Search the archive.

Humanity is facing its greatest test in the million-year ascent of our kind. This isn’t a single challenge. It’s a constellation of huge man-made threats, now coming together to overshadow our civilisation’s stability and even, maybe, its future survival. These ten intersecting risks are: ecological collapse, resource depletion, weapons of mass destruction, climate change, global poisoning, food insecurity, population and urban failure, pandemic disease and uncontrolled new technologies (like killer robots, artificial intelligence and universal surveillance) – reinforced by a prodigious capacity for human self-delusion. But sticking our heads in the sand and trying to ignore them will not remove the danger.

These threats are known as ‘existential risks’ because they imperil our future existence, both as individuals, as a civilisation and maybe even as a species.

Now 10 years ago, several of the world’s leading climatologists and physicists chose to reinvestigate the long-term environmental impacts of nuclear war. The peer-reviewed studies they produced are considered to be the most authoritative type of scientific research, which is subjected to criticism by the international scientific community before final publication in scholarly journals. No serious errors were found in these studies and their findings remain unchallenged.

Alan Robock et al., “Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 112 (2007).

Good morning and welcome to The Climate 202! It’s that time of year again when we’re loving the “stellar” warm weather, as our friends at the Capital Weather Gang described it, but fending off the climate anxiety.

Not a subscriber? Sign up for The Climate 202 to get scoops and sharp analysis in your inbox each morning.

Food and the climate crisis are locked in a tangled web of cause and effect. Globally, food systems contribute about a third of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, yet they are also uniquely vulnerable to climate impacts: from soaring temperatures and drought to intense rainfall and flooding.

Illustration of a bottle of sriracha surrounded by apples, wine, bread, corn and mustard

THE USUAL BUDDY COMEDY that is the farm bill unites liberals and conservatives to protect the basic framework of the program. This year, however, the script may be flipping.

The defining odd couple is shaping up to be Cory Booker, the cheery New Jersey senator prone to impassioned, long-winded speeches about hope and the power of love, and Republican Chuck Grassley, the octogenarian curmudgeon of the Senate better known for his so-bad-they’re-good tweets than his long-held enmity against the meatpackers. Despite their ideological differences, they are working in concert with a chorus of anti-monopoly and conservation advocates in trying to subvert the usual dynamic and redirect the course of U.S. agriculture policy to suit the needs of independent farmers rather than Big Ag.

A classic premise in American cinema is the buddy comedy, epitomized by films like Tommy Boy or Midnight Run. Two characters who can’t stand each other are thrown together by circumstance, forced to make a screwball pilgrimage across the country to finish a job. Hilarity ensues.

This same storyline infects our politics every five years when the farm bill comes up for reauthorization. Two parties at the brink of civil war are pressured to cooperate in order to deliver for their respective constituents. Congress’s version of this tumultuous road trip runs through both rural and urban America, uniting liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. But the ultimate winner of this madcap romp is one of the country’s most infamous heels: Big Agriculture.

Leslie Ford, Ms. Ford is an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Opportunity and Social Mobility. She served on the White House Domestic Policy Council, 2018-20., June 7th, 2023, “Don’t Give Away the Farm Bill”, Wall Street Journal, , liam.

Republicans have one more chance to roll back out-of-control welfare spending this year. The farm bill—must-pass legislation that authorizes food stamps and other agriculture programs—will be voted on by December. GOP lawmakers should focus on reining in President Biden’s unprecedented and expensive food-stamp hike.

What Does the Farm Bill Cover? Each farm bill is broken up into different sections, called titles. Each section represents one policy area. The titles of the 2023 farm bill are likely to be similar to those that appeared in the 2018 version. The 2018 farm bill had 12 different titles: Commodities. Governs major commodity crops such as soy and corn Conservation. Encourages environmentally sound farmland stewardship Trade. Governs exports and international food programs Nutrition. Perpetuates food assistance programs Credit. Provides government aid for food production and agricultural activities Rural Development. Outlines loans and other programs that encourage rural development Research, Extension and related matters. Supports academic knowledge building to increase productivity Forestry. Supports forestry programs Energy. Offers grants and loan guarantees with the goal of encouraging the adoption of renewable energy Horticulture. Governs and supports specialty crops Crop insurance. Maintains and governs the Federal Crop Insurance Program Miscellaneous. Offers a variety of different programs, including assistance for raising livestock and support for new farmers

What Is Not Included in the Farm Bill? The farm bill is a massive piece of legislation ultimately governed by the preferences, compromises and relationships of legislators and lobbyists representing hundreds of interest groups that all seek to have their voices heard. Though the process is extensive, the bill is not exhaustive. At the end of the process after each farm bill is passed, there are “winners” and “losers.” In what was one of most controversial decisions in the 2018 farm bill, the legislation contained language that reduced the amount of SNAP benefits. The bill also cut the baseline of future funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program, which encourages farmers to consider the condition and quality of natural resources on their land.

Figure 1 contains our estimate of the mandatory spending associated with programs that will expire on September 30, 2023. It may come as a surprise to many of our readers that only about 5% of the funding is actually facing the threat of expiration. Why? The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is what’s known as an appropriated entitlement. In other words, if the farm bill expires, the appropriators will continue to fund SNAP. Beyond that, crop insurance is permanently authorized by legislation outside of the farm bill. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) recently reauthorized spending for the major conservation programs. Further, annual appropriations bills have provided significant funding for ad hoc disaster programs over the past four years for programs such as WHIP, WHIP+, and ERP.

So – what does this information mean? It means that the impending expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill means very little for the vast majority (i.e., 95%) of the mandatory spending in the farm bill. It also means that unless policymakers are able to significantly enhance Title I commodity programs, this is little reason to go through the process that invariably will include damaging amendments to farm policy. While this still leaves a number of programs in limbo (particularly those without mandatory baseline spending), a simple extension of the 2018 Farm Bill would maintain the status quo.

Leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees say the debt limit agreement should remove SNAP work requirements as a potential sticking point in the upcoming farm bill debate, but also said the deal takes away some potential funding.

The agreement to increase the debt ceiling claws back some unspent pandemic assistance to reduce the deficit. Leaders of the committees disagreed on whether there would still be a significant amount of additional, unobligated funding that could be moved into the farm bill to shore up commodity programs and other provisions.

In 2019, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey introduced the , a landmark resolution outlining the critical steps America should take to tackle the climate crisis, address environmental injustices, and ensure every American has access to a good-paying job. Since the Green New Deal’s introduction, Data for Progress has conducted on the popularity of the bill and its policy planks. With Representative Ocasio-Cortez set to reintroduce the Green New Deal resolution in Congress this week, Data for Progress assessed the popularity of the proposal and its policy planks among likely voters in an April 2021 national . Two years after the bill’s introduction, Data for Progress finds the Green New Deal resolution and its policy planks still enjoy remarkable support across party lines: The Green New Deal remains highly popular, enjoying a 31-percentage-point margin of voter support. This includes nearly all Democrats, a majority of Independents, and over one-third of Republicans. Voters want their member of Congress to co-sponsor the Green New Deal. A majority of voters (57 percent) say they would support if their member of Congress co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution when it is reintroduced in Congress. Co-sponsoring the Green New Deal can help members of Congress win in the 2022 midterms. A majority of voters (51 percent) say they’d be more likely to re-elect their representative if they co-sponsor the Green New Deal. GOP attacks on the Green New Deal aren’t working. Even when presented with a right-wing talking point that the Green New Deal would be “a waste of taxpayer money that will increase the national debt”, a majority of voters (52 percent) still think lawmakers should pass the Green New Deal. Every major policy plank of the Green New Deal enjoys widespread bipartisan support. Voters strongly support lowering utility costs, reducing pollution, helping family farmers adopt sustainable practices, making communities more resilient to extreme weather, and investing in frontline communities. The Green New Deal Remains Popular After providing voters with information that the Green New Deal is being reintroduced in Congress and a brief description of the resolution, voters say they support the Green New Deal by a 31-point margin (60 percent support, 29 percent oppose). The proposal receives support from nearly all Democrats (83 percent support, 6 percent oppose) and a majority of Independents (57 percent support, 29 percent oppose). Notably, despite persistent right-wing messaging against the Green New Deal, over one-third of Republican voters support the proposal (36 percent support, 53 percent oppose).

In many ways, Randolph’s insight continues to ring true. Even in a strong economy, workers have fought for more jobs—in fact, this is when workers have had the most leverage to do so. Bold jobs programs and full employment have long been linked to a strong economy in workers’ minds. According to new analysis of the American National Electorate Survey, since the 1940s, less-educated voters have “differentially support[ed] predistribution policies,” or in other words, a federal jobs guarantee, higher minimum wages, and policies that generally strengthen the workers’ positions in our economy. Our current moment reflects some of the same lessons. While unemployment rates are low, the rates for those who are underemployed are twice as high and demands for an economy with more good jobs persist. Despite policy roadblocks, progressives should listen to this call and proffer a vision that puts bolder jobs programs like full employment back on the agenda. In fact, one of the clearest findings from a new survey launched by the Center for Working Class Politics (CWCP) is the persistence of support for progressive jobs proposals as part of a broader economic strategy. In our first study, titled “Commonsense Solidarity,” we found that candidates who run on bread-and-butter economic issues like jobs policies fare better with working-class voters than candidates that do not. In the survey we just launched, “Trump’s Kryptonite,” respondents were given the choice between candidates with a variety of demographic characteristics and policy positions, including two jobs policies: one a more moderate and mainstream jobs proposal, and the other advocating a bold federal jobs guarantee. Both policies were broadly popular across the group of respondents, underscoring the continued importance of jobs policies for American voters. Democrats, regardless of class, overwhelmingly supported the federal jobs guarantee in our survey by a margin of nearly four to one, signaling the popularity of this proposal across the Democratic base. But our results revealed important differences in support for these policies based on the party and class of respondents. First, and most significantly, while both policies were popular across the pool of respondents, the progressive jobs guarantee was most popular among working-class respondents—and not just those who identified as Democrats but also working-class independents and Republicans as well. Importantly, working-class people from either party were more likely to prefer progressive economic policies than their middle- and upper-class counterparts. Working-class independents were also much more likely to support a jobs guarantee than middle-class independents by as much as 20 percentage points. Not only did some Republicans and independents respond favorably to this policy, but the jobs guarantee was also the only economic policy proposal viewed positively by respondents across all parties, which could indicate that it is less likely to generate electoral backlash for a political candidate in a competitive district. In fact, we found that even in the face of Republican opposition messaging, broad support for a jobs guarantee actually increased slightly.

A federal jobs guarantee is not a new idea. In fact, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed one in his Economic Bill of Rights. Every American, he asserted, has the right to “a job; an adequate wage and decent living; a decent home; medical care; economic protection during sickness, accident, old age, or unemployment; and a good education.” As part of his famous New Deal to combat the Great Depression, FDR established the Works Progress Administration (WPA), a government agency dedicated to employing unskilled, out-of-work Americans for public infrastructure projects across the nation. Around 8.5 million people gained employment through the WPA. Unlike many New Deal programs which were struck down by the US Supreme Court, the WPA dissolved in 1943 as the US wartime economy boomed and reached full employment.

"American capitalism, as it stands, fails its workers and fails its citizens.

Since President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935, Social Security has been a crucial federal program that provides an income to retirees and those who are disabled. However, Social Security’s future remains uncertain, as the program’s funds are expected to be exhausted by 2037. If nothing is done, payroll taxes would then be only enough to cover about 76 percent of benefits.

In response, members of Congress have proposed the Social Security Expansion Act. The bill would extend the solvency of Social Security for 75 years and increase benefits for all recipients by $2,400 per year. This would greatly help retirees and disabled individuals keep up with the rapidly increasing cost of living, significantly benefit millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, and help grow our economy.

Talk of universal basic income (UBI) in the U.S. remains in the news nearly a year after a presidential election and amid a global pandemic. Though measures like economic impact payments (stimulus checks) and advance child tax credits have been compared to UBI, a federally guaranteed income program in the U.S. seems far off.

Americans widely support the idea, though. MagnifyMoney researchers surveyed 2,050 U.S. consumers, finding that 72% support some form of UBI, with most hoping the payments would go to certain groups of people rather than all adults.

Of course, deficits could be narrowed by focusing on the other side of the ledger — that is, by increasing tax revenue. But Republicans have ruled that out, too.

Instead they’re proposing more tax cuts, which they have tacitly  might worsen deficits. Republicans are also working to gut , which would grind down federal revenue further.

Anti-tax politics in the United States is often ascribed to an immutable aspect of the American character—either a laudable preference for individual effort or a childish unwillingness to pay bills. But these arguments lack an empirical foundation. In surveys, most Americans report that they are personally willing to pay more in taxes to improve education and healthcare and reduce poverty and homelessness; when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, more Republicans prefer tax increases to benefit cuts. About three-fifths of Americans say they are bothered “a lot” that corporations and the wealthy are not paying their share, compared to a third who say they are bothered “a lot” about the amount of taxes they themselves pay. Plans to tax the rich are consistently popular; they receive extremely high support from Democrats plus substantial support from working-class Republicans. Most low-income Republicans even support the estate tax once they learn it is only the very rich who pay it. Anti-tax hysteria is not a psychological condition of the American people; it is a pathology of American politics.

For at least twenty years, tax cuts have not been popular with voters. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both cut income taxes for the vast majority of Americans, but polling shows that most voters forgot about the breaks they had received long before the next election. When Hillary Clinton and John McCain each proposed a gas tax holiday in 2008, the idea was not popular with voters. The Trump-era Tax Cuts and Jobs Act fared even worse; the legislation is remarkable for having been less popular at the time of its passage than the tax increases under Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

Calls for higher taxes for those at the top end of the income and wealth spectrum were a major part of President Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign. The administration's interest in raising taxes on the rich has continued since Biden took office, including the recently proposed Billionaire Minimum Income Tax law that would require the wealthiest American households to pay a minimum of 20% on all of their income.

But the $430 billion Inflation Reduction Act passed by the Senate and about to be passed by the House and signed into law by the president ended up with no direct change in tax rates for rich Americans -- or any Americans for that matter. As a report in The Hill noted, the new legislation "leaves out most of President Biden's proposals to pull in greater government revenues from rich taxpayers. Increases in individual income tax rates for high earners, increases in the estate tax, increased taxes on capital gains like stock and property holdings, a tax on billionaires, a plan to build out the net investment income tax and a surtax on high-income households are plans that have been scrapped from the Inflation Reduction Act.

The recent far-right rebellion that brought the House floor to a halt is a bad omen for another rapidly approaching legislative fight: the 2023 farm bill. Major battle lines are forming within the House Republican caucus over the $1 trillion farm bill reauthorization expected to hit the full House this fall — just as Washington is set to descend into another all-consuming battle to fund the government. GOP hardliners are still fuming over the deal House Speaker Kevin McCarthy struck with President Joe Biden to raise the debt limit earlier this month, especially a provision that could expand the number of people on federal food aid. And they are keen to take another swing at limiting that anti-hunger program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, up for reauthorization in the farm bill — which promises to be politically polarizing. Republican lawmakers from agriculture-heavy districts, however, want to move as quickly as possible to pass the legislative package — which contains billions of dollars for agriculture and rural development programs their constituents rely on. And they worry their far-right colleagues will snarl up those plans, pushing farm bill passage into the new year. That’s presenting McCarthy with one of his biggest legislative tests yet: Fending off yet another revolt from the right flank of his caucus while securing the bipartisan support that will be necessary to approve the must-pass legislation. At the rate it’s going, Congress may have to resort to extending the existing farm bill authorizations as programs begin to expire this fall — a practical and political headache for the agriculture sector and ag-state Republicans as they gear up for the 2024 election. It’s not just moderate Republicans raising alarms about the potential fall-out if the GOP-led House fails to pass a farm bill this year. “I don’t have a lot of confidence of anything passing the House anymore under the current environment,” said Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.). DesJarlais, one of the few Republicans who is a member of both the Freedom Caucus and the Agriculture Committee, said he plans to reach out to all the fellow hard-right members he can in order to pass a farm bill with minimal delays. But he noted “there’s certain members … that I don’t think anybody can change their opinions.” The notoriously complex farm bill reauthorization process, by design, requires similar bipartisan compromises to those that enraged conservative Republicans during the debt limit negotiations. GOP aides are already assuming that a swathe of far-right Republicans will not vote for the farm bill, and they’ll need at least four to five dozen Democratic votes to pass it in the narrowly-divided House.

When Congress returns to Capitol Hill after its Fourth of July district “work” period — 17 days long for the House and 16 days for the Senate — members face two enormous tasks with little time to complete either.

On Sept. 30, the 2018 Farm Bill expires and, simultaneously, the federal government needs a new budget in place to open its doors Oct. 1.