EU retaliation?

Trump is promising additional tariffs of 10% on China and 25% on Canada and Mexico

How Trump could impact the oil market in 2025 and which stocks may benefit

Costco has issued a press release saying that none of its U.S. warehouses sold baby oil in bulk to Sean “Diddy” Combs to advertise the hip-hop mogul's alleged “freak-off” sex parties, which A government case against him for human trafficking for the aim of sexual exploitation has turn into the main target of the federal government.

TMZ reported on Thursday that Costco objected to its brand name being linked to Combs' alleged crimes, with a spokesperson telling the news and gossip site that none of its members-only locations carry baby oil. TMZ apparently confirmed this claim by finding no baby oil among the many products listed on Costco's website.

Last week, Combs' attorney Marc Agnifilo invoked Costco's name while attempting to provide you with a not-so-shameful explanation for why his client has an enormous stash of baby oil: He buys in bulk at Costco.

According to the criminal criticism against Combs, Department of Homeland Security agents found 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant once they searched his mansions in Los Angeles and Miami. According to prosecutors, the rapper lured and coerced women into sexual performances with male sex employees so he could view and record them, sometimes without their knowledge. because the New York Post reported.

During an interview with TMZ, Agnifilo tried to forged doubt on the U.S. attorney's account of the child oil, saying, “I don't know where the '1,000' came from.”

“I can't imagine it's thousands (of bottles), and I'm not really sure what the baby oil has to do with it,” Agnifilo said.

When TMZ founder Harvey Levin explained that the child oil could possibly be used as “lubricant for an orgy,” the lawyer replied, “I guess – I don't know what you need a thousand for.” One bottle of baby oil is enough. I don’t know why you would like a thousand.”

Agnifilo added: “(Combs) has a big house. He buys in bulk. I believe there are Costcos wherever he has a home. I mean, have you ever sat in the parking lot of a Costco and seen what people are picking up?”

“I don’t think there were a thousand. Let’s just say it was a lot.”

Agnifilo made the identical claim to the New York Postwhile standing outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where Combs stays in custody pending trial.

“I mean, there’s a Costco right down the street,” Agnifilo said. “I think Americans, as we know, are buying in bulk.”

The United States is produce more oil And natural gas today than ever before and excess of another country. So what role did the Trump-Pence and Biden-Harris administrations play on this recovery?

The answer may surprise you, considering how each of them has spoken publicly about fossil fuels: former President Donald Trump hug themand President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are focused on reducing the usage of fossil fuels to combat climate change.

Under the three most up-to-date presidencies – whether Republican or Democratic – oil and gas production within the United States was higher at the top of every term than at the start.

This production has benefits and downsides. Oil and gas together account for nearly three quarters of US energy consumption. Oil and gas production within the United States provides energy security, and high production generally keeps prices low. However, burning oil and gas releases carbon dioxide into the air. Contribution to climate changeAnd natural gas is mainly methane – one other powerful greenhouse gas.

As Scientist working on each energy and public policyI've been following the federal government's actions on oil, gas and coal, and with the presidential election against Trump and Harris in November, let's take a have a look at how each has affected fossil fuel production and emissions.

Promoting and restricting oil and gas production

Both the Trump-Pence administration and the Biden-Harris administration took measures that supported additional oil and gas drilling. Both also took measures that restricted additional oil and gas drilling.

Trump is aggressively pro-fossil fuels in his rhetoric and actions dating back to his first candidacy. Under his administration, the federal government leased more land for drilling within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and the Utah wilderness.

To further help the industry, called on the authorities to refrain from environmental assessments and to chill out the regulations in a way that Accelerate approval procedures for pipeline construction and other energy infrastructure.

The Trump administration also opened up additional U.S. coastal waters for oil and gas leasing, but Trump later reversed this decision and banned coastal drilling within the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina for ten years. At the time, there was strong opposition to drilling in these states. threatened the 2020 election campaigns of several Republican candidates.

The Biden-Harris administration focused on clean energy and climate change, issuing several anti-fossil fuel executive orders, including measures to scale back methane leaks from natural gas pipelines and Increase in license fees that firms pay for production on federal lands. In 2021, it issued a moratorium on recent federal leases for oil and gas, but that was blocked by a federal judge.

However, the Biden-Harris administration also gave the green light to the country's largest oil drilling operation, ConocoPhillips' massive Willow project in Alaska. And the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, considered the administration's most significant climate bill, including additional oil and gas leases and incentives for carbon capture to be used in enhanced oil recovery.

Decisions of 1 government influence the subsequent

When land is leased for drilling, It takes several years before production beginsSo the increased oil and gas production in the course of the Biden administration is, to some extent, the results of leases awarded in the course of the Trump administration. Trump auctioned the leases, the Biden administration signed the permits.

In many cases, presidents have little discretion and are absolutely crucial to be approved if permits meet legal requirements.

Global events may also have a significant impact on production.

The COVID-19 pandemic reduced US oil demand global activity slows down in 2020.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 led to more Energy demand from EuropeHowever, natural gas should be liquefied to be transported overseas, and the US has limited export capability. In order to produce more gas to Europe, the US needed to divert its natural gas exports intended for other countries.

The Biden-Harris administration has suspended permits for added liquefied natural gas terminals in 2024, but a Federal judge blocked the move.

What caused the sharp increase in oil production?

Drilling technology was a vital driver for the industry’s success.

US oil production had reached its peak in 1970 and entered a slow decline that lasted greater than three many years. It was widely believed that the United States had exhausted its best reserves and that the country would develop into inexorably depending on foreign oil.

Then, within the early 2000s, innovations in hydraulic fracturing And Horizontal drilling has modified every thing. These techniques gave drillers access to fossil fuels that were previously difficult to access and opened up opportunities for oil and gas drilling at lower costs and in greater quantities. Since about 2009 Oil production within the US has increased sharply.

Natural gas followed an identical development. US natural gas production peaked in 1972 after which stagnated. But with fracking Natural gas production has increased since about 2005. Trump supports fracking. Harris has been against fracking up to now, but she told CNN in August 2024 that she is going to not forbid it.

And what about coal?

Coal production within the US is a special story. Peak in 2008 and has been declining sharply since then.

Coal is more vulnerable to government motion than oil and gas – 40% of it’s produced on federal land, in comparison with 24% for oil and 11% for natural gas. And there have been fluctuations in federal policy.

For example, then-President Barack Obama said in 2016: Ban on recent coal leases within the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming, where most coal production takes place on federal land. The Trump administration lifted this stop a 12 months later, but a court ordered a pause in Trump's actions. The The ban was eventually lifted by a court in the course of the Biden administration. Then the Biden administration New rentals terminated again within the Powder River Basin.

But the decline of coal also had economic reasons. Natural gas became cheaperit’s becoming increasingly has replaced coal in US electricity production.

The decline in coal production is the predominant reason US carbon dioxide emissions have fallen even when fossil fuel production increases. Production of renewable energy Increased efficiency of some technologies has also contributed to reducing emissions.

The conclusion

Trump can take credit for allowing more oil and gas drilling leases. While the Biden-Harris administration approved oil and gas drilling permits and increased production under its leadership, it also passed several rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

The president's actions can have significant implications for the longer term of the industry, but the important thing drivers of U.S. oil and gas production to date have been improved production efficiency, increased global demand, and the lower cost of natural gas in comparison with coal.

The United States is produce more oil And natural gas today than ever before and way over every other country. So what role did the Trump-Pence and Biden-Harris administrations play on this recovery?

The answer may surprise you, considering how each of them has spoken publicly about fossil fuels: former President Donald Trump hug themand President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are focused on reducing the usage of fossil fuels to combat climate change.

Under the three most up-to-date presidencies – whether Republican or Democratic – oil and gas production within the United States was higher at the top of every term than at first.

This production has benefits and drawbacks. Oil and gas together account for nearly three quarters of US energy consumption. Oil and gas production within the United States provides energy security, and high production generally keeps prices low. However, burning oil and gas releases carbon dioxide into the air. Contribution to climate changeAnd natural gas is mainly methane – one other powerful greenhouse gas.

As Scientist working on each energy and public policyI've been following the federal government's actions on oil, gas and coal, and with the presidential election in November against Trump and Harris, let's take a take a look at how each has affected fossil fuel production and emissions.

Promoting and restricting oil and gas production

Both the Trump-Pence administration and the Biden-Harris administration took measures that supported additional oil and gas drilling. Both also took measures that restricted additional oil and gas drilling.

Trump is aggressively pro-fossil fuels in his rhetoric and actions dating back to his first candidacy. Under his administration, the federal government leased more land for drilling within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and the Utah wilderness.

To further help the industry, called on the authorities to refrain from environmental assessments and to chill out the regulations in a way that Accelerate approval procedures for pipeline construction and other energy infrastructure.

The Trump administration also opened up additional U.S. coastal waters for oil and gas leasing, but Trump later reversed this decision and banned coastal drilling within the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coasts of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina for ten years. At the time, there was strong opposition to drilling in these states. threatened the 2020 election campaigns of several Republican candidates.

The Biden-Harris administration focused on clean energy and climate change, issuing several anti-fossil fuel executive orders, including measures to scale back methane leaks from natural gas pipelines and Increase in license fees that firms pay for production on federal lands. In 2021, it issued a moratorium on latest federal leases for oil and gas, but that was blocked by a federal judge.

However, the Biden-Harris administration also gave the green light to the country's largest oil drilling operation, ConocoPhillips' massive Willow project in Alaska. And the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, considered the administration's most vital climate bill, including additional oil and gas leases and incentives for carbon capture to be used in enhanced oil recovery.

Decisions of 1 government influence the following

When land is leased for drilling, It takes several years before production beginsSo the increased oil and gas production throughout the Biden administration is, to some extent, the results of leases awarded throughout the Trump administration. Trump auctioned the leases, the Biden administration signed the permits.

In many cases, presidents have little discretion and are absolutely needed to be approved if permits meet legal requirements.

Global events also can have a significant impact on production.

The COVID-19 pandemic reduced US oil demand global activity slows down in 2020.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 led to more Energy demand from EuropeHowever, natural gas should be liquefied to be transported overseas, and the US has limited export capability. In order to produce more gas to Europe, the US needed to divert its natural gas exports intended for other countries.

The Biden-Harris administration has suspended permits for added liquefied natural gas terminals in 2024, but a Federal judge blocked the move.

What caused the sharp increase in oil production?

Drilling technology was a crucial driver for the industry’s success.

US oil production had reached its peak in 1970 and entered a slow decline that lasted greater than three a long time. It was widely believed that the United States had exhausted its best reserves and that the country would turn out to be inexorably depending on foreign oil.

Then, within the early 2000s, innovations in hydraulic fracturing And Horizontal drilling has modified every little thing. These techniques gave drillers access to fossil fuels that were previously difficult to access and opened up opportunities for oil and gas drilling at lower costs and in greater quantities. Since about 2009 Oil production within the US has increased sharply.

Natural gas followed the same development. US natural gas production peaked in 1972 after which stagnated. But with fracking Natural gas production has increased since about 2005. Trump supports fracking. Harris has been against fracking up to now, but she told CNN in August 2024 that she’s going to not forbid it.

And what about coal?

Coal production within the US is a special story. Peak in 2008 and has been declining sharply since then.

Coal is more vulnerable to government motion than oil and gas – 40% of it’s produced on federal land, in comparison with 24% for oil and 11% for natural gas. And there have been fluctuations in federal policy.

For example, then-President Barack Obama said in 2016: Ban on latest coal leases within the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming, where most coal production takes place on federal land. The Trump administration lifted this stop a 12 months later, but a court ordered a pause in Trump's actions. The The ban was eventually lifted by a court throughout the Biden administration. Then the Biden administration New rentals terminated again within the Powder River Basin.

But the decline of coal also had economic reasons. Natural gas became cheaperit’s becoming increasingly has replaced coal in US electricity production.

The decline in coal production is the predominant reason US carbon dioxide emissions have fallen even when fossil fuel production increases. Production of renewable energy Increased efficiency of some technologies has also contributed to reducing emissions.

The conclusion

Trump can take credit for allowing more oil and gas drilling leases. While the Biden-Harris administration approved oil and gas drilling permits and increased production under its leadership, it also passed several rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

The president's actions can have significant implications for the long run of the industry, but the important thing drivers of U.S. oil and gas production up to now have been improved production efficiency, increased global demand, and the lower cost of natural gas in comparison with coal.

During a recent visit to Rangely, a small town in northwest Colorado, my colleagues and I met with the administrators of a highly respected Adult education center to speak in regards to the city's economy. As we left the scenic campus, we saw families driving off-road vehicles into the mountains, a preferred activity for this nature-loving community. With a middle household income With an income of over $70,000 and a low price of living, Rangely shows no signs of economic crisis.

But Rangely is facing an existential risk. The town is here due to an oil boom in the course of the Second World War. Today, the oil and gas industry contributes to this over half of the district’s economic output.

Rangely is just not an isolated case within the USA, the world’s largest largest oil producer And natural gas. There are cities across the country that depend upon the oil and gas industry since it creates well-paying jobs and generates public revenue to fund their schools and other essential services.

A robust dependence on a single industry is dangerous, and the oil industry is vulnerable to booms and crisesBut the economies of oil and gas-dependent cities face a novel threat from global efforts to combat the risks of climate change fueled by the burning of oil and natural gas. Any serious technique to curb global warming requires actions which can be implemented over time drastically reduce demand for all fossil fuels.

The first signs of this variation may be seen in last 12 months’s international agreement: “Moving away from fossil fuels“and the spread of electrical vehicles, which begins to suppress petrol and diesel powered cars, trucks and buses.

As an economist who worked within the White House in the course of the Obama administration and early Biden administrationI worked on detailed strategies to cut back greenhouse gas emissions and support economically disadvantaged communities, but we didn't have a plan to organize oil and gas towns like Rangely for future economic challenges.

Why oil and gas cities are ignored

Congress has supported small towns in recent lawsHowever, cities depending on oil and gas have largely been spared from these strategies for 3 essential reasons.

First, there may be a perceived lack of urgency. Attention to a ‘just transition’ within the country’s transition away from fossil fuels is disproportionately flow to coal-dependent communities. US coal production has rejected The energy supply of the long run has been in full swing for 15 years and an additional move away from coal seems imminent and inevitable.

In contrast, US production of oil and natural gas continues to grow. Certainly some oil and gas communities are already struggling. But the far-reaching economic risks of a shift away from oil and gas may prove to be more of an issue for a long time to return.

Second, politicians downplay the risks to grease and gas communities.

Most Republicans usually are not planning for a future decline in oil and gas production in any respect, and that features many local politicians in oil and gas-dependent communities. Most Democratic politicians, for his or her part, prefer to give attention to how climate motion is usually a driver of future economic growth. President Joe Biden likes to say: “When I think about climate change, I think about jobs.”

He is just not improper to spotlight the economic opportunities for climate solutions. But clean energy jobs rarely offer one-to-one alternative for the well-paying jobs within the oil and gas industry and the general public revenues these industries bring to local communities.

Third, economists’ policy tools are ill-suited to the challenges facing the oil and gas industry.

Suggestions to support local economic development often recommend The aim is to implement measures comparable to wage subsidies that concentrate on permanently struggling local economies and have the potential to quickly get more people into work.

For the oil and gas communities which can be generally not struggling today, a distinct recipe is required. In the 15 years before the pandemic, U.S. counties with Oil and gas production experienced average annual GDP growth of two.4% per 12 months, compared with 1.9% nationwide.

Most oil and gas communities don't need stimulus packages that provide immediate relief. What they need are holistic economic development strategies that construct on existing strengths and create latest industries that can enable them to thrive well into the long run.

Solutions for preparing oil and gas cities

Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann compares the challenge the event of recent economic opportunities, to the sport of Scrabble, where each additional letter allows the formation of further words. He cites the Finnish economy for instance: it developed from harvesting wood, to creating tools for cutting wood, to creating automated cutting machines. From there it developed into sophisticated automated machines, including those utilized by global corporations. just like the telecommunications giant Nokia.

Such economic developments should be tailored to the specificities of every place, but step one is to discover the issue and spend money on solutions.

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe is doing this in southwest Colorado. They use the revenue from oil and gas sales for a Permanent Fundthat promotes financial sustainability by ensuring that the tribe’s assets are consistent with its long-term financial goals, and a Growth Fund which diversifies the tribe's revenue sources by investing in quite a few businesses.

At national level A panel recently proposed by the National Academies the creation of a federally chartered corporation to help communities facing acute economic threats, including future declines in oil and gas supplies. This corporation could provide funds for displaced staff, critical public infrastructure, and programs that ensure access to economic opportunity.

Colorado's State Office for Just Transition has begun to tackle that role. Currently, it is just focused on the transition away from coal, with the goal of helping communities develop latest economic opportunities and helping staff transition into latest jobs. But its mission could expand in the long run. In fact, Rangely is already get some support on account of the closure of nearby coal-fired power plants.

No universal solution

Small, rural towns like Rangely show that regions depending on oil and gas need individual strategies tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of every place. There is not any one-size-fits-all solution.

Our research group that visited Rangely is a component of the Initiative for resilient energy industrieslaunched by universities, research institutes and philanthropic organizations to be certain that policymakers have the data they should help fossil fuel-dependent communities successfully navigate the energy transition.

The best time to construct a more resilient economy is before a crisis hits. Anyone who knows the Bible – or Broadway – knows the story of Joseph, who in his dreams predicted seven years of prosperity for Egypt, followed by seven years of famine. Pharaoh acted on Joseph's vision and used the boom to organize for collapse.

The USA is currently producing oil and gas in abundance. Politicians know that there are risks. But to this point the country has failed to organize the population for the tougher times ahead.

Three years ago, Shana Ferguson stood poolside on the U.S. Olympic Qualifiers in Omaha, Nebraska, thrilled to see greater than 12,000 swimming fans watching, but she dared to dream greater.

So, much greater.

“What would that look like in a football stadium?” Ferguson wondered aloud.

Three years later, after countless meetings on topics akin to electrical, plumbing and wastewater engineering, the amazement has finally given method to reality. Ferguson, USA Swimming's business director, and her team of suppliers are only days away from opening an important swimming event on American soil this four-year cycle, in front of what is predicted to be the biggest audience ever to attend a swimming event.

The upcoming U.S. Olympic Qualifiers will likely be held June 15-23 at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis. This will likely be the primary time the Olympic qualifying tournament has been held in a football stadium. Organizers hope to attract nearly 30,000 spectators on the primary night of the finals, breaking the previous world record.

It will likely be a spectacle – to place it mildly.

“This is the first time anything like this has been attempted in the world,” said Mark Dodd, president of Dodd Technologies, which essentially served as the overall contractor for USA Swimming on the event. “A lot of people are going to come here and look at what we built. We're going to be the model.”

Ferguson added: “We have to make sure we provide these athletes with an incredible experience that will be the highlight of their careers for many of them. We have a responsibility to provide them with a really insanely cool environment.”

It all began, not surprisingly, with the pool itself, which has been under construction for the past three weeks. Construction began on May 12 and was accomplished this week. Nearly 1.7 million gallons of water were brought in from the nearby White River. The water is then stored in tanks that allow for constant circulation, purification and chlorination before flowing out and in of the three pools which were built.

“If you watch it on TV, it will look like an in-ground pool, as if the pool is at ground level,” Ferguson said. “But we're putting an above-ground pool on top of the concrete and building a patio around it. The pool with the patio will actually touch the first 10 rows of seats.”

Raising the pool deck and the perceived floor level for fans will create enough depth for the three pools required. One is the 50-metre long, three-metre deep competition pool – the usual depth for elite swimmers – where all eyes will likely be trained over the nine nights; the opposite two are warm-up pools separated from the competition pool by a curtain on the 50-yard line.

Myrtha Pools, an organization that focuses on organising and tearing down large temporary pools, built the competition pool and two warm-up pools. Spear Corp. in nearby Roachdale, Indiana, handled all of the plumbing, pumps and filtration. Dodd's team is specifically accountable for the decks, scoreboard, signage and all other equipment needed to make the event successful.

“Our biggest challenge was really figuring out what a traditional spectator sport is in a small pool hall and scaling it to work in a space of this size,” Dodd said.

In short, USA Swimming is attempting to sustain with increasing demand. This event continues to grow seemingly every Olympic cycle — and outgrows its venues. The last trials were held in Indianapolis in 2000, with the event held on the 4,700-seat Indiana University Natatorium. Then in 2004, the trials were held outdoors in Long Beach, California, and from 2008 to 2021, they moved to a basketball arena in downtown Omaha, Nebraska. (Myrtha Pools also built the Long Beach pool and the 4 Omaha pools.) In 2016, nearly 200,000 fans attended 15 sold-out sessions. The venue can accommodate about 13,000 swimmers.

The major pool at Lucas Oil Stadium is shown under construction, with temporary seating at left and the warm-up pool structure behind. (Photo courtesy of USA Swimming)

Lucas Oil Stadium has much more seating. Its swimming configuration allows for a capability of around 30,000 spectators with regular stadium seats facing the competition pool, in addition to around 20 rows of movable seats placed in front of the middle field curtain to form a totally enclosed oval for fans. Organizers have planned theme nights (including Father's Day and Juneteenth celebrations that can happen in the course of the event). They are also working with the NBA's Indiana Pacers and WNBA's Fever to draw latest fans who may not yet know much about swimming.

While there will definitely be seats removed from the water's surface, Dodd said visibility will likely be quite good for the greater than 25,000 spectators.

“I don't necessarily know if it's going to be weird or strange, but it's going to be different,” said University of Virginia coach Todd DeSorbo, who will function head coach of the U.S. women's team in Paris. “The more people, the better. And I think the kids will get carried away by the energy of the crowd.”

These evening events, where fans will watch the highest two finishers punch their tickets to Paris, will likely be unforgettable, organizers say. A 50-foot-high video board will stand behind the athletes as they’re announced and enter the pool deck before each final. Ferguson compared it to the players' introduction on Monday Night Football; Dodd said there will likely be the same level of lighting and production to WWE. There will even be a center-hung scoreboard (just like basketball stadiums) since the scoring and timing should be centered above the pool, relatively than where football stadiums have video boards across the edge.

Perhaps one of the best advantage of the football stadium is the installation of the warm-up pool. In Omaha, the warm-up pools were positioned within the convention center as a result of an absence of space in the world. In Indianapolis, they’re separated from the competition pool by only a curtain.

“The thing I'm most excited about is finally having space,” says Bob Bowman, head coach on the University of Texas, who coached Michael Phelps during his profession and can again take quite a few Olympic hopefuls to the trials. “In Omaha, it was so crowded that I just stopped going to the main pool and watching the races because I couldn't get there fast enough to help people warm up and cool down. So I just watched it on the big screen in the warm-up pool.

“It will be great for the participants.”

In what Ferguson calls the “back-of-house athlete experience,” there will be relaxation areas, massages, therapy dogs, nutritional assistance, mental health experts and even a video game room.

“Numerous it’s nerves, hopes and dreams,” Ferguson said. “We have to make certain that even in an enormous stadium, we give the athletes and coaches a way of intimacy where they’ll find peace and solitude and focus, so it's not nearly big lights, Hollywood and excitement.”

In short, it's not just about adding a swimming pool to a football stadium and figuring out where and how to drain the water. It's about repurposing a venue that needs to serve a myriad of purposes for multiple stakeholders at the same time.

And in a week he will be put to the ultimate test – just like the best American swimmers.

An artist's impression of the finished product, complete with fans. Lucas Oil Stadium will likely be the primary football stadium to host U.S. Olympic swimming qualifiers. (Courtesy of USA Swimming)

The athlete

Vermont is the primary state to pass a law requiring fossil fuel firms to pay a portion of the damages brought on by climate change after the state catastrophic floods in summer and damage brought on by other weather extremes.

Republican Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to turn out to be law without his signature, saying he was concerned in regards to the costs and consequences the small state would face if it needed to tackle the oil industry by itself.

“Instead of coordinating with other states like New York and California, which have far more resources, Vermont – one of the least populated states with the lowest GDP in the country – has chosen to cover the costs associated with climate change on its own,” Scott wrote in a letter to lawmakers. But he said he understood the need to hunt funds to mitigate the damage brought on by climate change, which has harmed Vermont “in so many ways.”

The floods last July Torrential rains flooded Vermont's capital city of Montpelier, the nearby city of Barre and a number of other southern Vermont communities, destroying homes and washing away roads across the agricultural state. Some called it the state's worst natural disaster since a 1927 flood that killed dozens of individuals and caused widespread destruction. It took months for businesses – from restaurants to shops – to rebuild, losing their summer and even fall seasons. Some have only recently reopened, while dozens of house owners have needed to enter the cold season with flood-ravaged homes.

Under the bill, the Vermont State Treasurer, in consultation with the Natural Resources Agency, would submit a report by January 15, 2026, on the whole costs to Vermonters and the state of emitting greenhouse gases from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2024. The assessment would examine impacts on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing, and other areas. The state would use federal data to find out the quantity of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company.

It is a polluter-pays model that affects firms that extract fossil fuels or refine crude oil in trade or business and are liable for multiple billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions in the course of the period in query. The funds might be utilized by the state to do things like upgrade stormwater drainage systems; upgrade roads, bridges and railroads; relocate, raise or upgrade wastewater treatment plants; and insulate private and non-private buildings to be more energy efficient. The model is modeled after the federal Superfund pollution cleanup program.

“For too long, giant fossil fuel companies have knowingly fanned the flames of climate change without taking action to put it out,” Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, said in a press release. “Finally, perhaps for the first time ever, Vermont will hold the companies most responsible for climate-related floods, fires and heat waves financially accountable for a fair share of the damage they cause.”

Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's foremost lobbying organization, expressed extreme concern that the law “retroactively imposes costs and liability for past activities that were legal, and that it violates equal treatment and due process principles by holding corporations responsible for the actions of society as a whole. Moreover, it is overridden by federal law.” In a letter to lawmakers before the law took effect, it also said that the measure didn’t inform potentially affected firms of the quantity of the potential fees.

Vermont lawmakers are aware that the state faces legal challenges, however the governor worries in regards to the costs and what a Vermont failure would mean for other states.

Democratic state Rep. Martin LaLonde, an attorney, believes Vermont has good legal arguments. Lawmakers worked closely with many legal scholars to draft the bill, he said in a press release.

“The bottom line is that the stakes are too high for the citizens of Vermont – and the costs are too high – to absolve the companies that caused the mess from their obligation to help clean up the damage,” he said.

Current instructions The report, issued by Education Secretary Gillian Keegan to the Office for Students, reveals conflicting priorities inside the federal government and adds fuel to the hearth burning in an already struggling higher education sector.

The deal with science, technology, engineering and arithmetic (STEM) – “strategically important, high-cost subjects” – is being met with a freeze on funding for arts subjects comparable to music, fashion and theater at undergraduate level.

This amounts to an actual cut within the face of inflation, and there are cuts in graduate education grants – in addition to within the Program to expand participation to support access to higher education for college kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.

It follows an earlier tranche of cuts in 2021 and comes at a time when universities normally – and the humanities and humanities particularly – are struggling. Inflation has exacerbated the strains felt across the sector and exposed long-term tensions on the university The financing model is beginning to unravel.

In short, the fee of teaching a student exceeds fees, with no immediate prospect of accelerating them, not least because they already burden graduates with heavy debt. This is further reinforced by falling A-level numbers in the humanities and humanities, making recruitment difficult. The inevitable consequence is a decline in provisions.

Oxford Brookes And Kent Universities have announced the closure of their music departments, while there might be redundancies at Goldsmiths endanger as much as half of jobs in departments comparable to English and Creative Writing, History, Music, Theater and Performance and Visual Cultures.

A false economy

The supposed logic of supporting the hard sciences and the general economy exposes contradictions in the federal government's self-declared policies and masks false economics. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Vision for the creative sectorFor example, it says: “The creative industries are a true British success story, from global music stars like Adele and Ed Sheeran to world-class cultural institutions like the National Theater.”

It also crucially highlights the importance of skills “to ensure the sector can attract and develop the best creative talent from all backgrounds and from all parts of the country”.

Even a sober economic perspective suggests that arts provision ought to be encouraged fairly than frozen. According to the federal government's own estimates, the creative industries contribute roughly £126 billion for the UK economy. This is greater than that automobile industryfor instance, or Aerospace, oil and gas.

While obviously lots of the talents needed can be in areas comparable to coding, the contribution still comprises around £27 billion within the fields of music, visual and performing arts, publishing, design, fashion, museums and galleries.

As the federal government recognizes, the humanities offered at universities also further enhance the country's cultural life and its school-age educational framework. The National Plan for Music Educationnotes, for instance, that universities “provide access to live musical performances…through free tickets to on-site concerts or by bringing student artists into schools…”[ing] This has mutual advantages as students gain invaluable experience working with young audiences and school-age students are inspired by musicians their very own age.”

Value of art and science exchange

The contradictions also extend beyond the creative sector and the courses of study directly affected. The funding cuts appear to obscure the worth that arts courses bring to the upper education sector (the worth itself). £71bn gross value added for the economy) as an entire.

Universities don’t operate in silos where arts and STEM are separated. They support one another financially, e.g Cross-subsidization between degrees which can be cheaper to deliver and people which can be costlier (including subjects comparable to engineering).

In research, too, the entire is bigger than the sum of its parts: the humanities and natural sciences each profit from cross-disciplinary collaboration, especially within the rapidly developing creative sector, where technological know-how, critical considering and an imaginative approach are mutually useful .

This zero-sum approach to arts and STEM in higher education also undermines the holistic, Humboldt model of the university whereby a mixture of research and teaching across the humanities and sciences creates knowledge, values ​​and an engaged citizenry. This has long been central to the strength and international appeal of British universities.

DCMS's Creative Sector Vision highlights the worth of dialogue between interdisciplinary research, business and the broader public sector, arguing that “government and industry have shown how we leverage public funding, the UK's world-leading university base and the… “Ingenuity of the creative industry”.

Tense times result in difficult decisions, especially when The headline numbers show a fluctuation in revenue between graduates from different disciplines. But pitting deals against one another and dividing them into those which can be “useful” is an approach that uses immediate tactics on the expense of long-term strategy.

If funding cuts deteriorate the supply of creative subjects, the impact can be felt beyond the departments directly affected. The arts are the inspiration of the creative economy, and universities are a part of a broader research, development and education ecosystem that, even in the federal government's own words, relies on exchanges between arts and science to create value across all sectors.