Latest news with #ConsumersResearch
Forbes
08-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Something Is Better Than Nothing – Why US Business Has A Vested Interest In A Plastic Pollution Treaty
TOPSHOT - People on boats collect recyclable plastics from the heavily polluted Citarum River at ... More Batujajar in Bandung, West Java, on June 12, 2024. (Photo by TIMUR MATAHARI / AFP) (Photo by TIMUR MATAHARI/AFP via Getty Images) Agricultural commissioners from nearly a dozen conservative states last week called on the Trump Administration to defund international organizations that promote 'net-zero' climate policies, according to The Hill, arguing that reducing carbon emissions would hurt American farmers, ranchers and consumers. The commissioners from states including West Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi targeted several longstanding United Nations bodies, including the United Nations Environment Program. 'These programs that require compliance with a radical climate agenda undermine American farmers and ranchers, threaten to drive up costs for consumers, and weaken food security for working families,' said Will Hild, executive director of Consumers' Research, which backed the commissioners' letter. 'It's time for these groups to align with President Trump's commitment of restoring common sense to environmental policy or stop receiving any federal funding.' The Risks of an All-or-Nothing Approach The problem with this all-or-nothing approach is that UNEP establishes global standards on some of the most pressing sustainability issues of our time, from forest preservation to plastics and chemical pollution. Stripping it of federal funding would do exactly what the commissioners want to avoid: hurt American farmers, ranchers and consumers by pulling their seat from the table of high-stakes negotiations. The commissioners may want the U.S. to pay attention to UNEP's upcoming INC–5.2 treaty negotiations around plastic production and pollution in Geneva next month, which will have a huge impact on American business's bottom line. Of course, we are one of the world's largest plastic producers, and the negotiations planned for August in Switzerland will invariably reshape U.S. business operations, sourcing strategies, supply chains and compliance costs across industries such as packaging, petrochemicals and consumer goods. Any outcome will have major implications for the broader economy. "Since day one, U.S. business leaders - from sectors ranging from leading consumer brands to global raw material producers - have invested time and resources to engage in these highly technical negotiations and are all united in wanting agreement on a Treaty in August," said my colleague at the US Council for International Business, Agnes Vinblad, Director, Environment & Sustainable Development. It could also be an opportunity for the current administration to sway international policy after President Joe Biden shifted away from being a bridge builder between divergent interests in environmental negotiations to taking a more uncompromising stance. At UNEP's INC-5.0 plastic treaty negotiations in Korea last year, the Biden Administration took what some saw as an extreme approach by aligning itself more closely with the High Ambition Coalition — a group of more than 60 countries advocating for strict measures to address plastic pollution — and supporting binding production limits and bans on problematic plastics. Environmental groups lauded this reversal from the U.S.'s earlier stance, which favored voluntary national targets and focused on recycling and waste management versus mandatory production caps. Industry groups (along with oil-producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and China) criticized the move as detrimental to manufacturing and innovation. Unsurprisingly, no deal was reached last year due to the lack of consensus and the U.S. shift, and UNEP kicked the negotiations to a later date. Almost all parties agreed at the time that incremental changes would have been preferable to a stalemate – after all, some progress is better than none. INC-4 chairman Luis Vayas Valdivieso speaks during the fourth session of the UN Intergovernmental ... More Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution in Ottawa, Canada, on April 23, 2024. (Photo by Dave Chan / AFP) (Photo by DAVE CHAN/AFP via Getty Images) The Strategic Importance of Staying at the Table After these previous talks ended in stalemate, all eyes are on the U.S. to see whether we can reclaim our reputation as a pragmatic leader and help broker a compromise at INC-5.2. But only by engaging with UNEP can we effectively push back against harmful policies to farmers, consumers, and businesses. Walking away entirely from UNEP would put us at a disadvantage. Contrary to what the commissioners have stated, taking away funding would make our economy less secure — not only against traditional adversaries, but against allies in the European Union whose excessive regulations at times threaten American business. Recent Success Stories Prove Engagement Works Just this past May, the Trump Administration sent USG negotiators to UNEP's Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, which makes decisions on hazardous chemicals and waste management. Our presence was instrumental in blocking proposals that would have had large-scale detrimental effects on U.S. aerospace and chemical manufacturing companies. Without it, the outcome would have undoubtedly been very different. Recent reports indicate that we will, in fact, send a delegation to the plastic treaty negotiations next month, and many are hopeful that we will become the rational, consensus-building voice that guides other countries toward tangible progress. As Benny Mermens, chair of the World Plastics Council and Vice President Sustainability of CP Chem (a USCIB member) said via email last week, 'I have been struck by the shared commitment to ending plastic waste in the environment realising that whilst significant issues remain, there is already a clear consensus on issues such as the need to invest in sustainable waste collection and management infrastructure, and to simultaneously transition towards a circular global plastic system.' He went on to add, 'We recognise the challenges, but if we focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us an ambitious and effective Treaty is within reach.' The Cost of Walking Away If we completely pull out of UNEP negotiations, we lose the opportunity to set the agenda on our terms, and to provide at least some progress on an important issue that affects everyone from U.S. businesses to consumers to environmental groups.
Wall Street Journal
27-06-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court's FCC Tax Dodge
Can Congress empower administrative agencies to raise taxes without concrete constraints? Six Justices ruled they can on Friday (FCC v. Consumers' Research) in the Supreme Court's most disappointing decision this term. At issue is a Federal Communications Commission program that Congress established in 1996 to subsidize 'universal service.' The law gives the FCC broad authority to levy taxes on telecom providers and their users to finance universal service, however the agency defines the term. The FCC, in turn, has delegated authority to implement the tax to a nonprofit.
E&E News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
Supreme Court declines to further sap agencies' authority
The Supreme Court on Friday sidestepped reviving a legal doctrine limiting the power lawmakers can give to federal regulators, delivering relief to environmentalists and others who had feared the case would be used to further shackle federal agencies like EPA from addressing issues like climate change. In a 6-3 decision in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, the court agreed to uphold a telecommunications service fee that supports phone and internet services for rural and low-income communities. But the court opted not to revive the nearly century-old nondelegation doctrine, with Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority that 'under our nondelegation precedents, Congress sufficiently guided and constrained the discretion that it lodged with the FCC.' Advertisement 'Today's decision rejected a revival of the nondelegation doctrine — at least for now,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O'Neill Institute at Georgetown Law. 'But challenges to agency authority will still be an issue to watch.'
The Verge
27-06-2025
- Business
- The Verge
Low-income broadband fund can keep running, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the funding mechanism behind a key broadband subsidy program for schools and underserved areas can continue operating. In a decision issued on Friday, the Supreme Court rejected claims that Congress and the FCC's implementation of the fund is unconstitutional. The program, known as the Universal Service Fund (USF), helps subsidize telecommunications services for low-income consumers, rural health care providers, and schools and libraries. It's administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a nonprofit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) named to run the program. But conservative advocacy group Consumers' Research, which encourages consumers to 'report woke' on its website, sued to upend that structure, charging that the way Congress and the FCC had delegated power over the program's funding was unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Consumers' Research, and the Supreme Court took up the case when the FCC petitioned the court to review it. Because of what it believes is an unconstitutional structure to fund the USF, Consumers' Research argued in its brief to the court, 'In essence, a private company is taxing Americans in amounts that total billions of dollars every year, under penalty of law, without true governmental accountability.' But USAC isn't running wild with public funds, the US argued. US Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices the law 'leaves key policy choices to Congress and is definite and precise enough for courts to tell if FCC followed Congress's limits when filling in details,' according to SCOTUSblog. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that Congress 'sufficiently guided and constrained the discretion that it lodged with the FCC to implement the universal-service contribution scheme,' adding that the FCC 'retained all decision-making authority within that sphere.' Kagan concludes, 'Nothing in those arrangements, either separately or together, violates the Constitution.' NCTA - The Rural Broadband Association, says the USF is critical to providing access to modern communications in rural areas and for low-income families. 'Without USF support, it is difficult to make a business case to invest in many rural areas, to sustain networks once they are built, or to keep service rates affordable,' it says on its website.
Al Arabiya
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Supreme Court OKs Fee That Subsidizes Phone, Internet Services in Schools, Libraries and Rural Areas
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the fee that is added to phone bills to provide billions of dollars a year in subsidized phone and internet services in schools, libraries, and rural areas. The justices, by a 6–3 vote, reversed an appeals court ruling that had struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the charge that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. At arguments in March, liberal and conservative justices alike expressed concerns about the potentially devastating consequences of eliminating the fund, which has benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, which pass the cost on to their customers. A Virginia-based conservative advocacy group, Consumers' Research, had challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumers' Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9–7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress had given too much authority to the FCC, and the agency, in turn, had ceded too much power to a private entity or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the nondelegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address major questions in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. But the phone fee case turned out not to be the right one for finding yet another way to restrict federal regulators. President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, defended the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration.
