Associated Press – Yahoo Finance

Trump ends 1st year with lowest average approval rating

Emily Swanson, Associated Press       January 16, 2018

Graphic shows average job approval ratings for U.S. presidents in the first year of office.

WASHINGTON (AP) — This is a record not to be coveted: Donald Trump is wrapping up a year in office with the lowest average approval rating of any elected president in his first term.

That’s according to polling by Gallup, which shows that Trump has averaged just a 39 percent approval rating since his inauguration. The previous low was held by Bill Clinton, whose first-year average stood 10 points higher than Trump’s, at 49 percent.

Recent surveys show most Americans view Trump as a divisive figure and even question his fitness for office. One relative bright spot for Trump is his handling of the economy, though even there his ratings are not as high as might be expected given a relatively strong economy.

What the polls show about how Americans view their president a year into his term:

Unusual Popularity 

Trump’s current approval rating in Gallup’s weekly poll is comparable to his average rating, standing at just 38 percent, with 57 percent saying they disapprove.

The persistence of Trump’s first-year blues is unprecedented for a president so early in his term. Americans usually give their new presidents the benefit of the doubt, but Trump’s “honeymoon period,” to the extent he had one, saw his approval rating only as high as 45 percent.

Since then, Trump has spent more time under 40 percent than any other first-year president.

Presidents have recovered from periods of low popularity before. For example, Clinton’s rating fell to just 37 percent in June 1993 before quickly regaining ground, and he went on to win re-election. Harry S. Truman held the approval of less than 40 percent of Americans for significant chunks of his first term and was also re-elected. He went on to set Gallup’s lowest-ever approval mark, at just 22 percent in 1952.

Trump’s lowest point in Gallup’s weekly polling — 35 percent — remains higher than those of several earlier presidents. Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter all had their ratings dip under 30 percent.

Strong Suits

There aren’t many bright spots for Trump, but there are some. For one, most Republicans continue to approve of him — 83 percent of registered voters who identify as Republicans, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

The same poll found that most voters overall find Trump to be intelligent and a strong person.

And positive ratings for Trump’s handling of the economy have tended to run higher than his overall job ratings.

In a December poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Trump’s rating on handling the economy was 8 percentage points higher than his overall approval, though even that stood at just 40 percent in the survey, which was a particularly negative one for Trump.

In the Quinnipiac poll, voters were more likely to say Trump is helping the economy than hurting it, 37 percent to 29 percent. On the other hand, more said President Barack Obama deserves the credit than Trump does, 49 percent to 40 percent.

On The Issues 

Aside from the economy, surveys have suggested few policy bright spots for Trump.

Health care has been a consistent low point. Seven in 10 Americans in the December AP-NORC poll said they disapproved of Trump’s handling of the issue, even as 85 percent called the issue very important to them personally.

In another AP-NORC poll conducted late in 2017, just 23 percent of Americans said he has kept the promises he made while running for president, while 30 percent said he’s tried and failed and 45 percent said he has not done so at all. More than half said the country is worse off since Trump became president.

That poll was conducted before the passage of a tax bill that Trump signed into law in late December, but there’s little sign that the law will have an immediate positive impact. A Gallup poll conducted in January found that just 33 percent of Americans approved of the legislation.

Character Concerns 

But it may be character more than policy that’s driving negative opinions of Trump. In the January poll by Quinnipiac University, most voters said Trump is not level-headed, honest or even fit to serve as president.

And the AP-NORC poll conducted in December found that two-thirds of Americans thought the country has become even more divided as a result of Trump’s presidency.

In a July Gallup poll that asked those who disapproved of Trump for their reasons why, most cited his personality or character over issues, policies or overall job performance. That stood in stark contrast to Gallup’s polling on Obama in 2009 and George W. Bush in 2001, when far fewer cited such concerns about personality or character as reasons for their negative opinions.

Newsweek

Voters Give Trump an ‘F’ Grade for First Year in Office, Poll Shows

 Harriet Sinclair, Newsweek         January 16, 2018

Voters Give Trump an F Grade for First Year in Office, Poll Shows

Donald Trump has been given an “F” grade for his first year as president by more than a third of voters, a new poll revealed.

The Morning Consult and Politico poll asked respondents to grade the president based on the previous 12 months, which have seen Trump criticized for a failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, several bungled attempts at a Muslim ban, and, most recently, a pledge to pull DACA, with the largest portion of voters giving him an F.

Of the 1,988 registered voters who took the survey, 698 of them (or 35 percent) said the president was failing in his first year in office, followed by the second largest group of 354 people (or 18 percent) who gave the president an A for his first year, highlighting the oft-discussed polarization in U.S. politics over the past 18 months.

Voters, who were surveyed from January 4-5 also felt the president had not done well on issues including tackling terrorism, foreign relations, debt, and the economy—with the largest groups being those who rated the president an F on the aforementioned topics.

Indeed, 26 percent of respondents gave the president an F on the economy, compared with 25 percent who gave him an A; 38 percent of respondents said the president had failed on health care, compared with 10 percent who gave him an A on the topic; and 28 percent rated the president an F on tackling terrorism compared with the 22 percent who believed Trump was excellent on tackling terrorism.

For his part, the president has previously suggested polls that dismiss his performance or give him a low approval rating are “fake polls” reported by “fake news,” and previous polls leading up to his surprise election victory did indeed suggest he had far less voter support than his base proved on the day.

However, his approval rating must be a cause for concern, with a CNN poll released before Christmas giving Trump the lowest approval rating of any president in modern history, and indicating a 10 percent drop in favorability since he took office.

More from Newsweek

• This Is Who Trump Is Afraid of Facing in 2020, and It’s Not Bernie Sanders
• ‘Visit Shithole Zambia’: Trump’s Comments Inspire Tourism Ad
• Pastor Denounces Trump’s Racist Slur in Front of Mike Pence

EcoWatch

Iranian Tanker Leaves Massive Oil Slick, Worries Mount Over Environmental Damage

Lorraine Chow      January 15, 2018

Experts have expressed concern about the potential environmental aftermath of a stricken Iranian oil tanker that exploded and sank in the East China Sea on Sunday.

The Sanchi—carrying 150,000 tons, or nearly 1 million barrels, of condensate oil—collided with the CF Crystal on Jan 6. The tanker caught fire and burned for more than a week before sinking. Iranian officials said all 32 crew members on the tanker were killed.

According to the BBC, Chinese ships are racing to clean up a 46 square mile oil slick left behind. The slick is thought to be made up of heavy fuel used to power the vessel.

BBC’s China Correspondent Robin Brant reported that the oil slick has more than doubled in size since Sunday, noting that the big concern now is the environmental impact.

There could also be a very tall plume of condensate oil underneath the surface, Brant noted. Condensate is an ultra-light oil that is highly toxic and much more explosive than regular crude oil.

Experts worry that ship’s sinking would likely expel the remaining condensate and the tanker’s bunker fuel, contaminating the surrounding waters, Reuters reported.

According to Reuters, “bunker fuel is the dirtiest kind of oil, extremely toxic when spilled, though less explosive. Condensate is poisonous to marine organisms.”

As Rick Steiner, a U.S. marine scientist explained to the news service, the East China Sea is known for its rich—but already polluted—marine ecosystem that includes whales, porpoises and seabirds.

“As with all major oil spills, time is of the essence. This is particularly so with condensate spills, as the substance is so toxic and volatile,” said Steiner.

In a statement, Greenpeace said the explosion and sinking occurred in “an important (fish) spawning ground.”

“At this time of year the area is used as wintering ground by common edible species such as hairtail, yellow croaker, chub mackerel and blue crab. The area is also on the migratory pathway of many marine mammals, such as humpback whale, right whale and gray whale,” the environmental organization said.

Teng Da from the Chinese Oceanic Administration told CGTN, “Now that the tanker has sunk, what comes next to the ecological system the government should watch very closely.”

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

• Nearly 400,000 Gallons of Oil Spew Into Gulf of Mexico, Could Be … ›
• How a 672,000-Gallon Oil Spill Was Nearly Invisible – The New York … ›

EcoWatch

Two Major Food Companies Announce War on Packaging Waste

Lorraine Chow     January 16, 2018

More and more businesses are stepping up to reduce consumer waste. Iceland Foods, a major UK supermarket chain specializing in frozen food, announced on Tuesday that it will eliminate plastic packaging from its own brand of products by the end of 2023.

In a separate announcement on Tuesday, McDonald’s said it will add recycling to its more than 36,000 locations around the world by 2025 and pledges that all packaging on customer products will come from “renewable, recycled or certified sources” by that same year.

The moves from Iceland and McDonald’s are very important. Sure, an individual’s own efforts to reduce their plastic footprint makes a difference, but when global corporations also step up to reduce waste, it can make a big impact.

“The onus is on retailers, as leading contributors to plastic packaging pollution and waste, to take a stand and deliver meaningful change,” Richard Walker, Iceland’s managing director, said. “Other supermarkets, and the retail industry as a whole, should follow suit and offer similar commitments during 2018. This is a time for collaboration.”

Iceland aims to become the first major retailer globally to eliminate plastic packaging from its own brand. Its new products will consist of paper or pulp trays food trays and paper bags instead of plastic ones. The items will be fully recyclable through domestic waste collection or in-store recycling facilities.

“There really is no excuse any more for excessive packaging that creates needless waste and damages our environment,” Walker added. “The technologies and practicalities to create less environmentally harmful alternatives exist, and so Iceland is putting a stake in the ground.”

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace, applauded Iceland’s commitment to go plastic-free in five years.

“It’s now up to other retailers and food producers to respond to that challenge,” he said. “The tidal wave of plastic pollution will only start to recede when they turn off the tap.”

McDonald’s, the world’s biggest food chain, is also tackling the issue of unnecessary packaging. Currently, only 10 percent of McDonald’s tens of thousands of locations allow people to recycle. Its new goal is to recycle guest packaging in 100 percent of its restaurants by 2025.

“With 37,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries serving over 69 million customers daily, McDonald’s has the responsibility and opportunity to use our scale for good,” Francesca DeBiase, the chief supply chain and sustainability officer for McDonald’s said. “By acting now and boldly, we hope to lead the industry and our customers toward a more sustainable future and fuel a movement to address waste as a global community.”

“We understand that recycling infrastructure, regulations and consumer behaviors vary city to city and country to country, but we plan to be part of the solution and help influence powerful change,” DeBiase said.

“For example McDonald’s restaurants in UK offer recycling bins for our customers, and in Germany, our crew members separate the guest packaging for our customers,” DeBiase continued. “One of the strengths of the McDonald’s system is that together with our franchisees, we have global reach, and we integrate locally into the communities where we operate. We’re excited to keep learning about what works well for recycling in different geographies and localities, which will help us find solutions in places that are just getting started on this journey.”

McDonald’s also pledges that by 2025, 100 percent of its guest packaging will come from renewable, recycled or certified sources, with a preference for Forest Stewardship Council certification for fiber.

As Business Insider noted, McDonald’s latest move follows a recent announcement to ditch foam cold-beverage cups and trays. The company also has plans to use 100 percent recycled fiber-based packaging globally by 2020.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

• Can Plastic Ever Be Made Illegal? ›
• Theresa May proposes plastic-free supermarket aisles in green … ›
• McDonald’s to drop foam packaging by year’s end – Chicago Tribune ›

Forbes Business

Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims

Dominic Dudley, Contributor        January 13, 2018

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The organization – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23%  since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.

Globally, onshore wind schemes are now costing an average of $0.06 per kilowatt hour (kwh), although some schemes are coming in at $0.04 per kwh, while the cost of solar PV is down to $0.10 per kwh. In comparison, the cost of electricity generation based on fossil fuels typically falls in a range of $0.05 to $0.17 per kwh.

IRENA

A delegate walks through the lobby at the 8th Assembly of the International Renewable Energy Agency in Abu Dhabi on January, 2018 (Photo: IRENA).

The figures are contained in IRENA’s Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017 report, which was released on January 13, the first day of the 8th IRENA Assembly in Abu Dhabi, the capital city of the UAE.  The report predicts that solar costs will fall even further in the next few years, with a further halving of typical costs by 2020. That means onshore wind and solar PV projects could be consistently delivering electricity for as little as $0.03 per kwh within two years.

Adnan Amin, director-general of IRENA, says a significant shift is underway in the energy sector. “These cost declines across technologies are unprecedented and representative of the degree to which renewable energy is disrupting the global energy system,” he said.

The expected price falls for green energy will provide a fresh challenge to the market position of legacy fuels and to the countries that rely on them for export earnings, such as many Middle East states which have long looked to oil and gas sales as the bedrock of their economies. It also provides a challenge for some Western countries including the United States, where President Donald Trump has made a point of championing the coal industry and has taken steps to increase oil output.

If renewable energy is indeed able to undercut the cost of legacy fuels, then governments and large corporations building new power plants will almost certainly turn to green energy for any new capacity, which will reduce demand for oil, natural gas and coal.

There are several reasons for the fast-improving cost performance of the key renewable energy technologies. One is the growing preference among governments for competitive bidding processes when handing out contracts to develop new power plants, which is helping to force down the tariffs that project developers can demand. Alongside that, there is a growing base of experienced developers competing for project opportunities around the world. Thirdly, continued advances are being made in the technologies themselves.

While onshore wind and PV solar are leading the way, other sister technologies are also becoming more competitive. IRENA estimates that offshore wind and concentrating solar power should cost in a range of $0.06-$0.10 per kwh by 2020-22.

And although solar and wind power are the main drivers of a shift to renewable energy, other green energy sources are also becoming more competitive. The report points to bio-energy, geothermal and hydropower which, it says, have all been able to compete directly on cost with fossil fuels in some cases over the past year.

The falls in costs is leading to some big investments. IRENA says that since 2013 more than $1 trillion has been invested in renewable energy around the world and the industry now provides nearly 10 million jobs.

“Turning to renewables for new power generation is not simply an environmentally conscious decision, it is now – overwhelmingly – a smart economic one,” said Amin. “We expect the transition to gather further momentum around the world in 2018.”

IRENA

Adnan Amin, director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), speaking at the 8th IRENA Assembly in Abu Dhabi on January 13, 2018.

Dominic Dudley is a freelance journalist with almost two decades’ experience in reporting on business, economic and political stories in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe.

Futurism

Denmark Breaks Own Record for Electricity Generated via Wind Power

The Wind Rises

Denmark recently set a new record in wind power generation, harvesting 43.4 percent of its electricity from the resource in 2017 — beating its previous best from 2016. The country’s government is hoping to use the momentum to encourage other countries to get on board.

“The price of wind energy is moving in one direction only, and that’s a steep downward trajectory,” commented Denmark’s energy minister Lars Chr. Lilleholt, according to a report from Bloomberg.

Denmark has been leading the push toward wind power for some time. In March 2017, the country successfully sourced all its electricity from wind power for 24 hours. The achievement showed that the country’s goal of ending its reliance on coal by 2030 is attainable.

While Denmark’s decision to pursue renewable resources is part of a larger global effort to phase out fossil fuels, the country does have something of a vested interest. The world’s biggest turbine maker, Vestas Wind Systems A/S, is Danish. Furthermore, its government holds a controlling stake in Orsted A/S, which remains the biggest operator of offshore wind farms internationally.

Denmark still subsidizes wind power projects, as it has done since the 1970s. However, Lilleholt is confident that this will not be necessary for much longer.

Wind power is proving to be a compelling option for nations who wish to implement renewable forms of energy on a large scale. It was recently announced that Britain managed to generate twice as much energy from wind as from coal in 2017, and Germany is now home to the world’s largest individual turbine.

Certain areas of the United States are making strides forward, like the record-breaking results reported in California and the enormous Amazon-backed wind farm set to be constructed in Texas. The future of those plans remains to be seen, however, as calls to discontinue tax credits promoting its usage would seem to be a step in the opposite direction.

AFP

Fossil fuels blown away by wind in cost terms: study

There is a bright future for wind and solar power as they are rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil fuel electricity plants, according to a new study. (AFP Photo/Johnathan Nackstrand)

January 13, 2018. Paris (AFP) – New onshore wind and solar energy projects are set to deliver electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels plants, with other green technologies also rapidly gaining a cost advantage over dirty fuels, a report published Saturday said.

According to a new cost analysis from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), within two years “all the renewable power generation technologies that are now in commercial use are expected to fall within the fossil fuel-fired cost range, with most at the lower end or undercutting fossil fuels”.

It expects renewables will cost between three and 10 US cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) by 2020, while the current cost spectrum for fossil fuel power generation ranges from five to 17 US cents per kwh.

“This new dynamic signals a significant shift in the energy paradigm,” said IRENA’s Director-General, Adnan Amin, in a statement.

“Turning to renewables for new power generation is not simply an environmentally conscious decision, it is now — overwhelmingly — a smart economic one,” he added.

Continued technological advancements are not the only factor helping drive down prices. The report found that the market was becoming more competitive and a number of experienced project developers had emerged in the sector.

The best onshore wind and solar PV projects are expected to deliver electricity for three US cents or less by next year.

But onshore wind and solar are not the only sectors becoming more competitive rapidly. The study found that new bio-energy and geothermal projects commissioned in 2017 had global weighted average costs of around seven US cents per kwh.

IRENA said auction results suggest that two other technologies –concentrating solar power (CSP) and offshore wind — will provide electricity for between 6-10 US cents per kwh by 2020.

“These cost declines across technologies are unprecedented and representative of the degree to which renewable energy is disrupting the global energy system,” said Amin.

The report was released on the first day of the eighth assembly of IRENA, which aims to be a global hub for renewable energy cooperation and information exchange by its 154 member countries.