Latest news with #BloombergOpinion
Bloomberg
2 days ago
- General
- Bloomberg
One Is the Loneliest Number. But It's Great for Grok.
This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, a hermetically-unsealed revelation of Bloomberg Opinion's opinions. Sign up here. The story goes that a young Buddhist monk left his home and family to practice the rigors of meditation and the privations of faith up in the mountains. One day, a visitor asked the hermit how his quest for enlightenment was coming along. The meditation and fasting were all going well, he said. But he suffered from one chronic ache: loneliness.
Mint
2 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Work More to Earn Less: France's New Revolution
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There's been only one topic of conversation in the brasseries of France this week: Prime Minister Francois Bayrou's proposal to scrap two of three public holidays in the month of May to contain the spiraling budget deficit. In the land of the 35-hour work week, this is tantamount to treason. Most of the public seems to hate it, unions have called it a declaration of war and the far right has called it a provocation. The outrage is a little overdone. Knocking off two public holidays would leave the French with nine, which looks positively Germanic — until you add their 25 paid vacation days, which gets France in almost the same ballpark as Spain. (And no need to mention the extra days that many private-sector workers get for working more than 35 hours.) And while there's been plenty of gnashing of teeth at Bayrou's description of the month of May as 'gruyere' cheese — full of holes — it's kind of true. France is a place where the calendar is a Sudoku puzzle to find the ideal combo of holidays and vacation; this year, it's been possible to strategically place five days' vacation and get 32 days off. But even if this idea somehow survives the political backlash, there are two problems with it. One is that in terms of getting the French economy out of the doldrums, it's small beer. It would theoretically add about €4.2 billion ($4.9 billion) to the public purse, which works out to about 10% of the savings the government is looking for next year. The other is that it amounts to working more for less, instead of the 'work more to earn more' philosophy promoted by President Emmanuel Macron when he was first elected. Workers would get no extra pay for the month while at the same time being exposed to other belt-tightening measures the government has in store. It's a stopgap, not a structural reform. And structural reforms are what France needs to keep its social model from running out of road. While it's wrong to say that France is the new Greece, it has among the highest debt and deficit ratios in the euro area and among the lowest growth rates (though ahead of Germany). Its 'open-bar' economy is under long-term pressure from demographic decline and weak productivity. And while recent reforms have gone in the right direction, even Macron has reverted to type by spending big in a crisis but failing to cut back when the storm subsides. That makes it harder in the long term to invest in the skills, technology and infrastructure that are critical to boosting prosperity in the long run. Instead of adopting the language of a household living beyond its means, which will only aggravate parliamentary bust-ups over soaking the rich and shrinking the state, the Macron administration should talk more about valuable resources that remain untapped. These include getting more people into work, not shaking an extra two days out of those already in it. OECD data suggests that France's overall employment rate of 69% is still below average — closing the gap could add as much as 10% to output, according to Natixis SA economist Patrick Artus. More jobs for older workers, getting more women into work and a smart approach to immigration would help growth, offset the demographic challenge of the boomer retirement wave and reduce the pressure on public finances. The tax burden on workers already saps firms' ability to raise wages. This obviously won't suddenly defuse the mud-slinging in a divided society. Nor will it suddenly create a productivity miracle, unless artificial-intelligence startups like Mistral suddenly deliver a breakthrough. But if the aim is preserving a French and European way of life at a time of slowing growth, there are better ways to get there than re-slicing the public-holiday gruyere. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Lionel Laurent is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist writing about the future of money and the future of Europe. Previously, he was a reporter for Reuters and Forbes. More stories like this are available on
Mint
3 days ago
- Health
- Mint
Stop Playing Whac-a-Mole With Forever Chemicals
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The more you learn about PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — the worse it gets. Though improvements in monitoring and remediation techniques are welcome, what the world needs first and foremost is a universal ban on the chemicals. In fact, we needed it yesterday. There are more than 10,000 PFAS, also known as 'forever chemicals,' and they're used almost everywhere, including in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, smartphones, packets of microwave popcorn, hair conditioners, fire-fighting foam, pacemakers, pesticides and dental floss. They don't readily degrade; they also don't stay where we put them. As a result, we can now find PFAS in places such as our blood, human breast milk, Antarctica, wild animals and tap water. In the Netherlands, people have been warned not to eat the eggs from their backyard chickens by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment due to high levels of the chemicals. Though it's not yet clear why home-produced eggs have higher amounts of PFAS than commercial ones, one theory is that earthworms now contain such chemicals, and hens like to eat the worms. An analysis by environmental groups Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust found that nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England exceed proposed safety limits, with 85% containing levels at least five times higher. France has banned tap water in 16 communes due to PFAS contamination, while a piece of investigative journalism called the Forever Pollution Project located 23,000 contaminated sites across Europe and a further 21,500 sites of presumptive contamination. I expect we haven't seen the last of the tap water bans. If the scale and extent of the pollution are hard to get your head around, the health implications are worse. PFAS have been linked to increased risk of various types of cancer, fertility problems, birth complications, delays to puberty and weakened immune systems. They've also been associated with increased cholesterol levels and kidney problems. We're looking at an issue analogous to climate change — right down to lobbying and cover-ups by PFAS manufacturers. Internal documents from 3M Co., one of the original and largest producers, and chemical firm DuPont de Nemours Inc. revealed that the companies knew the substances were accumulating in people and showing signs of toxicity for decades without telling anyone. While 3M still maintains that their PFAS-containing products are 'safe' for their intended uses in everyday life, in December 2022 the company announced it will discontinue the use of PFAS by the end of 2025. Together, the firms have had to pay billions in lawsuit settlements related to their pollution, with more possibly to come as injury cases hit the courts. As with carbon dioxide, the longer we keep emitting PFAS into the environment, the worse the problem gets and the harder it is to clean up with remediation technologies. While the PFAS market globally is worth just over $28 billion, the cost of cleaning up all the related pollution in the UK and Europe could be €100 billion ($116 billion) a year if nothing is done to stem the chemicals' steady flow into the environment. And that doesn't factor in the health-care costs, which the Nordic Council of Ministers estimates is at least €52 billion annually. Though some consumer brands such as outdoor gear retailer Patagonia Inc. and fast-food chain McDonald's Corp. have committed to phasing out PFAS from their products and packaging, others have been dragging their feet. A team of researchers, lawyers and journalists has also exposed a huge lobbying campaign against proposed restrictions in Europe, showing entrenched resistance to change. So we need a ban, but so far, we've only seen piecemeal prohibitions targeting either a specific chemical or, in a couple of leading countries, sectors. The import and sale of PFAS-treated clothing, shoes and waterproofing agents will be barred from July 2026 in Denmark, while the chemicals have been banned in paper and board food packaging since 2020. The country has also recently announced a ban on 23 pesticides that can form a very mobile form of PFAS called trifluoroacetic acid. France, meanwhile, has banned PFAS in several consumer product groups, including textiles, cosmetics and ski wax. Cookware, however, has been excluded from the ban after a campaign led by the French maker of Tefal pans, Groupe SEB. Though it's a start, exempting a sector for which safe alternatives are readily available is, frankly, scandalous. A universal ban may be on its way. In 2023, five European Union member states — Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway — submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency, which two scientific committees are now examining. The ban covers both consumer and industrial applications, with time-limited exemptions expected for some uses where there are no alternatives, such as medical devices. What's most significant about the restriction is that it takes a precautionary approach, regulating all 10,000-plus PFAS as a group rather than individually. According to CHEM Trust, a charity focused on harmful synthetic chemicals, under the current rate of regulation that analyzes each chemical individually, it would take more than 40,000 years to get through them all. So the EU ban will be a huge step forward with positive impacts beyond its borders. But we'll be waiting a while for it to come into effect — if everything goes smoothly, we're likely looking at 2028 before sectors transition to new rules. Meanwhile, progress elsewhere is pitiful. The UK government published an interim position on PFAS management in June, but this has been criticized by scientists for opting not to target all chemicals at once and instead creating their own groupings. Not only is this risky, failing to regulate compounds that lack toxicity data, but it lacks urgency. In the US, the Trump administration has pulled nearly $15 million in research into PFAS contamination of farmland, while the Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to rescind drinking water limits for four forever chemicals. Of course, even banning the use of all PFAS tomorrow won't do anything for the substances already in our bodies and drinking water. But we know that restrictions help. Two chemicals — PFOS and PFOA — are already banned in Europe. A 2023 study showed that blood concentrations of the chemicals have declined substantially over time in Denmark. It's time to stop playing Whac-a-Mole with chemicals that we know are bad for us and our environment. If we take action now, we might stand a chance at cleaning up the mess we've From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change. More stories like this are available on
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
Trump Is Surprised He Made the Appointment. Welcome to the Club.
While the president toys with Jerome Powell's future, there actual controversial nominations to watch. Save This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, the prosecutorial discretion of Bloomberg Opinion's opinions. Sign up here. Leave it to Wall Street to one-up the most dramatic event of the week (the Summer I Turned Pretty season premiere, duh) with its reaction to reports that President Donald Trump was planning to fire Jerome Powell. In case you missed it, two individuals in a closed-door meeting with the president on Tuesday said Trump displayed a letter authorizing Powell's firing. Naturally, this sent markets into a tizzy. But hours later, Trump denied any plans to axe the Fed Chair.
Mint
4 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Europe Needs to Save Its Carbon-Market Marriage
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- When the UK left the European Union, it created a rift in the global fight against climate change: Suddenly, the EU's ambitious carbon cap-and-trade system — designed to reduce harmful emissions of greenhouse gases throughout Europe — had to be split in two. Now the UK and EU say they want to get their carbon markets back together, as part of a broader 'reset' in relations. It's a great opportunity to demonstrate that, despite Brexit, common sense in climate and trade policy can prevail. Launched in 2005, the EU's emissions trading system stands out as the world's largest and most successful. Participants must comply with ever-decreasing limits on greenhouse-gas output: Those that reduce more can sell their allowances to others, establishing a market price per ton of carbon and an incentive to cut further. As of last year, covered power-generation and industrial enterprises in the 27 current EU member states had slashed their emissions by almost half. Brexit has hindered this progress. All else equal, well-regulated carbon markets work better when they cover more area. A greater variety of buyers and sellers affords more opportunity to reduce emissions quickly and profitably: Companies in places where it's relatively easy to switch away from fossil fuels, for example, can sell to those where it isn't. More participants means smoother trading and more stable prices. The split also presents a more pressing issue. From next year, the EU will start imposing a tax on certain importers, aiming to align their carbon price with local competitors. The UK will do the same in 2027. Although justified on the merits, these bureaucratically complex 'border adjustments' could undermine trade — unless a reunion of emissions markets and prices renders them unnecessary. The carbon intensity of electricity, for example, would have to be calculated using industrywide averages that would put renewable-energy exports at a disadvantage — at a time when Europe should be integrating its electricity markets. From a technical perspective, relinking should be easy. The UK mostly copied the EU's rules, so the two need only address some marginal divergences — for example, in scope (the UK, for example, doesn't include maritime transport), schedules for eliminating free emission allowances, and mechanisms for maintaining market stability. There's no good reason for the preparations to take nearly a decade, as in the case of the EU's 2020 linkage with Switzerland. Politics are the problem. As in all its post-Brexit dealings with the EU, the UK faces the prospect of complying with mutual rules while having less influence over them than it did as a member state. Britain should recognize that it has the most to gain from relinking with the EU's carbon market, which is more than 10 times larger. EU officials, for their part, must get past the desire to punish the UK and focus instead on common interests — particularly at a time when the US is upending global trade and climate policy. They should also maintain the bloc's own climate ambition — for example, by strictly limiting the proposed role of international carbon credits, which have a poor reliability record, in meeting emissions goals. The clock is ticking. The EU's border adjustment will start to bite gradually, thanks to an effective phase-in. The longer the two sides delay, the more their inaction will skew long-term investment decisions, particularly in renewable energy. Conversely, if they reach a timely agreement, they'll achieve a rare victory for climate and trade — and potentially a model for cooperation in the post-Brexit world. More From Bloomberg Opinion: Want more Bloomberg Opinion? Terminal readers head to OPIN . Or you can subscribe to our daily newsletter. The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs. More stories like this are available on
