1.7 million Texas households are set to lose monthly internet subsidy

The Texas Tribune

1.7 million Texas households are set to lose monthly internet subsidy

Pooja Salhotra – April 2, 2024

A colonia, unincorporated neighborhoods that lack basic services such as street lights, proper drainage, paved roads or waste management, is seen near Edinburg on March 25, 2020.
A colonia, unincorporated neighborhoods that lack basic services such as street lights, proper drainage, paved roads or waste management, is seen near Edinburg on March 25, 2020. Credit: Verónica G. Cárdenas for The Texas Tribune

The $30 per month Daisy Solis has saved off of her internet bill for the past two years stretched a long way.

Those dollars covered new shoes for her three, growing children, dinners out at the Chick-fil-A that popped up in her town of Peñitas in South Texas, and part of a higher-than-usual electricity bill.

Now, Solis worries she might have to sacrifice on her internet speed because a federal subsidy that has helped her pay for her internet plan is set to expire at the end of April.

The Affordable Connectivity Program provides a $30 monthly subsidy to help low-income households pay for internet service, and up to $75 per month for households on tribal lands. The $14.2 billion program was part of the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and has helped 23 million households in the U.S — including 1.7 million in Texas — save money on their internet bills. The program’s funding is slated to dwindle at the end of April, though, potentially cutting millions off from the internet. In May, limited remaining funding in the program will allow eligible households to receive a partial discount; there won’t be any benefits after May.

“It has really helped me in that I don’t have to stress out about the bill,” said Solis, 27. “Even though it’s $30, $30 goes a long way.”

The program’s termination will disproportionately impact South Texas, where counties along the Texas-Mexico border had higher than average rates of participation. Overall, 1 in 7 Texans used the program. But in some border counties, including Hidalgo County, about half of its residents used the subsidy, according to data from the Federal Communications Commission.

“Some people have told me they might not get internet if [the subsidy] goes away,” said Marco Lopez, a community organizer at La Unión del Pueblo Entero, a nonprofit organization that supports low-income neighborhoods in the Valley. “I don’t know what to tell them because it’s not just cutting off their internet; it’s cutting off their opportunities for jobs, for school, for telehealth.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced a bill that would extend funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program through the end of 2024. But the bill has not moved and faces considerable pushback from Republican lawmakers who claim the Biden administration has spent “recklessly.”

In a December letter to the chair of the FCC, a group of lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, disputed that the broadband program was necessary. The lawmakers said that most households using the subsidy already had broadband subscriptions. But that’s likely untrue. According to an FCC survey, 47% of respondents reported having either zero connectivity or relying on mobile service before enrolling in the federal program.

On Tuesday, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel sent a letter to Congress urging them to fund the program until the end of the year. She said the funding has been particularly critical for vulnerable populations, including veterans, seniors, and students.

“We know that nearly half of ACP households are led by someone over the age of 50,” she wrote. “The ACP and the broadband service it supports is ‘need to have’ for many seniors, who depend on the program for managing their health and maintaining access to their medical teams.”

The program’s termination comes as the state and federal government pump historic sums of money to expand broadband infrastructure and close the so-called digital divide. Texas is poised to receive more than $3.3 billion federal dollars to help connect the roughly 7 million Texans who lack access to affordable internet. The state will bolster those funds with an additional $1.5 billion that voters approved in November.

Some advocates worry that terminating the Affordable Connectivity Program at this juncture could jeopardize the success of future broadband investments.

“If we build the infrastructure but then all these people lose internet access, we are going to be taking one step forward and two steps back,” said Kelty Garbee, executive director of Texas Rural Funders, a nonprofit focused on rural philanthropy. “It is important to take a long view.”

Rural areas lag behind their urban counterparts when it comes to broadband access. The combination of low population density and remoteness make such areas unattractive to internet service providers, who are hesitant to invest in expensive infrastructure without a guaranteed pool of customers. Garbee worries that ending the government subsidies could shrink the rural customer base and make those areas even less attractive to internet companies.

Jordana Barton-Garcia, who focuses on broadband investments for nonprofit organization Connect Humanity, said that while the termination of ACP will be a significant loss for high poverty areas, the program is a “Band-Aid” solution. She said the subsidy doesn’t address the root of the problem: that the economics of broadband do not work in rural, low-income areas.

“Instead of being ruled by profit-maximizing major corporations, we need other models to serve low and moderate income communities,” she said. “We need to be able to serve without maximizing profits and instead serve for the public good.”

Some communities have found innovative ways to provide broadband to their rural constituents at a low cost. The city of Pharr in Hidalgo County, for example, created a municipal internet service program that offers plans for as low as $25 per month, the price residents in the border community said they could afford. Barton-Garcia said Pharr won’t be affected by the termination of government subsidies because the city has already secured its own funding. Pharr used grant money, a municipal bond as well as American Rescue Plan dollars to create a municipally-run internet service.

Large internet providers such as Comcast said they will continue to support low-income customers with an affordable plan. Comcast offers eligible customers a plan called internet essentials for $9.95 and a slightly higher-speed plan for $29.95.

For smaller providers in rural Texas, though, a low-cost plan is not financially feasible without government support. Charlie Cano, CEO of ETex Telephone Cooperative, said his lowest cost option is $62 per month.

“Anything lower than that is going to jeopardize our business model,” Cano said. “I’m nervous about what we are going to do about that low-cost option.”

In order to qualify as a grantee for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program — the main broadband program created by the bipartisan infrastructure law — providers must offer a low-cost option to low-income customers. Providers like Cano worry this requirement may make it difficult for companies like his to win federal grant dollars.

Disclosure: Comcast has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Biden administration points finger at Republicans for internet bill hikes

CNN

Biden administration points finger at Republicans for internet bill hikes

Brian Fung, CNN – April 2, 2024

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Tens of millions of Americans could see skyrocketing internet bills this spring or may be abruptly kicked off their plans — and it will be congressional Republicans who are to blame, the Biden administration said Tuesday.

The accusation reflects a last-ditch pressure campaign to save a federal program that has helped connect more than 23 million US households to the internet, many for the first time. Without it, those households will be forced to pay hundreds of dollars more per year to stay online.

By the end of the month, funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) will run out, jeopardizing the monthly discounts on internet service benefiting an estimated 59 million low-income people, including veterans, students and older Americans.

Many ACP subscribers would be forced to choose between paying for groceries and paying for internet service if the program is shut down, CNN has previously reported.

Although popular with users from across the ideological spectrum, the ACP’s future is in doubt as legislation to extend the program has stalled. Now, as the Federal Communications Commission has begun winding it down, the Biden administration is ramping up pressure on the GOP for standing in the way of a critical lifeline for accessing health care, jobs and education.

“President [Joe] Biden has been calling on Congress to pass legislation that would extend the benefit through 2024. And we know Democratic members and senators have joined him in that effort,” a senior administration official told reporters. “But unfortunately, Republicans in Congress have failed to act.”

Biden has called on Congress to approve $6 billion to continue the ACP. A bill introduced in January by a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate would authorize $7 billion. That legislation has 216 co-sponsors in the House, including 21 Republicans, and three in the Senate, including two Republicans.

But policy experts have said it is unlikely Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson will let the bill onto the House floor as GOP leaders have decried government spending, despite the program being used in virtually every congressional district nationwide.

“It is clear the program would be extended if the speaker would allow a vote,” said Blair Levin, an analyst at the market research firm New Street Research. “So far, he has not said anything about it, but it appears he will not allow the House to vote on the legislation. He has not, to my knowledge, said anything substantive about the legislation or the program.”

Levin added that support by Republican Sens. J.D. Vance of Ohio and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota also suggest the bill would pass the Senate, making the House “the biggest obstacle.”

Spokespeople for Johnson and for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The result is a stalemate that, if left unresolved, will lead to the collapse of the ACP by early May.

Administration officials declined to say whether Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris have personally discussed the ACP with congressional Republicans. But the officials told reporters there is currently no Plan B if Congress fails to extend the program.

“There are really no good options in a world in which Congress leaves us without any funding,” said another senior administration official. “There are certainly no easy answers for us to move forward if this program ends. So we want to work as hard as possible to make sure we avoid that possibility.”

Some lawmakers had hoped that money for the ACP could have been included in the recent bipartisan spending deal intended to keep the government open, but those hopes were ultimately left unfulfilled.

On Tuesday, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel sent a letter to Congress outlining the impact that the ACP’s disruption would cause.

“The end of the ACP will have broad impact,” Rosenworcel wrote. “But it is worth noting that they will have special impact on certain vulnerable populations, including senior citizens. We know that nearly half of ACP households are led by someone over the age of 50.”

More than 4 million military households are signed up for the ACP, Rosenworcel added, while 3.4 million households within the ACP program reported using school lunch or breakfast programs, indicating that many program subscribers are parents of children whose ability to do homework assignments may be interrupted by the loss of the ACP. To qualify for the ACP, users are required to meet certain income limits or be a participant in one of a number of other federal aid programs, such as the National School Lunch Program.

Rosenworcel called on Sen. Maria Cantwell and the panel she chairs, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to quickly advance legislation to extend the ACP. But the bill’s future remains foggy.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death for Americans. Here are 11 ways to reduce your risk.

Yahoo! Life

Cancer is the second leading cause of death for Americans. Here are 11 ways to reduce your risk.

Priscilla Blossom – March 1, 2024

Experts share ways to reduce your cancer risk. (Getty Images)
Experts share ways to reduce your cancer risk. (Getty Images) (ljubaphoto via Getty Images)

Chances are you or someone you know has been affected by one of the many types of cancer. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it is the second leading cause of death for Americans, and projections from the American Cancer Society show there will be more than 2 million new cancer cases in the U.S. this year.

What’s more, a recent government-funded study of 17 National Cancer Institute registries shows cancer is on the rise among younger Americans, particularly women (who saw a 4.4% increase), Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander populations. The research also shows that gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are the fastest-growing type of cancer among younger people.

That said, it’s important to understand that many cancers are known as “preventable cancers” and that very few (up to 10%) of cancers are inherited. “Cancers that are preventable are ones that we can take adequate steps to reduce the risk,” Heather Thompson Mackey, a nurse and senior director of cancer prevention for the Prevent Cancer Foundation, tells Yahoo Life.

While certain immutable factors — such as race, age or genetic predisposition — can influence cancer diagnosis and survival rates, there are lifestyle changes that can improve one’s chances. “About 40% of cancers overall can be related to modifiable risk factors,” Mackey says. Here, she and other experts share ways to cut one’s risk.

Cut alcohol consumption

As the CDC notes, drinking alcohol is associated with an increased risk of getting a number of different types of cancer, including liver, prostate and pancreatic. “It’s best for cancer prevention to not drink at all,” says Mackey. However, she acknowledges that if people do drink, they should stick to no more than one drink (for women) or two (for men) per day.

Don’t smoke

According to the CDC, cigarette smoking is the No. 1 risk factor for lung cancer, with statistics showing that smokers are 15 to 30 times more likely to develop or die from lung cancer than non-smokers. But it’s not just lung cancer smokers should worry about.

“There are multiple other cancers that smoking impacts,” Dr. Andrew Hertler, an oncologist and chief medical officer for Evolent, tells Yahoo Life. “Everything from bladder cancer, to cancer of the head and neck region, to esophageal cancer and pancreatic cancer.” (For tips on quitting, look here.)

Know your body

Dr. April Spencer, surgical oncologist and founder of Dr. Spencer’s Global Breast Health and Wellness Center, tells Yahoo Life that people should stay aware of their bodies. Report any changes — such as a mole that’s changed shape or color, a mysterious lump or differences in how the breasts look or feel — to a doctor.

Practice safe sun exposure

While too much UV radiation is associated with increased risk of skin cancer, there are benefits to soaking up the sun — safely, oncologist Dr. Katie Deming tells Yahoo Life. “Vitamin D deficiency is correlated with certain types of cancer, including breast cancer,” says Deming, who recommends the Dminder app for calculating the optimal amount of sun you need. “Safe sun exposure is the best way to boost vitamin D levels.”

To stay safe and avoid burning, Mackey advises wearing sunscreen that is SPF 30 or higher whenever outside and avoiding intense periods of sun exposure between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Stay up-to-date on vaccinations

Certain vaccines can help reduce your risk of certain cancers. “Over 90% of cases of cervical cancer are associated with HPV [human papillomavirus], and so HPV vaccination has been a game-changer,” says Mackey. She also recommends making sure you have a hepatitis B vaccine. This vaccine has been named the first “anti-cancer” vaccine by the FDA as it can prevent chronic hepatitis B infections, which help prevent liver cancers caused by the virus.

Eat a healthy diet

It sounds simple, but putting nutrition first can help. “Increase the intake of fruits and vegetables, and reduce the intake of red meat and processed foods and beverages high in sugar,” says Spencer.

Additionally, Mackey suggests avoiding lots of cured or smoked meats due to the ways in which they are processed, which increases your exposure to carcinogens.

Document your family medical history

“Knowing your family history, sharing it with your primary care doctor and determining if you’re someone who should undergo more aggressive screening or genetic testing is very important,” Hertler says. For example, if there’s a history of colon cancer in your family, it’s worth talking to your doctor about getting a colonoscopy before the recommended age of 45 and learning about other preventative measures.

“It’s important to know the types of cancer, and at what age those family members were diagnosed,” says Mackey. “Have that conversation with your doctor, even starting in your 20s.”

For those with a known history of cancer in the family, it’s also important to have conversations about which cancers you might be at risk for. While Hertler says he doesn’t always recommend genetic testing, which can help evaluate an individual’s cancer risk, there are algorithms doctors can use that help estimate a patient’s particular risk and whether or not it’s worth moving forward with genetic testing.

Additionally, prophylactic surgeries — in which an organ or gland is removed before any signs of cancer appear, such as a preventative mastectomy to get ahead of breast cancer — can decrease your odds of developing those particular cancers to about 99%. However, Hetler warns it’s not something that is always recommended and that it isn’t something to go into lightly.

“All of these are tough procedures for patients to go through psychologically and physically, and the alternative is always very aggressive screening programs,” he explains. “I’d emphasize that it’s always an individual decision as to whether to have prophylactic surgery.”

Stay active

A sedentary lifestyle is associated with an increased risk for various cancers. Meanwhile, research shows that getting at least 30 minutes of physical activity per day reduces the risk of colorectal, endometrial and postmenopausal breast cancers. The Department of Health and Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans also recommends 150 minutes to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, 75 minutes to 100 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity, or an equivalent combination each week, along with muscle-strengthening exercises twice a week and balance training to reduce the risk of chronic conditions including cancer. And our experts agree: The more movement, the better.

Release emotional trauma

Our minds matter. “Studies show that children with emotional trauma are at a higher risk of developing cancer and other illnesses later in life,” says Deming. In fact, adverse childhood experiences can increase unhealthy behaviors as well as increase chronic inflammation, which causes wear and tear on the body, leaving it at an increased risk of cancer.

“Working through emotional trauma is one way to mitigate this increased risk of cancer,” she adds. Keeping children safe from adverse childhood experiences is also recommended.

Do your best to avoid pollutants and carcinogens

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has identified a large number of chemical substances that are known to be human carcinogens, including formaldehyde, soot, coal tar and coal tar pitch, asbestos and aflatoxins. While Hertler notes that “we all are exposed all the time to pollutants and carcinogenic chemicals,” there are ways to limit that exposure. One way is test your home for exposure to radon, asbestos or lead, suggests Mackey.

“We talk a lot about testing for radon to make sure that you don’t have that chemical exposure and increase your risk of lung cancer,” says Mackey. Other things you can do are test for asbestos and lead in your home. Deming also advises checking for contaminants in your local drinking water or using a filtration system. And be mindful of the ingredients included in the products you’re shopping for, adds Spencer. “Only buy personal care products with minimal preservatives and that are free of possible carcinogenic toxins like parabens, BPAs and phthalates,” she says.

Get cancer screenings as recommended

From mammograms to colonoscopies, cancer screenings are essential in preventing the development of more advanced cancers, and in improving survival rates. Age and frequency recommendations vary — from age 21 for Pap smear to detect cervical cancer to age 50 for a prostate exam — and are subject to change given a person’s risk factors. How soon and how often you screen for certain cancers often depends on family history; the earlier your relatives were diagnosed, the more likely your providers will recommend screening at an earlier age.

Why is prevention key?

While there’s never any guarantee that someone won’t get ever get cancer, staying on top of one’s health can achieve better outcomes and make it more likely that, in the event of a diagnosis, the cancer is caught early. “The earlier it’s diagnosed, the greater the overall survival rates,” says Hertler, who has practiced oncology for over 40 years and has seen advancements in the screenings being developed.

Thinking about the rising cancer rates in the U.S. can feel pretty overwhelming, Mackey says, but she stresses the importance of being proactive.

“This is something that can be very frightening, but there’s a lot you can do to really empower yourself to take steps to reduce your cancer risk,” says Mackey. “We may not be able to prevent all types of cancer, but we can live the healthiest life we can … to reduce our risk.”

New report finds striking parallels between tobacco, gas stove campaigns: ‘This is intentional; it’s by design’

The Cool Down

New report finds striking parallels between tobacco, gas stove campaigns: ‘This is intentional; it’s by design’

Ben Stern – March 22, 2024

For decades, tobacco companies misled the public about the dangers of their products, engaging in multipronged PR campaigns and spreading disinformation.

Today, nicotine and smoking are widely acknowledged to be addictive, and cigarettes are known to cause cancer. But it took years to expose these truths, all while massive tobacco corporations profited from the harm they caused.

In a striking new report titled “Cooking with Smoke: How the Gas Industry Used Tobacco Tactics to Cover up Harms from Gas Stoves,” the Public Health Law Center has revealed how Big Tobacco’s playbook of deception was also used to convince the public that gas stoves are safe.

The beginning of the gas stove fight

While news coverage on the potential dangers of gas stove pollution has recently picked up, researchers have been trying to sound the alarm since at least the 1970s.

Early studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency were primarily focused on investigating the health impacts of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution from gas stoves.

After it was determined that such NO2 exposure could cause or worsen asthma and other respiratory problems, the American Gas Association (AGA), fearing public outcry, began to fund its own research claiming that gas stoves weren’t associated with respiratory issues.

Yet the current scientific consensus is that gas stoves are burdening the public with health issues, specifically our children. One peer-reviewed study from the nonprofit think tank RMI found that more than one in eight cases of childhood asthma in America is associated with a gas stove in the home.

The full health impacts of exposure to gas stove pollution are unfortunately not yet known. Pediatrician Dr. Lisa Patel, the Executive Director of the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health, believes it’s critical to learn more about gas stoves’ potential dangers sooner rather than later.

“Because the oil and gas industry has been so successful in pulling the wool over our eyes, suppressing the research, we’re still figuring out which of the pollutants [from stoves] is the ‘worst’ in terms of risk,” Dr. Patel told The Cool Down.

Cooking with smoke

The Public Health Law Center’s new report lays out how eerily similar the disinformation campaigns of the gas and tobacco industries are.

Cooking with Smoke” describes seven of the deceptive tactics used by both the tobacco and gas industries to mislead the American public.

One such tactic is hiring the same scientists and research labs to provide biased or partial information pointing to desired results — namely, downplaying the health impacts of tobacco products and gas stoves. The AGA has hired the exact same laboratory as the Council for Tobacco Research, a tobacco industry trade group, for its sponsored research.

Last year, a New York Times exposé revealed that not only did the AGA hire a toxicologist to obscure the relationship between gas stoves and health impacts, but that same toxicologist was hired by the cigarette company Philip Morris to provide testimony claiming that Marlboro Lights were “safer for smokers.”

Another strategy utilized by both industries is the marketing of deceptive media to children. As outlined in the report, gas companies have used social media influencers to promote gas stoves to young people. Within the past two years, the gas industry has also sent coloring books to schools, telling children that “natural gas [is] your invisible friend,” as the report noted.

We deserve better

Due to decades of industry disinformation, the health harms caused by gas stoves have largely gone unnoticed or misunderstood by the American public. But just as Big Tobacco couldn’t hide the truth about cigarettes, the gas industry won’t be able to successfully hide the dangers of its stoves from the public forever.

“The gas industry wants us to accept health harms that we don’t have to. This is intentional; it’s by design,” Joelle Lester, Executive Director of the Public Health Law Center, told The Cool Down. “That’s where the gas industry is similar to Big Tobacco. They will continue to resist regulation and restriction to protect their profits.”

Change is coming

Both Lester and Dr. Patel believe that more information about the true health risks of gas stoves will inevitably emerge. When it does, change will follow.

“Jurisdictions will make changes [to transition away from gas stoves],” Lester told The Cool Down, “and once the sky doesn’t fall, and the health benefits can be measured, it will be so powerful.”

And according to Dr. Patel, “in the end, science and wanting to take care of each other will always win out.”

Actions you can take now

For those worried about the impacts of gas stoves, waiting on policy fixes isn’t necessary. The best way for an individual to eliminate the health risks of a gas stove is to replace it with an induction or electric range.

Induction cooktops have already proven to be the superior option in many ways, cooking food more quickly, evenly, efficiently, and safely than gas stoves.

While replacing your gas stove may seem daunting, the federal government, through the Inflation Reduction Act, will offer up to $840 to those who make the switch.

Even renters will be able to take advantage of this point-of-sale rebate by purchasing plug-in induction cooktops.

Some landlords may also be amenable to electrification projects, like installing induction stoves, once they find out how much more energy-efficient the devices are. The nonprofit Rewiring America has an in-depth guide for talking to your landlord about upgrading.

Of course, even with an $840 upfront discount, not every family will be able to make the switch. For those families, many options still exist to protect their respiratory health. Dr. Patel told The Cool Down: “If they can’t get that gas cooktop out, using electric appliances, opening windows, [or] using an overhead vent helps.”

Top 20 Tobacco Growing Countries in the World

Insider Monkey

Top 20 Tobacco Growing Countries in the World

Sultan Khalid – March 29, 2024

In this article, we are going to discuss the top 20 tobacco growing countries in the world. You can skip our detailed analysis of the global tobacco market, the heavy investments in marketing by tobacco companies, and the rising popularity of flavored tobacco, and go directly to the Top 5 Tobacco Growing Countries in the World

Tobacco was first used by the people of pre-Columbian Americas. Archeological studies suggest that the Maya people of Central America started using tobacco leaves as far back as the 1st century BC, mainly for smoking in sacred and religious ceremonies. By the time Columbus arrived in the New World in 1492, the Native Americans were already cultivating and smoking tobacco in pipes, cigars, and snuff. Although Cristopher Columbus brought with him a few tobacco leaves and seeds back to Europe, most Europeans didn’t get their first taste of the plant until the mid-16th century, when adventurers and diplomats like France’s Jean Nicot – for whom nicotine is named – began to popularize its use. Tobacco was introduced to France in 1556, Portugal in 1558, Spain in 1559, and finally England in 1565. By the early 17th century, smoking was common in all of Europe’s maritime nations, and their colonial empires soon carried tobacco all over the world.

Global Tobacco Market: 

As we mentioned in our article – Top 20 Most Valuable Tobacco Companies in the World – the global tobacco market is expected to reach $1.049 trillion by 2030, with a CAGR of 2.1% during the forecast period. The market is fuelled by a growing demand from developing nations, coupled with the rising proliferation of next-generation products (NGPs) across the globe. The high marketing expenditure and discounting of products undertaken by major tobacco companies is also adding to the growth of the industry. 

While tobacco consumption is leveling off and even decreasing in some countries, the number of people smoking is still increasing globally, and smokers are smoking more than before. An estimated 1.3 billion people worldwide use tobacco products, 80% of whom are in low- and middle-income countries. 

Heavy Investments in Marketing: 

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has led to widespread restrictions on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship around the world. This, coupled with the evidence of the causal role of marketing in the tobacco epidemic, has inspired more than half the countries worldwide to ban some forms of tobacco marketing. 

Yet, tobacco companies have found creative ways to maneuver their way around these barriers, using a variety of marketing strategies to create demand for cigarettes and other tobacco products by urging the youth to experiment, reducing smokers’ motivation to quit, and encouraging former smokers to take it up again. According to the Federal Trade Commission, in 2020 alone, the American tobacco industry spent over $8.4 billion on marketing for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, spending more at the point-of-sale than anywhere else. They spent nearly $66 million on advertisements at the point of sale alone.

However, this hasn’t been without consequences. In September 2023, the e-cigarette company Juul, which at the height of its success dominated the market with its sweet flavors, agreed to pay $438.5 million in a settlement with 33 states and one territory over marketing its product to teens. The case ends major litigation over claims about the marketing of e-cigarettes to adolescents, resolving thousands of lawsuits and amounting to billions of dollars in payouts to states, cities, and people.

Sales of Juul products were sky high a few years ago and the company was even eyeing a market valuation of around $38 billion. However, it was discovered that Juul use among teens and young adults spiked heavily from 2018 to 2019. An estimated 27.5% of high schoolers reported using e-cigarettes during the period, with more than half naming Juul as their brand of choice. To add to the company’s woes, the FDA banned Juul products on U.S. shelves last summer, citing a lack of evidence demonstrating their overall safety. The regulator also noted Juul’s ‘disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping.’

The Rising Popularity of Flavored Tobacco:

Flavors improve the taste and mask the harshness of tobacco, making flavored tobacco products more appealing and easier to smoke for beginners, who are often young. In 2022, cigars were the second most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. middle and high school students. The availability of flavors in cigars that are prohibited in cigarettes (such as cherry), and the fact that they are commonly sold as a single stick, has raised concerns that these products may be especially appealing to youth. According to a 2021 survey by the CDC, among middle and high school students who smoked cigars in the previous 30 days, 44.4% reported using a flavored cigar during that time.

A popular name among the machine made, flavored cigars is Middleton’s Black and Mild. Designed for the occasional smoker, these pipe tobacco cigars boast a smoke smooth enough to satisfy an aficionado in a pinch. Owned by Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE:MO), Black & Mild cigars are available in a variety of flavors like apple, cherry, cream, and more. 

The John Middleton Co., a famous name in the pipe tobacco and machine cigars industry, was acquired by the Richmond-based Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE:MO) in 2007 in a deal worth $2.9 billion, thus enabling the tobacco giant to break into the growing American cigar business as it tried to expand beyond the shrinking U.S. cigarette market. The net cost of the acquisition of Middleton, maker of Black & Mild cigars, from the privately held Bradford Holdings was $2.2 billion, after deducting $700 million in tax benefits arising from the deal.

Altria Group, Inc. (NYSE:MO) ranks among the Largest Tobacco Companies in the World by Market Cap

With that said, here are the Largest Tobacco Growing Countries in the World

Top 20 Tobacco Growing Countries in the World
Top 20 Tobacco Growing Countries in the World
Methodology: 

To collect data for this article, we have referred to FAOSTAT, looking for the Countries that Grow the Most Tobacco. The following countries have been ranked by their respective land areas dedicated to tobacco production (measured in hectares) in 2021. 

By the way, Insider Monkey is an investing website that tracks the movements of corporate insiders and hedge funds. By using a similar consensus approach, we identify the best stock picks of more than 900 hedge funds investing in US stocks. The top 10 consensus stock picks of hedge funds outperformed the S&P 500 Index by more than 140 percentage points over the last 10 years (see the details here). Whether you are a beginner investor or professional one looking for the best stocks to buy, you can benefit from the wisdom of hedge funds and corporate insiders.

20. Ivory Coast

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 15,979 ha

Ivory Coast is a significant producer and consumer of tobacco in Africa, with an estimated 9.4% of the adult population classified as smokers. However, the West African nation has taken significant steps to reduce the smoking rate among its people. In fact, Côte d’Ivoire became the first country in Africa to require plain packaging on tobacco products in 2022. 

19. North Macedonia

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 16,617 ha

North Macedonia has a long tradition of cultivating and exporting oriental tobacco, mainly of the types Prilep, Jaka, and Basma. Due to the large number of families working in tobacco agriculture, it also receives the largest share of crop subsidies, comprising on average a quarter of total agricultural subsidies for the period 2008 – 2019. 

18. Cuba

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 16,682 ha

Cuban cigars have long been a symbol of luxury and prestige, and the country produces some of the Most Expensive Cigars in the World. Due to consistently warm temperatures, high humidity, and regular rainfall, Cuba has excellent conditions for growing tobacco and it has been a mainstay crop for thousands of years. 

Cuba is placed among the Countries that Produce the Best Tobacco in the World

17. Thailand

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 21,059 ha

Tobacco leaves are produced in 20 provinces in the North and Northeast of Thailand and last year, around 50% of Thai tobacco farmers grew burley, while 26% grew turkish leaf, and 24% grew virginia leaf. Most of this produce supplies the local market, monopolized by the Tobacco Authority of Thailand under government supervision for setting quotas and producing cigarettes. 

Thailand is included among the Top Producers of Tobacco in Asia

16. Uganda

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 21,998 ha

Tobacco growing and manufacturing in Uganda was introduced in the 1920s by British American Tobacco, and around 75,000 of the nation’s farmers are now involved in tobacco agriculture, based mainly in the northwest and southwest of the country. 

15. Philippines

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 28,380 ha

First introduced in the 1950’s, tobacco is widely grown in various provinces in the Philippines, with the industry supporting over 2 million jobs nationwide. The country exported 53% of its total tobacco produced in 2022, while 47% was supplied to local tobacco manufacturers.

14. Pakistan

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 47,332 ha

Although tobacco is grown on only about 0.23% of total irrigated land of Pakistan, the crop plays an important role in the country’s economy by generating income and employment for over 50,000 farmers in all four provinces. However, the total land area under tobacco cultivation has been rapidly decreasing over the last decade, mainly due to climate change and negligence by the government authorities. 

13. Bangladesh

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 47,523 ha

The cultivation of tobacco is increasing alarmingly in Bangladesh, with the crop now being grown in every part of the country. Farmers are encouraged to continue and expand tobacco cultivation with various incentives, including loans and buyback guarantees.

12. Argentina

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 53,840 ha

Argentina stands among the Largest Tobacco Producers in South America, with the country producing 95.6 thousand tons in 2022, representing approximately 1.7% of the global production of tobacco of 5.8 million tons. Most of the tobacco cultivation happens in the north, with the provinces of Jujuy, Salta, and Misiones taking the lead. 

11. North Korea

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 56,995 ha

The tobacco industry plays a significant role in the North Korean economy, with around 2.3% of the country’s total arable land dedicated to cultivating the cash crop. North Korea’s counterfeit cigarette production capacity is estimated to exceed two billion packs a year, and is a major source of income for the regime. 

10. Tanzania

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 80,678 ha

Tobacco has been grown in Tanzania since the 1950s and is an important source of foreign exchange for the country. Tanzania produced 125 million kg of tobacco in 2023 and for the first 

time, more than 50% of this produce was bought and sold abroad by local companies.

9. Turkey

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 83,166 ha

Tobacco was introduced to the Ottomans by the Spanish in the 17th century, and the country is now the world’s largest producer of aromatic oriental tobacco – a small-leafed variety which is sun-cured. Around 400,000 Turks are dependent on the tobacco industry for their livelihood. 

8. Mozambique

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 91,469 ha

Tobacco cultivation has been considered a mainstay of Mozambique’s economy and the country exported $49.4 million of it in the first nine months of 2023, a quarter less than in the previous year. Most of this tobacco is grown in the regions of Tete and Niassa, representing over 89% of the country’s total production. 

7. United States of America

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 95,730 ha

Although America has significantly decreased cultivating tobacco since the 1980s, it still ranks among the largest producers of the crop. North Carolina and Kentucky are the States that Grow the Most Tobacco in America

The total U.S. annual tobacco consumption was recorded at 237,079 tons in 2020, putting it among the Countries with the Highest Tobacco Consumption

6. Malawi

Total Area Dedicated to Tobacco Production: 100,962 ha

Tobacco is the backbone of the Malawian economy, historically generating about 70% of the country’s export revenue and now accounting for over 50%. In 2015, tobacco farming took up more than 5% of all of Malawi’s farming land – the highest percentage anywhere in the world at that time.

Malawi ranks among the Largest Producers of Burley Tobacco in the World.

Click to continue reading and see the Top 5 Tobacco Growing Countries in the World

Suggested Articles:

‘Humbling, and a bit worrying’: Scientists fail to fully explain record global heat

Los Angeles Times

‘Humbling, and a bit worrying’: Scientists fail to fully explain record global heat

Hayley Smith – March 27, 2024

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. - DEC. 6, 2023. Beachgoers are framed against the setting sun at the end of a warm day in Huntington Beach. Scientists say that Novemeber was the sixth straight month to set a heat record. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)
The sun sets over Huntington Beach at the end of a hot December day in 2023. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Deadly heat in the Southwest. Hot-tub temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean. Sweltering conditions in Europe, Asia and South America.

That 2023 was Earth’s hottest year on record was in some ways no surprise. For decades, scientists have been sounding the alarm about rapidly rising temperatures driven by humanity’s relentless burning of fossil fuels.

But last year’s sudden spike in global temperatures blew far beyond what statistical climate models had predicted, leading one noted climate scientist to warn that the world may be entering “uncharted territory.”

“It’s humbling, and a bit worrying, to admit that no year has confounded climate scientists’ predictive capabilities more than 2023 has,” wrote Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in a recent article in the journal Nature.

Now, he and other researchers are scrambling to explain why 2023 was so anomalously hot. Many theories have been proposed, but “as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened,” Schmidt wrote.

A young boy raises his hands and opens his mouth as mist sprays from a series of nozzles.
Misters spray water on a young boy at Kauffman Stadium in Kansas City, Mo., as as temperatures approached 100 degrees in June 2023. (Charlie Riedel / Associated Press)

Last year’s global average temperature of 58.96 degrees Fahrenheit was about a third of a degree warmer than the previous hottest year in 2016, and about 2.67 degrees warmer than the late 1800s pre-industrial period against which global warming is measured.

While human-caused climate change and El Niño can account for much of that warming, Schmidt and other experts say the extra three or four tenths of a degree is harder to account for.

Theories for the increase include a 2020 change in aerosol shipping regulations designed to help improve air quality around ports and coastal areas, which may have had the unintended consequence of enabling more sunlight to reach the planet.

The 2022 eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha‘apai volcano also shot millions of tons of water vapor into the stratosphere, which scientists say helped to trap some heat. What’s more, a recent uptick in the 11-year solar cycle may have contributed about a tenth of a degree of additional warning.

Read more: Earth reaches grim milestone: 2023 was the warmest year on record

But these factors alone cannot explain what’s happening, Schmidt said.

“Even after taking all plausible explanations into account, the divergence between expected and observed annual mean temperatures in 2023 remains about 0.2 °C — roughly the gap between the previous and current annual record,” he wrote in his report.

Heat ripples from hot asphalt as two women cross a street.
Heat ripples from hot asphalt in downtown Phoenix in July 2023. (Matt York / Associated Press)

Reached by phone, Schmidt said he thinks one of three things could be going on.

It’s possible that 2023 was a “blip” — a perfect storm of natural variables and Earth cycles lining up to create one freakishly hot year. Should that prove to be the case, “it won’t have huge implications for what we’re going to see in the future, because it would have been just such a rare and unlikely thing that is not going to happen again anytime soon,” he said.

However, he indicated that’s unlikely, as those elements “have never lined up to give us a blip this large.”

Another possibility is that scientists have misunderstood the driving forces of climate change. While greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions and aerosols are known to affect global temperatures, perhaps the full extent of their effects have been underestimated or miscalibrated. Should that be the case, he said, research and data sets will hopefully catch up soon.

The last explanation he offered is that the system itself is changing — and changing in ways that are faster and less predictable than previously understood.

“That would be worrying because science is really all about taking information from the past, looking at what’s going on, and making predictions about the future,” Schmidt said. “If we can’t really trust the past, then we have no idea what’s going to happen.”

Read more: The planet is dangerously close to this climate threshold. Here’s what 1.5°C really means

Not everyone agrees with his assessment, however. Michael Mann, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said the premise that 2023’s warmth cannot be explained — or that it is inconsistent with model simulations — is “simply wrong.”

“The situation is extremely similar to what we saw during the 2014-2016 period as we transitioned from several years of La Niña conditions to a major El Niño event, and then back to La Niña,” Mann said in an email.

In fact, he said some recent modeling shows the global temperature spike in 2016 was even more of an outlier than that of 2023.

“The plot shows that the surface warming of the planet is proceeding almost precisely as predicted,” Mann said. “And the models show that the warming will continue apace as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels and generate carbon pollution.”

When asked about this interpretation, Schmidt said it’s true that the 2014 to 2016 period was similarly anomalous. But there is a key difference between then and now, he said.

The 2016 temperature spike came on the heels of an El Niño event, with the biggest anomalies in February, March and April of the year following its peak, he said. He noted that similar patterns occurred after previous El Niños in 1998 and 1942.

Conversely, last year’s spike arrived in August, September, October and November — before the peak of El Niño — “and that has never happened before,” Schmidt said. “It never happened in the temperature record that we have. It doesn’t happen in the climate models.”

Read more: Scientists warn that a crucial ocean current could collapse, altering global weather

Alex Hall, a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UCLA, said he largely agrees with Schmidt’s assessment that the hypothesized factors alone can’t account for the large temperature anomaly experienced in 2023 and early 2024. He likened it to the emergence of megafires, or extreme wildfires, in the last decade, which wasn’t entirely foreseen.

“What we’ve learned is that there’s an aspect of this that isn’t fully predictable — that we don’t fully understand — and that we are tempting fate here a little bit by continuing to interfere with the climate system,” Hall said. “It’s going to do things that we don’t understand, that we don’t anticipate, and those are going to have potentially big impacts.”

Hall said the rapid transition from a persistent La Niña to a strong El Niño last summer likely played a role, as did the change in aerosol regulations.

He also posited that the rapid loss of Antarctic sea ice in 2023 — itself an outcome of the warmer planet and oceans — could have created a kind of feedback loop that contributed to more warming. Ice and snow are reflective, so when they melt, it can result in a darker ocean that absorbs more heat and sunlight. (Antarctic sea ice coverage dropped to a record low in 2023, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.)

“It’s sort of a planetary emergency for us to figure out what’s going on when we see these types of changes,” Hall said. “There should be large teams of people working on it to try to understand it, and we don’t really have those kinds of efforts, so I think there’s lessons, too, for the need for focus on this particular topic.”

Tourists visiting the Acropolis of Athens gather around the Parthenon temple.
Tourists seek shade and water while visiting the Acropolis of Athens during a heat wave in July 2023. (Petros Giannakouris / Associated Press)

While he and other scientists may not agree on just how extraordinary 2023 was — or what was behind its exceptional warmth — they all acknowledged the clear signs of a planet being pushed to its limits.

“I think it’s unfortunate that so much has been made of the El Niño-spiked 2023 global temperatures, where in my view there is nothing surprising, or inconsistent with model predictions, there,” said Mann. “There are much better, scientifically-sound reasons to be concerned about the unfolding climate crisis — particularly the onslaught of devastating weather extremes, heat waves, wildfires, floods, drought, which by some measures are indeed exceeding model predictions.”

Last year was marked by extreme weather events, with more billion-dollar disasters in the United States than any other year, according to NOAA. Among them were the Lahaina wildfire in Hawaii in August; Hurricane Idalia in Florida that same month; and severe flooding in New York in September.

Already this year, January and February have continued the global hot streak, marking nine consecutive months of a record-breaking temperatures.

In his Nature article, Schmidt said the inexplicable elements of the recent warming have revealed an “unprecedented knowledge gap” in today’s climate monitoring, which drives home the need for more nimble data collection that can keep up with the pace of change.

He noted it may take researchers months or even years to unpack all the factors that could have played a part in the sizzling conditions.

“We need answers for why 2023 turned out to be the warmest year in possibly the past 100,000 years,” he wrote. “And we need them quickly.”

Though El Niño is expected to wane this summer, there is still a 45% chance that this year will be warmer than 2023, according to NOAA.

It is a near certainty however that 2024 will rank among the five hottest years on record — so far.

The surprising reasons why Big Oil may not want a second Trump term

The Washington Post

The surprising reasons why Big Oil may not want a second Trump term

Maxine Joselow, The Washington Post – March 26, 2024

Active pump jacks increase pressure to draw oil toward the surface at the South Belridge Oil Field on February 26, 2022, in unincorporated Kern County, California, approximately 141 miles (227 km) northwest of Los Angeles, California. – From rural areas of the eastern states where modern oil production began to cities in southern California where pumpjacks loom not far from homes, lax regulations and the petroleum industrys boom and busts cycles have left the US pockmarked with perhaps hundreds of thousands of oil wells that are unsealed and haven’t produced in decades. In a first, Washington is making a concerted effort to plug these wells by allocating $4.7 billion in federal infrastructure dollars to plug the wells in an effort to lessen the negative health and environmental impact of the disused wells. (Photo by Robyn BECK / AFP) (Photo by ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images) (ROBYN BECK via Getty Images)More

HOUSTON – As president, Donald Trump vowed to unleash American “energy dominance,” while on the campaign trail, he has summarized his energy policies with the slogan “drill, baby, drill.”

Yet a possible Trump victory in the 2024 election is not delighting oil and gas executives as much as one might expect, according to interviews with several industry leaders at a recent energy conference in Houston.

Fossil fuel firms have found a lot to like in President Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, which Trump has vowed to unravel. The law offers lucrative tax credits for companies to capture and store carbon dioxide – subsidies that several oil giants are eager to exploit, even as they pump record amounts of crude oil and post near-record profits.

In addition, Trump has championed an “America First” approach to trade policy that prioritizes steep tariffs on imported goods. The approach could hike the costs of building new pipelines and other energy infrastructure, and it could heighten anxieties about a global trade war.

Still, fossil fuel executives have slammed Biden’s decision to pause approvals of new liquefied natural gas exports. And during the GOP presidential primary, oil barons filled Trump’s campaign coffers far more than those of his competitors.

If a poll were conducted among energy executives about the 2024 election, the results “would be a little more balanced than people might expect,” Alan Armstrong, president and CEO of the gas pipeline company Williams, said in an interview at CERAWeek by S&P Global.

Armstrong said many fossil fuel executives feel the Biden administration has unfairly demonized their industry because of its role in causing climate change. But that’s a personal sentiment, not a professional one, he said.

“If you’re asking people personally, they’re probably tired of being told they’re bad people by the current administration,” Armstrong said. “But from a business objective standpoint, it would be a much more balanced perspective.”

Trump plans to gut the Inflation Reduction Act, including its generous tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles, should he return to the White House, according to senior campaign officials and advisers to the former president.

Yet several oil industry executives have praised the Inflation Reduction Act – the IRA for short – for helping their companies pursue still-unproven green technologies such as carbon capture and clean hydrogen. The subsidy for carbon capture has especially benefited ExxonMobil, CEO Darren Woods acknowledged at CERAWeek.

“I was very supportive of the IRA – I am very supportive of the IRA – because as legislated the IRA focuses on carbon intensity and in theory is technology-agnostic,” Woods said. “They’re not trying to pick a particular technology.”

Vijay Swarup, Exxon’s senior director of climate strategy and technology, added that the IRA is “getting projects to advance.” Exxon has signed contracts to store the carbon captured from an ammonia plant and a steel plant in Louisiana, as well as a yet-to-be-built hydrogen plant in Texas, Swarup said in an interview.

Of course, Trump could not unilaterally repeal the IRA subsidies. He would need Congress to pass legislation, meaning Republicans would need to maintain control of the House and retake the Senate, in addition to clinching the White House.

In that scenario, Mike Sommers, president and chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, said the trade group would aggressively lobby against any proposals to scrap green subsidies that have helped the industry.

“I suspect that when there is an attempt to repeal the IRA – and there will be – it will end up looking more like a scalpel-like approach rather than a butcher knife,” Sommers said. “And we’ll advocate for the provisions that we support.”

While in the White House, Trump proclaimed himself a “Tariff Man” – and he has no intention of abandoning that self-appointed title if reelected.

Publicly, Trump has floated the idea of imposing a 10 percent tariff on every good coming into the United States. Privately, he has discussed with advisers the possibility of imposing a flat 60 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, The Washington Post previously reported.

At a rally in Ohio this month, Trump also pledged to slap a 100 percent tariff on Chinese vehicle imports – part of a broader tirade in which he warned of a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry if he is not reelected.

Sommers said such proposals, which are widely viewed as likely to spark a global trade war, carry “risks” for his sector.

“Particularly for the products that are produced here in the United States, we need free trade for these goods to flow,” he said. “I think we are concerned about kind of a retrenchment to a more nationalistic approach on trade policy. So that’s one example of an area where we’re not going to be aligned with a potential President Trump.”

But Dan Eberhart, chief executive of the oil-field services company Canary and a Trump supporter, said he isn’t worried about the former president’s trade policies. He said any adverse impact of tariffs would be canceled out by other pro-fossil-fuel policies, such as more offshore oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico.

“In general, I don’t like protectionist policy,” Eberhart said. “But I really think that the Trump administration will be more pro-oil and gas than the Biden administration.”

The Trump campaign did not respond to specific questions for this story. In an emailed statement, spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said that “on day one, President Trump will unleash American Energy to lower inflation for all Americans, pay down debt, strengthen national security, and establish the United States as the manufacturing superpower of the world.”

The Biden campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Related Content

Abortions outside medical system increased sharply after Roe fell, study finds

Putting chaplains in public school is the latest battle in culture wars

Here’s who could be responsible for paying for the Baltimore bridge disaster

Business Insider

Here’s who could be responsible for paying for the Baltimore bridge disaster

Erin Snodgrass – March 26, 2024

The container ship that destroyed the Francis Scott Key Bridge has crashed beforeScroll back up to restore default view.

  • The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed after a container ship collided with it.
  • Several entities will likely be on the hook to foot the bill in the aftermath of the disaster.
  • The maritime insurance industry will be saddled with the highest costs.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed on Tuesday after a large container ship ran into it, leading to six presumed deaths and millions of dollars in possible damage.

It’s still too early to estimate the total economic impact of the disaster, but between the cost of rebuilding the decades-old bridge, compensating the victims’ families, and paying out damages for disruptions to the supply chain, the eventual cost of the disaster is expected to be significant.

Who will pay to rebuild the bridge?

President Joe Biden said on Tuesday the federal government should be responsible for paying to reconstruct the damaged Francis Scott Key Bridge.

“It is my intention that the federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge, and I expect Congress to support my effort,” Biden said.

The bridge was built in the 1970s for about $60 million, but the cost of rebuilding it could be 10 times its original price tag, an engineering expert told Sky News. 

A picture of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland
The Francis Scott Key Bridge, named for Francis Scott Key, the author of the Star Spangled Banner.WilliamSherman via Getty Images

Baltimore is among the busiest ports in the nation, seeing more than a million shipping containers pass through each year. The collapse — which closed the port to all maritime and most road traffic until further notice — is already beginning to wreak havoc on the supply chain.

The cost of building the bridge back fast enough to offset diversions as much as possible could saddle the government with a more than $600 million bill, David MacKenzie, chair of engineering and architecture consultancy COWIfonden, told Sky News.

Who will pay for damages to the ship and its cargo?

The container ship, the Dali, is owned by a Singapore-based firm. The ship’s charterer, Maersk, confirmed to Business Insider that vessel company Synergy Group operates the ship.

However, the companies with cargo aboard the Dali will ultimately be responsible for the ship’s damages and cargo costs.

The Dali was carrying 330 containers, which now must be re-routed, according to Ryan Petersen, CEO of supply chain logistics company Flexport, which had two containers on the ship.

An ancient maritime law known as “general average” dictates that companies with even a single container aboard a ship have to split the damages pro rata based on the number of containers, ensuring all the stakeholders benefiting from the voyage are splitting the risk, Petersen said.

Drone footage shows aftermath of the Dali container ship's collision into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 2024.
Drone footage shows aftermath of the Dali container ship’s collision into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, on March 26, 2024.Anadolu Agency via Reuters

The principle dates back hundreds of years and was originally meant to ensure sailors on board a ship weren’t worried about specific cargo if a disaster required them to start throwing containers overboard, according to Petersen.

Who will pay for everything else?

The majority of the financial fallout is likely to lay primarily with the insurance industry, according to media reports.

Industry experts told FT that insurers could pay out losses for bridge damage, port disruption, and any loss of life.

The collapse could drive “one of the largest claims ever to hit the marine (re)insurance market,” John Miklus, president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, told Insurance Business.

He told the outlet that the loss of revenue from tolls while the bridge is being rebuilt will be expensive, as will any liability claims from deaths or injuries.

The Dali is covered by the Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association Ltd., known as Britannia P&I Club, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Britannia did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider but told FT it was “working closely with the ship manager and relevant authorities to establish the facts and to help ensure that this situation is dealt with quickly and professionally.”

Britannia is one of 12 mutual insurers included in the International Group of P&I Clubs, which maintains more than $3 billion of reinsurance cover, sources familiar with the matter told Insurance Business.

Britannia itself is liable for the first $10 million in damages, both FT and Insurance Business reported. Whatever remains is dealt with by the wider mutual insurance group and Lloyd’s of London, a reinsurance market in the UK, according to FT.

The Unimaginable Horror of a Trump Restoration

Slate

The Unimaginable Horror of a Trump Restoration

David Faris – March 26, 2024

It is an overcast, unseasonably warm morning on Wednesday, Nov. 6, and the world has woken up in shock as Donald Trump has emerged as the winner of the U.S. presidential election. America’s cities are once again full of mute, stunned liberals avoiding eye contact with one another on the morning commute, as the grim reality of what Trump might do with this power begins to set in. At his victory speech just after 2 a.m., when the networks called Wisconsin, and thus the election for him, Trump took the stage and declared, “Judgment Day is coming for America’s enemies, and no Marxist, Harvard leftist, gender-radical, illegal, or criminal thug in our great country will be safe come January.” And in some ways that bleak morning might represent the high point of the next four—or 40—years, given what Trump and his allies have in store for us.

This is a worst-case scenario. But it’s far from impossible. A Trump restoration is in the works—and it should feel like an existential threat to everyone who cares about liberal democracy and the incomplete but tangible social, racial, and economic progress that has been made since the New Deal era.

And yet, President Joe Biden’s manifest flaws are dangerously obscuring the scale of the threat of a second Trump term. There is no sense in denying it: Biden looks and sounds very old, and his speaking style, never particularly inspirational, has deteriorated to the point that he is a clear political liability. While he brought what passes for his A-game to the State of the Union, he will need to sustain that level of energy and coherence through an eight-month-long slog to the election to improve his chances of winning.

His decision to run for a second term has not only jeopardized his many achievements but put the very existence of U.S. democracy at much more serious risk. His administration’s staunch support of Israel, a defensible posture in the aftermath of the unconscionable Hamas attacks on Oct. 7, has become a genuinely baffling study in Biden’s inability to pivot or use America’s considerable leverage to do the right thing. The White House hasn’t settled on a winning strategy to address the lingering consequences of post-pandemic inflation, preferring to boast about the very real low unemployment numbers and robust GDP growth that simply have not moved the needle politically. And the Biden administration has remained curiously inert in the face of growing public frustration with the migrant crisis, preferring to blame Congress for refusing to fix it.

Nevertheless, allowing Donald Trump and his friends to plunge our country into a dystopian nightmare of authoritarianism will not help anyone in Gaza, in the grocery store, or at the border. It will worsen, not rectify, America’s history of writing blank checks to far-right governments in Israel. It will not lead to humane policy options for asylum-seekers but instead deliver them into the hands of morally bankrupt demagogues. Electing Trump would merely add more considerable suffering and trauma to theirs, and deprive us all of the ability to do anything about it.

Much has been made of the far-right Project 2025—a blueprint for radically restructuring and reorienting executive-branch policymaking, created by a network of right-wing think tanks and pressure groups—and its terrifying implications for U.S. democracy. But that document concerns only the threats Trump’s reelection poses to executive-branch agencies (and contains many unresolvable contradictions between dismantling and wielding the “administrative state”). Myriad public dangers emanating from the Trump and GOP legislative agenda, as well as the possibility of an even harder-right Supreme Court, are getting far less attention. That needs to change.

Let’s start with the court. That Sonia Sotomayor, who will turn 70 this year, is still sitting on the Supreme Court means that Democrats have yet to grasp how strategic retirements work in the new hyperpartisan political order. Unlike Democrats, who still seem to view a Supreme Court seat as a personal sinecure bestowed upon the righteous for a lifetime of achievement, the leaders of the far-right judicial movement understand the stakes and will place enormous pressure on the oldest Republican appointees to retire under a second Trump term. Clarence Thomas, who has been on the court since 1991, turns 76 this year, and Samuel Alito turns 74. Even John Roberts, who would turn 70 just after Trump’s inauguration, might go.

Think about it this way: If Republicans replace this trio with three early-middle-age ideologues like Amy Coney Barrett, the court will be in the GOP’s hands until everyone reading this article is dead or nearing retirement. If Trump gets to replace Sotomayor, who suffers from a health problem (Type 1 diabetes) that significantly reduces life expectancy, the far right would have an unassailable 7–2 majority with which to remake American society for a generation.

Very little that liberals or progressives care about is likely to survive another 20 or 30 years of reactionary control of the Supreme Court. Although much of the focus has justifiably been on Dobbs, and the looming threat to Obergefellbirth control, and IVF, a conservative supermajority would also likely gut a century of jurisprudence around taken-for-granted features of the American political and economic order, including bargaining rights for organized labor, the constitutionality of federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, and—it nearly goes without saying—the Affordable Care Act. We will effectively return to the early 20th century’s Lochner era, when the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down worker protections and rights for more than 30 years until FDR threatened it with court packing.

Sure, “Vote for Biden so the conservative supermajority can’t get younger and larger” is tough to fit on a bumper sticker, and no one in the party from Biden on down seems to have the stomach for the necessary escalation or a political vision for the court that can be communicated to voters. But unless you want to spend the rest of your lives watching Brett Kavanaugh and his friends upend your lives one right and benefit at a time, you have to hold the line here.

SCOTUS is, of course, also right now at the very center of Trump’s threat to American democracy. The court’s galling decision to repeatedly delay Trump’s trial for the 2020 post-election coup attempt and the Jan. 6 insurrection means that he probably won’t face justice until after he could conceivably win reelection. Most concerningly, this off-the-rails Supreme Court has bafflingly decided to take up the question of a president’s absolute immunity after Trump’s team argued that he should be free from any consequences of anything he did as president. Though cooler heads may in the end prevail over the Thomas-Alito wing, the fact that this is up for debate at all is incredibly alarming.

Much has been made of reports that Trump plans to deploy the military to quell post-election protests under the Insurrection Act. But a Trump unchained from any conceivable repercussions for his decisions in his office is a far worse threat than just that. Imagine for a moment what would happen if the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor: First of all, the effort to hold him accountable for trying to overthrow the American system of government would be over—instantly. Even more problematically, what conceivable limits would there be on a President Trump beginning in 2025 if SCOTUS has just ruled that his efforts to perpetrate a coup in broad daylight were well within the ambit of his presidential authority?

Who or what exactly would stop Trump from, say, creating a new security apparatus, abducting leftists and political enemies—as he has pledged—and dropping them out of helicopters over the Pacific like the Latin American dictators the far right still worships once did? He could order the hits, then preemptively pardon the people who carry out his orders. That might seem melodramatic and far-fetched. But if the Supreme Court grants him immunity as president, no one could touch him for it legally. And if Republicans simultaneously controlled both chambers of Congress, there would be no impeachment option either. We’ve learned the hard way, far too many times, that a critical mass of elected Republicans will do Trump’s bidding no matter how grotesque his actions.

Maybe he’ll stop short of creating an American Stasi. But a president who is unbound by the law could order the DOJ to gin up investigations of leading journalists, prominent Democrats, professors, activists, and nonprofit leaders. Independent media outlets could be “acquired” by allies or buried under lawsuits and government harassment, as they have been in Trump’s favorite quasi-authoritarian regime in Hungary. Troops could be deployed to garrison blue cities, to not only find and deport immigrants but also chill and repress any dissident fervor that develops in the aftermath of his takeover. He would say he’s merely fighting crime, “illegals,” and election fraud, but Trump could conceivably place the cities he fears and despises, where his political adversaries wield most of their power and influence, under what amounts to an open-ended military occupation.

It gets worse. If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he is highly likely to do so while bringing Republican control of the House and Senate with him. With Mitch McConnell out of the way as party leader, there is a very good chance that the new GOP Senate leadership will nuke the filibuster and govern with a simple majority. And that means that the toxic, vengeful politics of Texas and Florida will go national. Trump showed time and again during his first term that he was not just willing but eager to subcontract his domestic policymaking to the right-wing think tanks that write most state-level legislation for Republicans. National Republicans no longer pretend to have a written or informal platform, but Trump has a campaign website with policy plans called “Agenda 47” that can be read alongside Project 2025, as well as the actual policy record of state Republicans, to give us a pretty clear sense of what they have planned.

Trump continues to spin and deflect, but under unified Republican control, Congress could obviously try to pass a national abortion ban, and he would sign it. House Republicans are already gunning for a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care, and electing a Republican trifecta this November will mean that, practically speaking, it could soon be either illegal or impossible to be transgender in the United States. The proof is in the hundreds of red-state anti-trans bills introduced and the dozens passed just since 2023, including Florida’s ban on gender reassignment surgery for minors, which also gives the state the right to kidnap children from parents who pursue gender-affirming care. Agenda 47 claims that the Trump administration will “investigate Big Pharma and the big hospital networks to determine whether they have deliberately covered up horrific long-term side-effects of ‘sex transitions’ in order to get rich at the expense of vulnerable patients.” As Masha Gessen once said, “Believe the autocrat.”

The enemies list doesn’t stop there. Trump’s promised militarized mass-deportation effort could be just the beginning of the crackdown on both legal and illegal immigration; we could also see an effort to end birthright citizenship, a move that, if it succeeds, would result in millions being suddenly stripped of their status as Americans. You will find this not in Project 2025 but in Trump’s online platform and the ugly words that frequently spill out of his mouth, like in May 2023, when he posted a video in which he argued, “I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship.” Whether you believe the “going forward” part of that promise is up to you.

And get ready for a flurry of moves against the remaining redoubts of liberalism and democracy, particularly in secondary and higher education. Radicalized Republicans in Congress will try to bar federal loans and grants from being used at any universities with policies that support inclusion and diversity. This is not speculation: Rep. Dan Crenshaw introduced a bill in the House last year to prevent public funds from being used at schools with DEI policies, based on existing Texas legislation.

They won’t stop there. Republicans would eventually try to block funding for schools with any kind of race or gender studies programs, as the state of Florida tried to do last year, and before long every syllabus in the country could be scrutinized for evidence of anti-patriotic crimes, until anyone who isn’t a right-wing ideologue is driven from the academy altogether. Trump’s Agenda 47 promises to establish a new national “American Academy” by “by taxing, fining, and suing excessively large private university endowments”—i.e., strip-mining them for cash. A Trump administration, in other words, would effectively end American higher education as we know it.

That’s to say nothing of how, under GOP rule, every public school librarian and schoolteacher in America could suddenly find themselves under siege by cranks and culture warriors like their counterparts today in Texas and Florida. Agenda 47 threatens to create a new “credentialing body” that would “certify teachers who embrace patriotic values,” to eliminate teacher tenure, and to rescind funding “for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content.” And like Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Trump would surely relish the opportunity to sign legislation banning public school teachers from going on strike.

This radical agenda would surely be accompanied by an assault on Democrats’ ability to ever win another free and fair election. Congress would pursue a national voter ID law, a ban on ballot harvesting, harsh new restrictions on mail-in balloting, the elimination of same-day voter registration, and new ways to purge Democrats from voter lists—all plans that are already in the “American Confidence in Elections Act,” which has been introduced in the House. What’s left of the Voting Rights Act would be set aside or perhaps repealed. Maniacs exercising their “constitutional carry” rights would patrol outside polling stations across the country with AR-15s, and Democratic voters would be subjected to endless legal challenges. Any Democratic effort to retake a chamber of Congress in 2026 or win the presidency in 2028 would have to run through President Trump’s formidable election conspiracy machine, the army of aspiring petty autocrats who will be put in charge of the nation’s election machinery, and the elected leaders who will come under enormous pressure not to turn power over to Democrats should those Democrats win.

At that point, the vaunted separation of powers that some analysts still cling to as our last great hope won’t be of much help. With as many as seven Trump judges on the Supreme Court and a federal judiciary that will once again be stocked with his allies and true believers, even many of the brazenly unconstitutional orders and laws that are in the works will have a good chance of standing up in court. And all the while, demoralized Democrats will be pointing fingers at one another for their catastrophic loss, which—knowing Dems—could easily be pinned on Biden’s more progressive policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, whose historic climate provisions would also be reversed almost immediately. Efforts to highlight the contributions of his age and Gaza policies to this disaster would run straight into the same narrative-makers who pinned the disappointing scale of Democrats’ 2020 victory on progressive activists chanting “Defund the Police” rather than on Biden’s overcautious campaign and reliance on appealing to disenchanted Republicans.

It’s not hyperbole to say that the America that a second Trump term would create might be an almost unrecognizable realm of economic insecurity, political persecution, racist hatred, and gender tyranny, a Christian nationalist hellscape that would be virtually impossible to dismantle once it is put into place.

Joe Biden may not be the ideal man standing between us and this horror show, but he is a seasoned politician with a strong track record and a plenty competent team. (Plus, he’s all there is unless he decides to step aside.) He and every Democrat in the White House and Congress must do everything they can to shift the focus from Biden’s age and unpopularity to Trump’s very public laundry list of malevolent plans, and national media organizations must continue to do the relatively easy work of telling readers and viewers about Trump’s reactionary agenda. Readers may be completely burned out on learning about Trump’s crimes, but the alternative—that Trump gets into office and perpetrates more of them—is truly unthinkable.

70 million Americans drink water from systems reporting PFAS to EPA. Is yours on our map?

USA Today

70 million Americans drink water from systems reporting PFAS to EPA. Is yours on our map?

Austin Fast, Cecilia Garzella and Yoonserk Pyun – March 21, 2024

At least 70 million Americans get their water from a system where toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” were found at levels that require reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency.

That’s according to new data the EPA released in its ongoing 5-year review of water systems across the nation. The number will almost certainly grow as new reports are released every three months.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, are nearly indestructible chemicals widely used across industries for decades. Found in drinking water, food, firefighting foam, and nonstick and water-repellent items, PFAS resist degradation, building up in both the environment and our bodies.

Salt Lake City; Sacramento, California; Madison, Wisconsin; and Louisville, Kentucky, were among the major systems reporting PFAS contamination to the EPA in the latest data release.

Map: Where the EPA found pollutants

This map shows water systems included in the EPA’s records, as of Jan. 11. It’s based on boundaries developed by SimpleLab, a water-testing company. Click on a system to see the number of pollutants detected at or above the EPA’s minimum reporting levels and how much the most concentrated pollutant exceeded those levels. Points represent systems where the exact boundaries are not available. If you don’t see a map, click here

The man-made chemicals have turned up in water systems large and small, from those serving a few thousand customers to over half a million.

Of about 3,800 systems included so far, 1,245 measured at least one PFAS compound above the EPA’s reporting levels, according to USA TODAY’s analysis.

The EPA plans to collect data from thousands more systems through 2026, including many of the nation’s largest systems, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia.

Read our previous coverage: EPA detected “forever chemicals” in water systems serving 46 million. Is yours on our map?

What are forever chemicals?

PFAS can lead to serious health problems, including increased risk of some cancers, if people are exposed to them over a long period of time. Even at very low doses, PFAS can pose health risks.

The EPA’s minimum reporting level – the lowest concentrations reliably measured by most laboratories – for some PFAS are measured in parts per trillion. The current thresholds are near zero, replacing older limits that were higher and didn’t detect smaller concentrations of PFAS, said Shalene Thomas, a PFAS industry expert and emerging contaminants program manager at Battelle, a nonprofit research institute.

Read the story: PFAS contamination is Michigan’s biggest environmental crisis in 40 years

“People hear that, and they think, ‘This is really, really low. Why are we concerning ourselves with this?’” Thomas said, referring to the detection levels. “The risk to individuals and the population is based on not just what the concentration is but what the frequency of that exposure is.”

“How often are you exposed, and what’s the duration of the exposure?”

The purpose of the reporting limits, Thomas said, is to trigger water utilities to react and find treatment solutions if needed.

“Why is there a limit? It’s not like if you’re above this number, you’re going to die, and if you’re below that number, you’re going to live,” Thomas said. “It’s about population protection. It’s an action level so that utilities can react and protect you.”

Read our previous coverage: Dangerous levels of PFAS detected in water for 27 million. Did the EPA find it near you?

Is there a national drinking water standard for PFAS? 

There are no enforceable national drinking water standards in the U.S. for PFAS, but the EPA is expected to issue new regulations this year.

Last March, the EPA proposed the first-ever national drinking water standard for six PFAS. Though there are thousands of PFAS chemicals, the six compounds in the regulation had the highest manufacturing volume in the U.S. and are thought to be the most toxic, Thomas said.

If the rule is finalized and implemented, public water systems will be required to monitor for these chemicals, notify the public and reduce PFAS contamination if levels exceed the proposed standards.

Water utilities tasked with treating PFAS

Water utilities didn’t manufacture or use the chemicals, Thomas said, yet they are still tasked with cleaning them up and protecting the public.

Once the EPA’s regulation is finalized, the agency would likely use discretionary authority and focus its efforts on going after primary polluters, Thomas said.

However, not all water utilities are equipped to install advanced and costly treatment systems to reduce PFAS from treated water. Systems vary from region to region, each with their own water sources and technical challenges that can make treatment less feasible.

Adapting to changing climate conditions is a concern for Sacramento, California, where about 80% of water supplies come from the American and Sacramento rivers. During dry years, they use groundwater, but if those wells are contaminated with PFAS, the city might not be able to rely on them, said Carlos Eliason, a spokesperson from the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities.

The city has taken several groundwater sources out of service because they contained levels of PFAS above state guidelines. Upcoming federal regulations could increase the amount of groundwater sources that need to be shut down.

The Shasta Groundwater Treatment Facility is the largest groundwater treatment facility in Sacramento, California. The facility can produce up to 4 million gallons of drinking water per day.
The Shasta Groundwater Treatment Facility is the largest groundwater treatment facility in Sacramento, California. The facility can produce up to 4 million gallons of drinking water per day.

Similarly, 90% of Salt Lake City’s water supply is from surface water, but groundwater wells are still important during droughts. PFAS pollution was found in two wells, one of which is important for peak summertime use, said Laura Briefer, director of Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities.

“Water is such a priority for us in the western United States, where water is scarce,” Briefer said. “When we have challenges where contaminants can impact our ability to use water for public purposes, that is a really profound issue. We don’t have a lot of water to spare.”

More than 6,000 miles away in Guam, a U.S. island territory in Micronesia with a longtime military presence, civilians rely primarily on water produced from an aquifer in the northern half of the island. Should the aquifer become contaminated, there are no reasonable alternatives, as defined by the EPA.

Of nearly 100 water supply wells that provide water to the island, about a third had PFAS that exceeded the EPA’s proposed regulations.

The level of funding to U.S. territories to cover the cost of treatment is not enough, said Miguel Bordallo, the general manager of Guam Waterworks Authority. The authority will have to significantly raise the rates it charges its customers to finance these capital improvement projects, Bordallo said.

Guam also absorbs costs that most utilities on the U.S. mainland don’t feel, such as shipping hazardous byproducts from PFAS treatment off the island.

“It’s a huge concern, but the way we view it is that it’s the train that’s coming down the tracks and there’s no way to stop that,” Bordallo said of the imminent PFAS rule.

“Rather than trying to stop that train, we’re trying to get ahead of it.”

Austin Fast is a data reporter on the USA TODAY investigations team and Cecilia Garzella is a data fellow.