Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

NSW government extends life of Australia’s biggest coal-fired power station by two years to 2027

News Feed
Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Australia’s biggest coal-fired power station will remain operational for another two years after the New South Wales government signed a deal with its owner, Origin Energy, in a bid to limit the risk of electricity shortages until more renewables are built.The agreement, announced on Thursday, involves NSW taxpayers underwriting the 2.88-gigawatt Eraring plant near Lake Macquarie to keep generating power beyond the scheduled closure date of August 2025 Origin had set two years ago.“The people of NSW now have certainty that the NSW government has a plan to ensure we have reliable energy while we transition the workforce and the economy to net zero,” premier Chris Minns said.“The best way to undermine the renewable energy transition is to have the lights go out in 2025. I’m not letting that happen.”The government said it would not make upfront payments to Origin Energy to operate Eraring. An underwriting arrangement would instead operate, capping any losses to operate the plant at 80% or as much as $225m a year.Origin confirmed the agreement in a statement to the ASX this morning. Should Eraring turn a profit during the two years, it would pay the government 20% or no more than $40m a year, it said.Talks between Origin and the Minns Labor government began last year, spurred in part by an independent report that argued for a “temporary” extension of Eraring to “provide NSW with a buffer” to manage the risks if insufficient renewable energy and storage came online in time. A deal had been anticipated.The Australian Energy Market Operator also chimed in earlier this week, warning the slower than expected construction of transmission lines and additional wind and solar farms would create a “reliability gap” of more than 1GW for NSW if Eraring’s closure proceeded as planned.“This is a proactive and sensible step to ensure a plan is in place, if needed, to avoid electricity outages and rising power prices,” energy minister Penny Sharpe said.“The NSW Labor government remains entirely committed to the transition to renewable energy and our emissions reduction targets. A net zero future holds immense opportunities for our state’s economy and our environment.”Analysts such as Tim Buckley, head of Climate Energy Finance, had estimated extending Eraring could cost NSW at least $150m a year and delay efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The previous Perrottet Coalition government calculated the cost at as much as $1.6bn to keep Eraring running for 18 months based on sky-high coal prices in early 2023.Stephanie Bashir, principal at Nexa Advisory, said the money would have been better spent accelerating approvals of wind and solar farms while helping more households to put solar panels on their roofs.“If the NSW government was serious about addressing the cost of your energy bill, they would be doing everything in their power to speed up the rollout of large and small-scale renewable energy,” Bashir said before Thursday’s announcement.“Origin is a publicly listed company which should be propped up by shareholders – not taxpayers.”She said the move would “set up a costly and dangerous precedent” for the other three remaining coal plants, Vales Point, Bayswater and Mt Piper.Environmental groups who have been campaigning against Eraring will also be disappointed by the extension.The Hunter Community Environment Centre, for instance, noted in a 2019 report that Eraring’s cooling towers released the daily equivalent of a one-in-40 year flood event into Lake Macquarie. The lake is the largest coastal estuary in eastern Australia, covering about 110km2.Eraring was also source of many heavy metals and had contributed to a coal ash dam of more than 35mt. In 2019, a local recreation area had to be abandoned because of dam safety concerns.Tony Farrell, the deputy chief executive of Lake Macquarie city council, said Eraring and associated coalmines were a very significant employer in the region, supporting many businesses directly and indirectly.An extension of Eraring would not obviate the need to broaden the economic base of the city, Farrell said.“We’ve got to start preparing meaningful plans” for the region beyond coal, he said.

Deal struck with Origin Energy, owner of 2.88-gigawatt Eraring plant near Lake Macquarie, to limit risk of electricity shortages as renewables come onlineFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesGet our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcastAustralia’s biggest coal-fired power station will remain operational for another two years after the New South Wales government signed a deal with its owner, Origin Energy, in a bid to limit the risk of electricity shortages until more renewables are built.The agreement, announced on Thursday, involves NSW taxpayers underwriting the 2.88-gigawatt Eraring plant near Lake Macquarie to keep generating power beyond the scheduled closure date of August 2025 Origin had set two years ago.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup Continue reading...

Australia’s biggest coal-fired power station will remain operational for another two years after the New South Wales government signed a deal with its owner, Origin Energy, in a bid to limit the risk of electricity shortages until more renewables are built.

The agreement, announced on Thursday, involves NSW taxpayers underwriting the 2.88-gigawatt Eraring plant near Lake Macquarie to keep generating power beyond the scheduled closure date of August 2025 Origin had set two years ago.

“The people of NSW now have certainty that the NSW government has a plan to ensure we have reliable energy while we transition the workforce and the economy to net zero,” premier Chris Minns said.

“The best way to undermine the renewable energy transition is to have the lights go out in 2025. I’m not letting that happen.”

The government said it would not make upfront payments to Origin Energy to operate Eraring. An underwriting arrangement would instead operate, capping any losses to operate the plant at 80% or as much as $225m a year.

Origin confirmed the agreement in a statement to the ASX this morning. Should Eraring turn a profit during the two years, it would pay the government 20% or no more than $40m a year, it said.

Talks between Origin and the Minns Labor government began last year, spurred in part by an independent report that argued for a “temporary” extension of Eraring to “provide NSW with a buffer” to manage the risks if insufficient renewable energy and storage came online in time. A deal had been anticipated.

The Australian Energy Market Operator also chimed in earlier this week, warning the slower than expected construction of transmission lines and additional wind and solar farms would create a “reliability gap” of more than 1GW for NSW if Eraring’s closure proceeded as planned.

“This is a proactive and sensible step to ensure a plan is in place, if needed, to avoid electricity outages and rising power prices,” energy minister Penny Sharpe said.

“The NSW Labor government remains entirely committed to the transition to renewable energy and our emissions reduction targets. A net zero future holds immense opportunities for our state’s economy and our environment.”

Analysts such as Tim Buckley, head of Climate Energy Finance, had estimated extending Eraring could cost NSW at least $150m a year and delay efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The previous Perrottet Coalition government calculated the cost at as much as $1.6bn to keep Eraring running for 18 months based on sky-high coal prices in early 2023.

Stephanie Bashir, principal at Nexa Advisory, said the money would have been better spent accelerating approvals of wind and solar farms while helping more households to put solar panels on their roofs.

“If the NSW government was serious about addressing the cost of your energy bill, they would be doing everything in their power to speed up the rollout of large and small-scale renewable energy,” Bashir said before Thursday’s announcement.

“Origin is a publicly listed company which should be propped up by shareholders – not taxpayers.”

She said the move would “set up a costly and dangerous precedent” for the other three remaining coal plants, Vales Point, Bayswater and Mt Piper.

Environmental groups who have been campaigning against Eraring will also be disappointed by the extension.

The Hunter Community Environment Centre, for instance, noted in a 2019 report that Eraring’s cooling towers released the daily equivalent of a one-in-40 year flood event into Lake Macquarie. The lake is the largest coastal estuary in eastern Australia, covering about 110km2.

Eraring was also source of many heavy metals and had contributed to a coal ash dam of more than 35mt. In 2019, a local recreation area had to be abandoned because of dam safety concerns.

Tony Farrell, the deputy chief executive of Lake Macquarie city council, said Eraring and associated coalmines were a very significant employer in the region, supporting many businesses directly and indirectly.

An extension of Eraring would not obviate the need to broaden the economic base of the city, Farrell said.

“We’ve got to start preparing meaningful plans” for the region beyond coal, he said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Upbeat Greens target Labour’s ‘timidity’ and call for wealth tax to raise revenue

Party kicks off post-election conference saying chancellor is ‘not looking in the right place’ for money for public servicesKeir Starmer’s government is “not looking in the right place” when he says there is no money for public services, the Greens’ leaders have said as the party began a celebratory post-election conference with a series of attacks on a perceived lack of ambition from Labour.What should have been a joint speech in Manchester by Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer, co-leaders of the Greens in England and Wales was delivered by Ramsay alone after Denyer was struck down by flu-like symptoms. Continue reading...

Keir Starmer’s government is “not looking in the right place” when he says there is no money for public services, the Greens’ leaders have said as the party began a celebratory post-election conference with a series of attacks on a perceived lack of ambition from Labour.What should have been a joint speech in Manchester by Adrian Ramsay and Carla Denyer, co-leaders of the Greens in England and Wales was delivered by Ramsay alone after Denyer was struck down by flu-like symptoms.“It certainly does show yet again the benefits of having party co-leaders,” Ramsay, who won the new seat of Waveney Valley on 4 July, told the venue.With the party having quadrupled its Commons representation after Ramsay and Denyer’s decision to focus electoral resources on four target seats was vindicated, the speech gave thanks to Green officials and volunteers for the breakthrough election result.“We can keep on making history, keep on doing politics better,” Ramsay told activists in the hall. “This is what real change looks like – it looks like you.”Much of the rest of the speech was focused on targeting Labour for a perceived timidity in government, with Ramsay saying he would use October’s budget to press Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, to introduce a wealth tax to bring in more revenue.“In a few weeks we will see the first budget from this new government, and we expect to predictably hear that there is no money,” Ramsay said. “And in a few weeks’ time I will stand up in the House of Commons, as the new Green MP for Waveney Valley, and tell the chancellor that she’s not looking in the right place.”Arguing that the state of services such as the NHS and dentistry were unacceptable, Ramsay said the sort of taxes called for by the Greens were “modest by the standards of many other European countries who recognise that having high-quality public services and a greener economy needs investment”.As well as castigating the government on areas including cuts to a key nature fund and a pared-back budget for environmental measures, Ramsay also took aim at populist politicians who peddled the “dishonest narrative” that access to public services was a question of pitting different groups against each other.“The rioting and disorder on our streets this summer was organised political violence fuelled by racism and Islamophobia,” he said. “Only by challenging the kind of inflammatory language which has given a green light to those racist views can we start to change the systems that enable and add fuel to the flames of racism.”skip past newsletter promotionOur morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it mattersPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionHowever, much of the conference, and the speech, took on an understandably upbeat tone in the wake of the election success, in which Denyer took the Bristol Central seat from Labour, Ellie Chowns won the previously Conservative constituency of North Herefordshire, and Siân Berry held the Greens’ one existing seat, Brighton Pavilion, held previously by Caroline Lucas.The party’s success follows a series of local elections that have resulted in a huge rise in the number of Green councillors.“Together we have achieved so much,” Ramsay said. “We have broken records and made history. And we have done it by believing in a better politics. One that is positive, inspiring and ambitious. And we were not afraid to put that belief into action.”

Urgent review of Woodside billion-dollar WA gas project needed to protect threatened snake, government advisers say

Dusky sea snake was placed on threatened species list this week and is known only to exist on a small number of reefs off the Kimberley coastlineConservation scientists advising the federal government have called for fossil fuel activity in the location of Woodside’s proposed multibillion gas project to be urgently reviewed to protect the stronghold of an endangered sea snake.The dusky sea snake, Aipysurus fuscus, was placed on the country’s threatened species list this week and is known only to exist on a small number of reefs off the Western Australia Kimberley coastline.Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email Continue reading...

Conservation scientists advising the federal government have called for fossil fuel activity in the location of Woodside’s proposed multibillion gas project to be urgently reviewed to protect the stronghold of an endangered sea snake.The dusky sea snake, Aipysurus fuscus, was placed on the country’s threatened species list this week and is known only to exist on a small number of reefs off the Western Australia Kimberley coastline.The official conservation advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee said the snake’s last remaining stronghold was Scott Reef.Global heating was damaging the coral reefs that provide habitat for the snake, the advice said, and warmer temperatures were directly affecting the species. Oil spills and marine noise was also likely affecting the snake.Last month it was revealed the WA state government’s Environmental Protection Authority had assessed Woodside’s Browse basin project as unacceptable. The project will drill at Scott Reef.The advice said Scott Reef should be designated a “critical area” for the snakes’ protection “from known and potential impacts caused by the local fossil fuel industry, including development of the Torosa gas field”.Fossil fuel industry activities across the Browse Basin and elsewhere in Commonwealth waters of the Timor Sea should be urgently reviewed, the advice said, “to determine if known and potential impacts to the dusky sea are adequately considered and avoided”.All “excessive or constant marine noise” needed to be eliminated “including from drilling and shipping”, the advice said, which could cause “fatal or debilitating barotrauma or stress-related reductions in immunity, feeding and growth of sea snakes – including the dusky sea snake – at nearby reefs and shoals”.But the advice also said the effects of marine noise on snakes were “poorly known and under-researched”.A range of other steps were needed, the advice said, including extensive monitoring and research into the snakes and their habitat.Joe Rafalowicz, head of climate and energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said the listing of the snake should be a “wake-up call” for Woodside and the federal environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, who will need to make a decision on the Browse project.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionConservation group releases video showing logging near endangered greater gliders – videoHe said that Plibersek’s commitment to “no more extinctions” under the Labor government “will ring hollow” if she does not immediately follow her own departments advice to protect Scott Reef from the fossil fuel industry.“Crucial reforms to our national nature law have stalled in parliament – which means Woodside can get away with drilling for gas in critical habitat for the dusky sea snake, as the species was listed after Woodside’s approval document was submitted.”Jess Beckerling, the executive director of the Conservation Council of WA, said Woodside wanted to drill up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef.“The government must heed its call for an urgent review of potential impacts from Woodside’s plan,” she said.“To protect the endangered dusky sea snake, and all the other marine life at Scott Reef, the government must refuse Woodside’s Browse gas proposal.”Guardian Australia has approached Woodside and Plibersek for comment.

Conservative governments protect more land while socialists and nationalists threaten more species

Conservative, socialist or nationalist, what’s best for biodiversity? The results may surprise you. We studied 165 nations, examining threatened species numbers and the extent of protected areas.

Jack7_7, ShutterstockThe dire state of biodiversity across the globe suggests not all governments are willing to act decisively to protect nature. Why is that the case, and is a country’s political ideology a factor? Political ideology is a set of beliefs used as the fundamental basis for political decisions. Each country sits somewhere along a spectrum that spans conservative, nationalist and socialist ideologies (among others). This may vary, based on what party is in power at the time. Our latest paper studied the political ideology of the government in 165 nations. We then examined the country’s threatened species numbers and its “protected estate” – land set aside for national parks and reserves. We found conservative ideology increases the likelihood of having more protected areas. Socialist and nationalist ideologies increase the number of threatened animals. This suggests political ideologies on either the left or right may affect biodiversity. Politics playing out in decision-making The political ideology of a government influences its actions in different ways. Conservative ideology promotes the value of traditional institutions and practices. It is strongly linked to capitalism and letting market forces operate freely. Under this way of thinking, nature is largely valued in economic terms. A conservative government may promote protected areas for their economic value – because these create opportunities for money-making ventures such as ecotourism or biodiversity offsetting schemes. Payments for ecosystem services have flourished in socially conservative countries such as Brazil. Socialist ideology advocates that property and resources should be owned by the community as a whole. Socialist governments are more likely to take a human-centred approach, emphasising the value of nature to people. This may include cultural value, human health benefits and intergenerational equity. But socialist governments often improve the conditions of their people through industrial development and heavy use of natural resources. This might explain why these countries tend to have high numbers of threatened species. They also face challenges in establishing and maintaining effective protected areas. Nationalist ideology involves support for one’s own nation and its interests. It connects to nature by linking individual species and places with national identity and territorial security. Nationalism often emphasises individuals and autonomy. The United States is considered strongly nationalist. For example, it rejected the UN Convention on Biological Diversity because it did not meet with its national objectives. Global environmental issues often require diplomatic and economic cooperation between nations through sharing responsibility, knowledge and resources. So nationalist governments may be less likely to participate in cross-border conservation actions such as Peace Parks. With all this in mind, we wanted to know whether a nation’s political ideology and biodiversity outcomes were linked. What we did First, we examined the total number of threatened animals per country, compared with the overall number of animals. Next, we checked what proportion of a country’s land and inland water was protected. Then we classified the ideology of national governments as either nationalist, conservative or socialist. We chose to focus on these three ideologies in keeping with the literature from previous research. Recognising that government decisions typically take about 15 years to flow through to environmental outcomes, we took data on national governments from 2005–09. The ideologies followed by any given nation are not mutually exclusive – one country can have elements of them all. The information in the ideology database is based on the opinions of several experts. Their opinions can differ. So our models included results for all three ideologies at once. Australia, for example, scored higher for conservatism and nationalism than socialism. China, on the other hand, was strongly socialist, slightly nationalist, and not conservative at all. We also considered other important factors such as how strongly a country was viewed as democratic, the degree of inequality, and size of the economy. Finally, we ran a series of computer models. One, on threatened animals, measured the physical threat to biodiversity. The other, on protected areas, measured national commitment to reducing biodiversity loss. What we found Nationalist We found the number of threatened species increases in countries where nationalism is prevalent – but, surprisingly, protected areas were unaffected. New Zealand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka are considered strongly nationalistic. Marketing conservation to nationalist governments and societies might focus on the importance of national natural heritage values. For example, the US is proud of its bald eagle, while New Zealand is synonymous with kiwis. National sporting teams often take on the names of iconic wildlife, such as the Australian Wallabies or the Indomitable Lions of Cameroon. Socialist Prominent socialist ideology was related to significantly more threatened species, and slightly more protected area. China and Belarus, for example, were classed as socialist. So their protected area networks suffer from problems historically levelled at socialist regimes, such as poor planning and enforcement, which often leads to less than ideal conservation outcomes. Conservative Conservative ideology was the most strongly associated with increased protected area estate. However, the numbers of threatened species also increased under these governments. In our study, Australia’s political ideology was mixed but scored higher for conservatism and nationalism compared with socialism. So we found Australia’s approach to conservation actions tends to sit in the centre of available options. The proportion of threatened species is still high (more than 12% of Australia’s species are threatened). In Australia, shades of nationalism can be seen in promoting individual iconic species such as koalas. And conservatism in the use of offsetting to “balance” the impacts of developments. What this means Our work builds on previous research that found fair and transparent governance, inequality between rich and poor, and the strength of a country’s democracy are important in explaining conservation success. Indeed, our research also found stronger democracies, where elections are widely viewed as free and transparent, had more protected areas. But as we outline above, national political ideology also has an influence. By understanding this, we hope conservation advocates can tailor their messages to target the value systems of a government to improve conservation outcomes. Matt Hayward receives funding from the Australian Research Council, New South Wales Environment Trust, Illawarra Coal Pty Ltd, BHP Pty Ltd and a variety of philanthropists. Andrea S. Griffin receives funding from the Australian Research Council, The New South Wales Environmental Trust, Local Land Services, New South Wales Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Saving Our Species Program (Science and Research), Port Waratah Coal Services, a range of philanthropists, and a range of Biodiversity Conservation NGOs. She is affiliated with the Australian World Wildlife Fund (WWF).Jacob Jones is supported by a Research Training Program Scholarship provided by the Australian Government. Jacob is also supported by a philanthropic donation made to the University of Newcastle.

Biden Hired a Hell of a Lot of People Who Look Nothing Like Him

From the moment, a month ago, that Kamala Harris became the Democrats’ presumptive nominee for president, she has been derided by Republicans as a “DEI hire” and “DEI vice president.” Besides being willfully ignorant of what DEI actually is and how it works, this an obviously racist attempt to demean a barrier-breaking Black woman. The absurd implication is that President Biden only chose Harris as his running mate in 2020 because of her race and gender—rather than, say, her impressive experience as San Francisco district attorney, California attorney general, or U.S. senator. But there is an accidental truth buried in this GOP lunacy that Democrats ought to celebrate. Harris does owe her historic status as the first female, non-white major-party presidential nominee in part to the old white man who selected her as his vice president and then, in ending his campaign precisely when he did this summer, paved the way for her to assume the top of the ticket. And while she’s the most high-profile example, Harris is just one of a long list of women and people of color whom Biden has put into positions of authority in the executive and judicial branches. In fact, somewhat under the radar, Biden has appointed what experts say is the most diverse high-ranking administration and judiciary in history. This may be his most enduring legacy—and he was able to accomplish it in part because he’s a white man, which neutralizes the right’s favorite racist dog whistles. Harris won’t be so lucky. Today, two-thirds of Biden’s 15-member Cabinet are non-white or female; if you include the acting secretaries of labor as well as housing and urban development, the Cabinet is majority-women. Nearly two-thirds of Biden’s confirmed, lifetime judicial appointees are women, according to tallies by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and nearly two-thirds are people of color—judges and justices who will have an impact long after Biden leaves office.There are also numerous firsts: Biden appointed the first Muslim woman to a federal court and the first Native Hawaiian woman ever to serve as a lifetime judge. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland is the first Native American to serve as a Cabinet secretary. Karine Jean-Pierre is the first Black female White House press secretary. And, most prominently, Ketanji Brown Jackson is the first Black female Supreme Court justice.Previous Democratic presidents have pledged to appoint a Cabinet and senior staff that look like America. But Biden actually delivered.“What he has done is historic. What he has done is unprecedented,” civil rights leader Ralph Neas, former director of the Leadership Conference, told me. “Joe Biden has literally changed the face of the federal government’s leadership. Such achievements have been talked about for decades. But Joe Biden was the one who did it.” While Biden’s hiring accomplishments haven’t gotten much attention, they are very much by design, says Jessica Fulton, vice president of policy for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The Biden-Harris transition team in 2020—for which Fulton volunteered—set very public goals for hiring a team that was diverse in every way, not just their race, gender, or ethnicity, she told me. (Notably, more than 40 percent of Biden’s confirmed, lifetime judicial nominees have been people with experience as public defenders or civil rights advocates, the Leadership Conference said.) And then the Biden administration partnered with organizations and initiatives committed to diversity to help identify qualified candidates who otherwise might not be on the administration’s radar screen, she said. It’s not about racking up diversity statistics for its own sake; it’s about bringing a different perspective to roles that affect marginalized communities, Fulton noted. Having Cecelia Rouse, who was, from 2021 to 2023, the first Black woman to chair the Council of Economic Advisers in its 75-year history, or Shalanda Young, the first Black woman to head the Office of Management and Budget, provides a minority experience to jobs more often held by white males. Ditto Reta Jo Lewis, the first Black woman and person of color to head the Export-Import Bank, and Michael S. Regan, the first Black man to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Biden is even outpacing Barack Obama’s two-term record on diversity in the Cabinet and courts: Obama successfully appointed 16 women to Cabinet or sub-Cabinet positions during his eight years while Biden has successfully appointed 13 in less than one term, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. A then-record 42 percent of Obama’s judicial picks were women, according to a Pew Research Center analysis, less than Biden’s majority-female slate of court picks. Pew calculated that 36 percent of all of Obama’s judicial appointees were non-white; a Washington Post analysis in May shows the reverse for Biden: 36 percent of his overall judicial selections are white.And of course, it was Biden who made the historic pick of Jackson to the high court. It was something civil rights advocates had hoped Obama would do but understood why it would have been risky (and he did pick two women, one of whom is the first Latina on the court). While the American public elected a man who could bring his own Black experience to the job, they didn’t always want to hear it. Witness what happened when Obama had the nerve to express his personal reaction to Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, the late Black Harvard professor, being arrested by local police after he entered his own home (a neighbor had reported a possible burglary). Obama said the Cambridge police “acted stupidly,” rightly noting that “you probably don’t need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who’s in his own home”—but the backlash was loud enough that he hosted an awkward “beer summit” at the White House with Gates and the arresting officer. “It’s hard for a person of color, who was a first, was a trailblazer, to make an appointment like that” to the Supreme Court, Montré Carodine, a University of Alabama School of Law professor, told me. “Biden has the privilege of not having to think about that.”One of the reasons Biden has not gotten much credit from the progressive community—or criticism from the right, except for endorsing Harris for the nomination—is that he is white and male.“There was always this expectation that Barack Obama [was] going to favor Black people,” said Christopher Stout, an Oregon State University professor and author of the book The Case for Identity Politics: Polarization, Demographic Change, and Racial Appeals. “All African American candidates have to be really careful in how they talk about race,” and definitely in how they put people of color in positions of power, he added. “Whites don’t have the same fear that [Biden] is going to favor African Americans, because he’s one of them.”In other words: If Harris wins the White House this fall, and then attempts to do Biden one better in the diversity of her appointments, rest assured that Republicans will be in hysterics over her “DEI” picks.

From the moment, a month ago, that Kamala Harris became the Democrats’ presumptive nominee for president, she has been derided by Republicans as a “DEI hire” and “DEI vice president.” Besides being willfully ignorant of what DEI actually is and how it works, this an obviously racist attempt to demean a barrier-breaking Black woman. The absurd implication is that President Biden only chose Harris as his running mate in 2020 because of her race and gender—rather than, say, her impressive experience as San Francisco district attorney, California attorney general, or U.S. senator. But there is an accidental truth buried in this GOP lunacy that Democrats ought to celebrate. Harris does owe her historic status as the first female, non-white major-party presidential nominee in part to the old white man who selected her as his vice president and then, in ending his campaign precisely when he did this summer, paved the way for her to assume the top of the ticket. And while she’s the most high-profile example, Harris is just one of a long list of women and people of color whom Biden has put into positions of authority in the executive and judicial branches. In fact, somewhat under the radar, Biden has appointed what experts say is the most diverse high-ranking administration and judiciary in history. This may be his most enduring legacy—and he was able to accomplish it in part because he’s a white man, which neutralizes the right’s favorite racist dog whistles. Harris won’t be so lucky. Today, two-thirds of Biden’s 15-member Cabinet are non-white or female; if you include the acting secretaries of labor as well as housing and urban development, the Cabinet is majority-women. Nearly two-thirds of Biden’s confirmed, lifetime judicial appointees are women, according to tallies by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and nearly two-thirds are people of color—judges and justices who will have an impact long after Biden leaves office.There are also numerous firsts: Biden appointed the first Muslim woman to a federal court and the first Native Hawaiian woman ever to serve as a lifetime judge. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland is the first Native American to serve as a Cabinet secretary. Karine Jean-Pierre is the first Black female White House press secretary. And, most prominently, Ketanji Brown Jackson is the first Black female Supreme Court justice.Previous Democratic presidents have pledged to appoint a Cabinet and senior staff that look like America. But Biden actually delivered.“What he has done is historic. What he has done is unprecedented,” civil rights leader Ralph Neas, former director of the Leadership Conference, told me. “Joe Biden has literally changed the face of the federal government’s leadership. Such achievements have been talked about for decades. But Joe Biden was the one who did it.” While Biden’s hiring accomplishments haven’t gotten much attention, they are very much by design, says Jessica Fulton, vice president of policy for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The Biden-Harris transition team in 2020—for which Fulton volunteered—set very public goals for hiring a team that was diverse in every way, not just their race, gender, or ethnicity, she told me. (Notably, more than 40 percent of Biden’s confirmed, lifetime judicial nominees have been people with experience as public defenders or civil rights advocates, the Leadership Conference said.) And then the Biden administration partnered with organizations and initiatives committed to diversity to help identify qualified candidates who otherwise might not be on the administration’s radar screen, she said. It’s not about racking up diversity statistics for its own sake; it’s about bringing a different perspective to roles that affect marginalized communities, Fulton noted. Having Cecelia Rouse, who was, from 2021 to 2023, the first Black woman to chair the Council of Economic Advisers in its 75-year history, or Shalanda Young, the first Black woman to head the Office of Management and Budget, provides a minority experience to jobs more often held by white males. Ditto Reta Jo Lewis, the first Black woman and person of color to head the Export-Import Bank, and Michael S. Regan, the first Black man to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Biden is even outpacing Barack Obama’s two-term record on diversity in the Cabinet and courts: Obama successfully appointed 16 women to Cabinet or sub-Cabinet positions during his eight years while Biden has successfully appointed 13 in less than one term, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. A then-record 42 percent of Obama’s judicial picks were women, according to a Pew Research Center analysis, less than Biden’s majority-female slate of court picks. Pew calculated that 36 percent of all of Obama’s judicial appointees were non-white; a Washington Post analysis in May shows the reverse for Biden: 36 percent of his overall judicial selections are white.And of course, it was Biden who made the historic pick of Jackson to the high court. It was something civil rights advocates had hoped Obama would do but understood why it would have been risky (and he did pick two women, one of whom is the first Latina on the court). While the American public elected a man who could bring his own Black experience to the job, they didn’t always want to hear it. Witness what happened when Obama had the nerve to express his personal reaction to Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, the late Black Harvard professor, being arrested by local police after he entered his own home (a neighbor had reported a possible burglary). Obama said the Cambridge police “acted stupidly,” rightly noting that “you probably don’t need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who’s in his own home”—but the backlash was loud enough that he hosted an awkward “beer summit” at the White House with Gates and the arresting officer. “It’s hard for a person of color, who was a first, was a trailblazer, to make an appointment like that” to the Supreme Court, Montré Carodine, a University of Alabama School of Law professor, told me. “Biden has the privilege of not having to think about that.”One of the reasons Biden has not gotten much credit from the progressive community—or criticism from the right, except for endorsing Harris for the nomination—is that he is white and male.“There was always this expectation that Barack Obama [was] going to favor Black people,” said Christopher Stout, an Oregon State University professor and author of the book The Case for Identity Politics: Polarization, Demographic Change, and Racial Appeals. “All African American candidates have to be really careful in how they talk about race,” and definitely in how they put people of color in positions of power, he added. “Whites don’t have the same fear that [Biden] is going to favor African Americans, because he’s one of them.”In other words: If Harris wins the White House this fall, and then attempts to do Biden one better in the diversity of her appointments, rest assured that Republicans will be in hysterics over her “DEI” picks.

VAT should be cut on refurbished electricals, says Currys boss

Alex Baldock wants to keep gadgets out of landfill as UK’s largest electricals retailer embraces repair and reuseThe UK government should slash VAT on refurbished electrical products to keep gadgets out of landfill, according to the boss of Currys.“It has already been charged once on these products,” said Alex Baldock, the head of the UK’s largest electrical goods retailer. “I would like to see a radical reduction or entire cut on these products.” Continue reading...

The UK government should slash VAT on refurbished electrical products to keep gadgets out of landfill, according to the boss of Currys.“It has already been charged once on these products,” said Alex Baldock, the head of the UK’s largest electrical goods retailer. “I would like to see a radical reduction or entire cut on these products.”Baldock’s comments come as the market for secondhand electricals is growing rapidly, with new entrants such as Back Market and mainstream retailers such as Currys joining the likes of eBay and Amazon in making pre-loved gadgets more accessible.Last week, Vinted, the secondhand fashion marketplace, launched a dedicated electronics category on its site as it caters to growing demand for trading in items such as gaming consoles, speakers, headphones, fitness trackers and smartwatches.The cost of living crisis, and more awareness of the environmental impact of buying new items, are both driving the market.In 2022 the UK produced the second highest amount of e-waste per person in the world, and only 17% of unwanted gadgets are currently recycled globally.Almost half a billion small, cheap everyday electrical items from headphones to handheld fans ended up in landfill in the UK last year, according to Material Focus, a not-for-profit organisation that aims to stop electricals being hoarded and thrown away.New technology contributes more than 1bn tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, just under 3% of the global total, making it the seventh biggest contributor, about half the size of the fashion industry, according to Our World in Data.Mending a smartphone just once can save more than 77kg of carbon emissions, research by the French ecological transition agency Ademe has found.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionCurrys is aiming to drive up repair and resale with techniques to cut costs such as using video calls to problem-solve often basic problems with gadgets that can potentially be fixed by pressing reset or reloading software, for example.Baldock says about 70% of returned laptops have no fault – the problem is often software-based – while on TVs, 30%-40% of items returned are found to be in full working order.A team of experts based in the Currys repair centre have been fixing web-enabled devices such as TVs in this way for some time. Now the company is experimenting with using live video to help solve problems with fridges or ovens.Repairing and selling refurbished items would help Currys reduce the 8.1m defunct gadgets sent off for recycling to external partner Environcom, just as the government is potentially gearing up to make sellers pay the full cost of that process under the “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) scheme.Baldock says that “I hope and believe the new government will take a different stance” on EPR. He argues that recycling is expensive and if that cost cannot be passed on to customers, then retailers will do less of it.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.