes against other groups of Americans. 'Antisemitic hate crimes are wrong, but so are all hate crimes. Yet Congress never votes on hate crimes committed against white people, Christians, men, the homeless, or countless others,' Greene wrote. 'Tonight, the House passed two more antisemitism-related resolutions, the 20th and 21st I've voted on since taking office. Meanwhile, Americans from every background are being murdered — even in the womb — and Congress stays silent. We don't vote on endless resolutions defending them.' 'Prioritizing one group of Americans and/or one foreign country above our own people is fueling resentment and actually driving more division, including antisemitism,' she added. 'These crimes are horrific and easy for me to denounce. But because of the reasons I stated above, I voted present.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Corporate World Goes Quiet on Climate Pledges
Companies in various industries are removing climate change and net zero language from their reports, the Wall Street Journal reported this month, lamenting the fact that corporates were 'watering down' their commitments in the area. It may be temporary—or it may be the natural thing. Analysis of the proxy statements of a number of large businesses conducted by the WSJ showed that many of them were, it seems, less willing to discuss climate change and their response to it in as much detail as they were a few years ago. The WSJ suggested it was an about-turn prompted by the energy policies of the Trump administration and the axing of the Inflation Reduction Act. Companies 'implicated' in watering down their climate change language included American Airlines, Kroger, American Eagle Outfitters, and e.l.f. Beauty. Their crime was either reducing the amount of text dedicated to climate change and the respective company's efforts to counter it or entirely removing such text. The above are not the only ones that have gone rather general on climate change. Coca-Cola only mentions climate and emissions in general terms and briefly in its latest proxy statement. GM also does not go into a lot of detail on its net-zero efforts, and neither does United Airlines. Yet there are perfectly respectable reasons for this, even from a climate activist of these companies produce separate reports regarding climate change and emission reduction because it is the done thing these days. Indeed, one of them told the WSJ as much. 'We periodically adjust the copy used in the company's external messaging and communications,' a spokesperson for American Eagle Outfitters told the publication. 'AEO's commitment to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions remains unchanged.' Other comments from the mentioned companies follow the same lines: these businesses have already internalized emission-cutting language and action, and no longer feel the need to talk loudly about it. And, of course, there's the Trump factor at work. The current administration axed billions on subsidies for transition-related businesses. As a result, these businesses are suffering a fate even worse than theirs already was because of raw material inflation, higher borrowing costs that had nothing to do with the Trump admin, and, notably, a pullback from investors that realized they had grossly overestimated the speed, at which their investment in net zero would be returned. Trump's policies certainly hurt the coolness aspect of net-zero pledges and pronouncements but it was the lack of promised profits that likely played a bigger part and led to companies toning down these pledges and pronouncements. 'The whole sector — solar, wind, hydrogen, fuel cells — anything clean is dead for now,' one energy transition-focused hedge fund manager told Bloomberg earlier this year. 'The fundamentals are very poor,' Gupta, who manages some $100 million, told Bloomberg, adding, 'I'm not talking about long term. I'm talking about where I see weakness right now.' Apparently, the long-term outlook for net zero remains bright, but the short term is more problematic. Yet considerable problems abound not just in the industries directly related to the energy transition, such as it is. Even companies in other industries, such as air travel and cosmetics, are finding it difficult to stick to their pledges—at least without losing a lot of money. Tracking and reporting Scope 3 emissions, for instance, requires substantial resources and carries equally substantial costs. After all, it involves tracking the emissions of an entire supply chain from suppliers to consumers. Many corporations are realizing investing the money, time, and effort in this endeavor may not be worth it, especially with a federal government that does not care about any sort of energy transition at all. Another thing they are realizing is that, put crudely, emission tracking does not pay—not without a solid subsidy back that is at present absent. It was the Wall Street Journal again that reported how transition-focused startups were folding as Trump axed those subsidies. EV batteries, direct air capture, and even solar power, which was supposed to have become well established, are now suffering the consequences of overhyping. With the benefits that were promised to come from net zero never materializing, unlike costs related to the transition push, could anyone really blame corporate leaderships for removing net-zero language from their reports? Indeed, a recent survey from the Conference Board that the WSJ cited in its report found that as much as 80% of corporate executives said their companies were 'adjusting' their transition narrative—for fear of backlash that has prompted 50% of the respondents to entirely stop talking about net zero. That backlash can hardly be blamed on Trump. It is a natural consequence of the overhyping that never delivered on the promises made. What is happening, then, is a natural process that, one might argue, was even late in coming. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From this article on
