Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Biden Admin Reportedly Throws Support Behind UN Push To Decrease Global Plastic Production

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

 

“If the Biden-Harris Administration wants to meet its sustainable development and climate change goals, the world will need to rely on plastic more, not less. Plastics enable solar and wind energy, are critical to modern healthcare, deliver clean drinking water, reduce home, building and transportation energy needs, and help prevent food wastage.”

The Biden administration is reportedly now in favor of a United Nations-led effort to reduce global plastic production, according to multiple reports.

U.S. officials now reportedly support a developing U.N. treaty that would aim to impose a cap on plastic production worldwide, a shift from its earlier position of allowing countries to determine production levels for themselves, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters and Politico. Biden administration officials have also reportedly signaled that they will support measures to target particular types of plastics and establish a list of specific chemicals to address with new, uniform obligations.

Senior White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) official Jonathan Black reportedly informed industry stakeholders and environmental activists of the shift in position during two private meetings that were closed to the media, according to Politico. Reuters first reported on the administration’s pivot on the UN plastic treaty on Wednesday, and CEQ spokesperson Justin Weiss confirmed the outlet’s reporting in subsequent correspondence with Politico.

It is currently unclear exactly how such a treaty would actually be enforced if adopted.

Prior to the administration’s position shift, U.S. officials had endorsed a more “flexible” approach rather than a global cap on plastic production and had not offered much indication as to whether or not the Biden administration supported an effort to crack down on specific chemicals, according to Politico. Negotiations on the U.N. treaty are still ongoing and are expected to conclude at a November conference in Busan, South Korea; that meeting will take place after Nov. 5’s U.S. presidential election, according to Reuters.

The Biden administration’s reported change of position on the matter now aligns the U.S. with countries like South Korea, the European Union’s member states, Canada and Peru, according to Reuters. Nations that are major petrochemical producers, like China and Saudi Arabia, have attempted to block further discussions about a possible cap on global plastic production and instead want countries to focus on less divisive initiatives, such as improving waste management.

“As the White House caves to the wishes of extreme NGO groups, it does a disservice towards our mutual ambition for a cleaner, lower carbon future where used plastic doesn’t become pollution in the first place,” Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said of the pivot in a Wednesday statement. “If the Biden-Harris Administration wants to meet its sustainable development and climate change goals, the world will need to rely on plastic more, not less. Plastics enable solar and wind energy, are critical to modern healthcare, deliver clean drinking water, reduce home, building and transportation energy needs, and help prevent food wastage.”

Meanwhile, Greenpeace — a major environmental group — is pleased to see the Biden administration harden its stance on a global plastic production cap.

“This shift in U.S. policy is crucial for creating the unified approach needed to tackle the plastics crisis,” Greenpeace USA Oceans Campaign Director John Hocevar said in a Wednesday statement. “By supporting global criteria for phasing out harmful chemicals and avoidable plastic products, the U.S. is helping to ensure that the treaty will have the teeth needed to protect families and ecosystems alike. It is a welcome signal that they are finally listening to the demands of the American people, almost two-thirds of whom support a Global Plastics Treaty that would ban single-use plastic packaging.”

Neither the White House nor the CEQ responded immediately to requests for comment.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Alaska, Florida and Louisiana Purchase show US offer to pay for Greenland makes sense

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

The media and the intelligentsia are laughing at President Donald Trump’s idea of the United States acquiring Greenland from Denmark. At first hearing of what seemed to be an outlandish idea, I guffawed too.

Trump’s argument is that Greenland is of strategic military and national security value to the United States. He is also betting this giant island has other rare and undiscovered assets. There is no question that it would serve as a strategic buffer between the United States and Russia and perhaps other hostile nations, including China.

This would be a purchase, not a conquest. But does it make sense? Let’s turn back the clock.

Anyone who paid attention to their U.S. history class in high school has heard of “Seward’s Folly.” This was the American acquisition of Alaska in 1867 by then-Secretary of State William Seward. The price tag was $7 million. That would be the equivalent of less than $1 billion today — or less than what Washington spends every day. Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, so Russia practically gave it away to us.

The purchase of Alaska was showered with widespread criticism; it was an “icebox” that was viewed as uninhabitable and more suitable for polar bears than people.

How wrong the skeptics were. Alaska was soon discovered to have vast quantities of gold in the Yukon and played a strategic role during World War II. Then, of course, the North Slope of Alaska was discovered to have massive deposits of oil and gas. No doubt, Putin would love today to have Alaska in his portfolio.

Thank God for William Seward.

The idea of purchasing land in order to expand freedom and America’s manifest destiny predates the purchase of Alaska. In the first hundred years of our country’s history, we repeatedly acquired land to expand America’s reach. Most famously, was Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase — which roughly doubled America’s land area from the original 13 colonies/states. That purchase was criticized as a “land grab” as well. But it was the gateway to the development of the West.

Florida came shortly thereafter — a virtual gift from Spain. The “Republic of Texas” was an independent territory and joined the U.S. voluntarily and we gladly and wisely brought the Lone Star state into the fold.

Needless to say, none of these acquisitions or additions was “folly.”

Which brings us back to Greenland. Why does Denmark need it? It is hard to imagine anything that would add more income, wealth and security to the less than 100,000 people living in Greenland than to plant the American flag there and make it a U.S. territory. The residents of Greenland would be able to bequeath to their children one of the greatest assets on the planet — a U.S. passport.

While we are on the topic of acquisitions, if Trump is really thinking big, he should also consider offering to bury from Mexico a 50-to-100 mile stretch of coastal land stretching from San Diego down the Pacific coast. If Mexico were to sell that land to us, this idyllic beachfront property might instantly become some of the most valuable land in the world — inflating in price by perhaps 10- to 20-fold.

Here is another thought experiment. Imagine how rich Cuba would be today, if it were an American territory. Cuba could and would be the Hong Kong of the western hemisphere if it detoured from its near seven-decade long excursion into communism.

Trump is not an imperialist. He wants to spread freedom, prosperity and peace to much of the rest of the world. The old joke about Greenland is that it is neither green nor land.

It is a vast sheet of floating ice. Plant the American flag on that ice and suddenly it becomes a hot property.

Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”

Continue Reading

Business

Sen. John Kennedy slams FCC over hurried approval of Soros massive radio station takeover

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once

Republican U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once, declaring something “weird” expedited the review.

In February 2024, Soros purchased $400 million of debt for Audacy, the second largest radio station owner (behind iHeartMedia) in the nation. Soros invested in the company after it filed for bankruptcy the month before with nearly $2 billion in debts. The investment comes with a yield of 50 cents on the dollar after the company emerges from bankruptcy, pending approval by a bankruptcy court of the company’s restructuring plan. Audacy stations carry the top names in conservative punditry, including Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and Erick Erickson.

In September, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testified before the House Oversight Committee that “the FCC is not following its normal process for reviewing transactions that it has established over a number of years. It seems to me the FCC is poised, for the first time, to create an entirely new shortcut.”

The New York Post added at the time that Carr told them “the Democrats in FCC leadership cut a secret, backroom deal – one that kept the Republican FCC Commissioners and perhaps others completely in the dark – and then hustled it out the door on a Friday afternoon” in a 3-2 party-line vote. The FCC approved the deal in October, with congressional Republicans vowing to investigate.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Kennedy began by recalling former President Joe Biden’s Farewell Address warning that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”

Kennedy said he did not know which “oligarchs” Biden had in mind, but that Soros fit the description. He went on to detail how Soros took advantage of Audacy filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and became the majority shareholder, which triggered an FCC review process.

Approval of the deal, he said in his trademark style, “went through the FCC like green grass through a goose,” and Democrat commissioners “short-circuited” the normal review process.

“I’m not an FCC expert. I’m not a communications law expert,” Kennedy said. “But I’ve read, this has been widely reported and I’ve read about it in many reports. Normally on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations are being transferred, their licenses, using airwaves that belong to the American people, and there’s a substantial percentage of foreign owners, it would take about a year to get through the FCC. FCC would do a complete investigation. Not this time! Noooo. This time was special.”

“Pass me the sick bucket,” Kennedy said after reviewing past commentary by Carr and others about the deal. “This isn’t right! But they did it. Now, this is America. You’re entitled to believe what you want. If it’s legal, you’re entitled to do what you want. And Mr. Soros is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is. I don’t agree with him, but he is certainly entitled to it in America. I’m not much into this cancel culture. And hopefully we’ve seen the end of it.”

“I am not saying it wasn’t done legally,” Kennedy concluded. “I am saying it looks funny. Not funny ha-ha. It looks weird the way this was done. It has the aroma of politics. And I hope the new FCC revisits this issue.”

Soros’ takeover of so many stations is alarming as the latest display of his willingness to use his vast wealth to influence American politics. A small sampling of the causes the billionaire has financed includes promoting legal abortion-on-demand worldwide under the guise of “reproductive health care;” supporting the election of district attorneys friendly to his politics in localities across the United States; pushing a “racial justice” agenda, including the narrative that America is systemically racist and promoting policies such as reparations for slavery; subsidizing “fact-checking” enterprises that attempt to discredit conservative media outlets under false pretenses, and funding Democrat political candidates.

In 2023, local news outlet Maine Public reported that the Soros-backed National Trust had gained control of Maine’s largest network of newspapers, acquiring five daily papers and 17 weekly publications. The National Trust received funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundation and left-wing Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss for the purchase of the media network.

Carr, who has since been appointed FCC chairman by President Donald Trump, is expected to investigate the deal.

Continue Reading

Trending

X