Latest news with #proponents
Yahoo
11-08-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Says Decision on Marijuana Classification Coming in Weeks
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug and would decide in 'the next few weeks.' Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Three Deaths Reported as NYC Legionnaires' Outbreak Spreads Chicago Schools' Bond Penalty Widens as $734 Million Gap Looms To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Trump told reporters that he had discussed the issue with many people and found deep divisions, with some proponents of changing the drug's status stressing its medical benefits while opponents said the move posed a risk to children. 'I've heard great things having to do with medical, and I've had bad things having to do with just about everything else but medical,' Trump said. 'And, you know, for pain and various things, I've heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I've heard some pretty bad things.' Trump told attendees at a fundraiser in New Jersey earlier this month that he was considering the change, the Wall Street Journal reported. The federal government currently classifies marijuana under Schedule I, which is for drugs with no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Reclassifying the drug could make it easier to buy and sell cannabis. Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist The Game Starts at 8. The Robbery Starts at 8:01 Klarna Cashed In on 'Buy Now, Pay Later.' Now It Wants to Be a Bank The Pizza Oven Startup With a Plan to Own Every Piece of the Pie It's Only a Matter of Time Until Americans Pay for Trump's Tariffs ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Bloomberg
11-08-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Trump Says Decision on Marijuana Classification Coming in Weeks
President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug and would decide in 'the next few weeks.' Trump told reporters that he had discussed the issue with many people and found deep divisions, with some proponents of changing the drug's status stressing its medical benefits while opponents said the move posed a risk to children.
Irish Times
07-08-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
HVO is a climate ‘quick fix' that could be worse than fossil fuels
'For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.' This aphorism frequently comes to mind when I reflect on climate solutions. Problems don't come more complex or urgent than climate change, and sadly there is no shortage of solutions that seem appealing and straightforward, but are, at best, distractions. In the worst cases, some of these solutions can be more harmful than doing nothing at all. Hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) is one such solution. HVO is being aggressively promoted as a convenient, low-carbon 'drop-in' substitute for diesel, heating oil and jet kerosene, requiring no modifications to engines or boilers. Its apparent simplicity makes it an attractive quick fix. Proponents claim HVO is a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels because it is manufactured from waste, like used cooking oil (UCO) and palm oil mill effluent (POME), a byproduct of palm oil processing. Using these waste products ostensibly sidesteps the well-known pitfalls of crop-based biofuels: land use change, deforestation, biodiversity loss and rising food prices. If only we had enough genuine waste oil in the world to make even a small dent in our vast oil demand. The numbers simply don't add up. Take a typical fast food restaurant, which might produce 50 litres of waste cooking oil weekly. This would produce enough HVO to fuel a typical diesel car to drive perhaps 600 kilometres. Useful, yes – possibly enough for the restaurant's delivery driver, but nowhere nearly sufficient to meet more than a small fraction of Ireland's diesel demand. There are simply not enough chip shops in the world. So, where does our imported HVO actually come from? According to data from Ireland's National Oil Reserve Agency (Nora), about half of the transport biofuel entering our market in 2024 came from UCO and POME, which are mostly imported from Malaysia, Indonesia and China, regions plagued by deforestation as a result of expanding palm oil production. Suspicion is mounting internationally about rampant fraud in these supply chains. Given lax auditing and strong financial incentives, it's disturbingly easy and attractive to pass off virgin palm oil as a waste product. The implications for the climate are dire. Many studies have show n how biodiesel from virgin vegetable oils cause similar greenhouse gas emissions as diesel, and in some cases, are much worse. According to one study, emissions from palm oil biodiesel are three times greater than those from fossil diesel, because of its association with tropical rainforest deforestation. Substituting fossil fuels with palm oil-derived HVO isn't just unhelpful, it's blatantly harmful and irresponsible. I first raised this issue in my column two years ago , calling HVO a 'life raft for the liquid fuels industry'. In many ways, the situation has deteriorated since then. 'HVO-ready boilers' are widely marketed as an easy solution to decarbonising home heating and, anecdotally, I have heard that plumbers are discouraging homeowners interested in installing heat pumps, in favour of these oil boilers. The new programme for government also commits to supporting HVO in road freight and to consider its use in older homes. Support for HVO has followed from strong advocacy and lobbying from Ireland's fuel industry and affiliated groups. A group misleadingly named the Alliance for Zero Carbon Heating (TAZCH) – actually a Coalition of trade organisations representing boiler manufacturers and fuel distributors, including Fuels for Ireland – is lobbying heavily for mandates to blend 20 per cent HVO into home heating oil. Their own research acknowledges this blended fuel would not offer significant climate benefits compared to electrification via heat pumps, and that HVO costs roughly 80 per cent more than regular heating oil. Alarmingly, HVO may also be taking off as a fuel for data centres , allowing them to claim sustainability. On the other hand, there is growing awareness of the problems with importing such dubious biofuels. Nora has flagged some of the risks in a letter to the Government this January, and it has taken steps to reduce additional incentives for POME and tighten import rules in the Renewable Transport Fuel Policy. It also commits to working at the EU level to tighten supply chain integrity. However, these are small regulatory steps, mainly covering transport, and incentives as well as loopholes remain. For example, HVO is still treated as a zero carbon fuel in our carbon budget and greenhouse gas accounting. Incremental measures won't solve the underlying issue. The core problem isn't simply inadequate regulation or unreliable supply chains; it's the fundamental unsuitability of liquid biofuels as a large-scale decarbonisation strategy. The vast majority of applications targeted for HVO use should instead be electrified or reduced through energy efficiency measures. Electrification and energy demand reduction involve complex, sometimes disruptive changes and upfront investment. While these transitions pay dividends through lower costs, healthier homes, cleaner air and genuine climate progress, inertia remains at many levels. An electricity grid that isn't yet fully ready, alongside lingering fears about heat pumps, electric vehicles and renewable infrastructure, creates a tempting but false allure for simplistic solutions like HVO. Prof Hannah Daly is professor of sustainable energy at University College Cork
Globe and Mail
21-06-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts
If you want to get people worked up, ask a small group of friends what they think of Social Security privatization. Privatization refers to the idea of shifting the management and funding of retirement from the government to individuals. In other words, rather than paying Social Security taxes as part of FICA, you would keep the money and invest for retirement on your own. Experts have dramatically different opinions on privatization, with some fearing that it will lead to more people entering retirement with little to no financial resources. Those arguing in favor of privatizing the program take a completely different view. Here's how they believe the change would benefit the average American worker. Higher returns Imagine that a portion of your Social Security taxes were invested in a personal account rather than used to fund current retirees' benefits. You could invest in stocks and bonds to your heart's content. In fact, you could invest in any vehicle you believe will provide a strong return. Compounding interest One of the beauties of investing is the way compound interest can significantly increase your retirement savings over time. As long as you begin investing early and are consistent, proponents of privatization believe you're in a position to build up more money than you could ever collect through Social Security payments. More flexibility Proponents believe that Americans will appreciate the ability to invest their retirement savings where they want. Rather than paying it into a program supporting current retirees, they can choose where their money will go. However, the open question becomes: What happens to the millions of current retirees when workers stop paying into the system? Focus on personal responsibility Read any message board, and you're likely to find plenty of people with an opinion about Social Security privatization. It's been a hot-button topic since President George W. Bush first suggested it in his 1978 Congressional race, then pushed for it again following his successful 2004 presidential campaign. Since that time, the subject has been supported by a rotating cast of politicians, who claim it will put the responsibility for saving on individuals rather than allowing them to depend on the government to provide a safety net. While this reasoning overlooks the fact that Americans spend decades contributing to the system and Social Security has never been a public assistance program, it does appeal to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd. Greater financial literacy Proponents believe that pushing Americans to invest on their own means greater financial literacy among the masses. It's also believed that it will foster a culture of savings and investment. While this may be true for some, it's fair to imagine that wealthier Americans can afford to pay financial planners to help them make the most of their investments, while workers living paycheck to paycheck may have trouble saving the funds at all. It's likely that most people would like to save for retirement, but not everyone can afford to do so. The good news is that plenty of people are actively involved in seeking a solution to potential Social Security shortages. It may turn out that some form of Social Security privatization -- such as a hybrid system that allows you to continue paying into the current system while setting aside some money to make your own investments -- will be the answer. Or, it may be something entirely different. While proponents of Social Security privatization offer numerous potential advantages, it's yet to be seen if anyone will come up with a better solution. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these strategies.
The Independent
20-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
MPs back historic End of Life bill with slim majority
& Kate Devlin The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has successfully passed its final stage in the House of Commons. The assisted dying bill was approved by a vote of 314 to 291, securing a narrow majority of 23, which marks a significant victory for its sponsor, Kim Leadbeater. This legislation is now set to advance to the House of Lords for further scrutiny, where it is expected to encounter more opposition. Proponents of the Bill, said that it provides terminally ill individuals with a choice in how they die and aims to alleviate prolonged suffering. Opponents voiced concerns regarding the adequacy of safeguards, the potential for private companies to profit from assisted dying services, and the risk to vulnerable individuals. Assisted dying set to be legalised as MPs back Kim Leadbeater's bill in historic vote
