Kay Ivey awards grants to support statewide agencies that assist domestic violence victims
Gov. Kay Ivey has awarded grants totaling $316,000 to help provide training and resources that ensure victims of domestic violence have access to professional assistance through local law enforcement and nonprofit agencies. The Alabama Coalition Against Rape and the Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence will receive $158,000 each to train the staff of local law enforcement agencies, health care organizations, courts, and domestic violence shelters to recognize the signs of abuse and respond more effectively to domestic and dating violence as well as sexual assault. “Domestic violence and sexual assault affect too many Alabamians, and those investigating cases or helping victims should have access to top-notch training when needed,” Gov. Ivey stated. “I am pleased to support these efforts, which will help investigators, prosecutors, shelter staff, and, most importantly, victims.” The Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs is administering the grants from funds made available by the U.S. Department of Justice. ADECA administers a wide range of programs that support law enforcement, economic development, infrastructure upgrades, recreation, energy conservation, and water resources management. “ADECA shares Gov. Ivey’s dedication to helping victims of domestic abuse by making sure those who assist them have the best training and resources available,” ADECA Director Kenneth Boswell said.
Dan Sutter: In defense of fossil fuels
Governments are promising to end fossil fuel use by 2050 or sooner. Fossil Future by Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, argues that this would be tragic. Contrary to conventional wisdom, he believes that expanding the use of fossil fuels is humanity’s only moral course. I will detail the steps of Mr. Epstein’s argument shortly. Perhaps more is his analysis of standards of value. His standard, human flourishing, contrasts with the standard of minimizing human impact on the environment driving the campaign against fossil fuels. The argument for fossil fuels has three parts. First, fossil fuels provide inexpensive energy, enabling us to perform inconceivably more work than with just human or animal power. Fossil fuels provide concentrated, on-demand, portable, and scalable energy, or energy we can build lives and an economy around. By contrast, wind and solar provide intermittent energy. And fossil fuels, which provide 80 percent of energy, have no substitutes in heavy transportation and heat generation. Second, fossil fuels power climate mastery, making the Earth more livable for humans. We alter the environment in many ways to improve life, like draining swamps to control malaria. Climate mastery, epitomized by the Netherlands’ flood protection system, has reduced extreme weather fatalities per capita by 98 percent over the past century. Finally, global warming will not overwhelm our fossil fuel-enabled climate mastery. Melting glaciers after the last Ice Age increased sea level by over 300 feet. Our ancestors, living at a subsistence level, survived. Irrigation, flood control, fertilizer, and pesticides will control any impacts of warming. Climate change does not threaten human existence. This is great news! Still, Fossil Future’s biggest contribution is discussing standards of value for energy. Mr. Epstein employs human flourishing, defined as “increasing the ability of human beings to live long, healthy, fulfilling lives.” Human flourishing has experienced a true “hockey stick” takeoff over the past 250 years, powered by fossil fuels. Yet the framework also recognizes fossil fuels’ side effects, including air pollution and warming. Human flourishing requires a hospitable environment. Leading environmentalists, Mr. Epstein argues, value minimizing the impact of humans on the natural environment. Mr. Epstein interprets environmentalist writings within this anti-impact framework. Bill McKibben observes how altering the flow of water in a creek is wrong: “Instead of a world where rain had an independent and mysterious existence, the rain had become a subset of human activity.” Yet undisturbed nature includes disease, droughts, and extreme weather. The anti-impact framework is ultimately anti-life. Extreme charges should not be made casually, and Mr. Epstein proceeds carefully here. Consider this review of Mr. McKibben’s The End of Nature: “Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” If you think Mr. Epstein exaggerates, how would you greet a source of cheap energy without pollution or warming side effects? In the late 1980s, a reported breakthrough on nuclear fusion offered just this. And leading environmentalists’ reactions: “disastrous,” “the worst thing that could happen to our planet,” and “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” Vague slogans like “going green,” “protecting the environment,” or “saving the planet” gloss over the anti-life aspect of anti-impact. Most people like polar bears and consequently support action against climate change. Standards of value matter immensely. Under human flourishing, humanity-enhancing impact is moral. Under the anti-impact standard, any impact of energy use is immoral. And this ultimately drives climate change’s “existential threat” label. Human-caused warming is immoral and unacceptable regardless of whether it hurts us. Recognizing the anti-impact framework rationalizes some otherwise contradictory policies. Hydro and nuclear power offer electricity without carbon emissions. But they impact the environment and therefore are not green. Reducing human impact, not saving humanity, is the goal. We cannot hope to feed eight billion people without fossil fuels. Ending fossil fuel use by mid-century will impoverish America and condemn millions to energy poverty and ultimately likely starvation. If people read and engage Alex Epstein’s arguments, perhaps we can ensure an empowered life for every human. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.
Doctor: Joe Biden tests positive for COVID for 2nd day in a row
President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19 for the second straight day, in what appears to be a rare case of “rebound” following treatment with an anti-viral drug. In a letter noting the positive test, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, the White House physician, said Sunday that the president “continues to feel well” and will keep on working from the executive residence while he isolates. Biden tested positive on Saturday, requiring him to cancel travel and in-person events as he isolates for at least five days in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. After initially testing positive on July 21, Biden, 79, was treated with the anti-viral drug Paxlovid. He tested negative for the virus this past Tuesday and Wednesday, clearing him to leave isolation while wearing a mask indoors. Research suggests that a minority of those prescribed Paxlovid experience a rebound case of the virus. The fact that a rebound rather than a reinfection possibly occurred is a positive sign for Biden’s health once he’s clear of the disease. “The fact that the president has cleared his illness and doesn’t have symptoms is a good sign and makes it less likely he will develop long COVID,” said Dr. Albert Ho, an infectious disease specialist at Yale University’s school of public health. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Joe Biden nominates utility’s ex-board chair to rejoin panel
President Joe Biden has nominated the former board chairman of the nation’s largest public utility to rejoin the panel. Huntsville, Alabama attorney Joe Ritch is Biden’s pick to return to the board of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Ritch left the federal utility’s board in 2017 after a Republican-controlled Senate failed the previous year to confirm former President Barack Obama’s reappointment of Ritch and two others. Obama nominated Ritch to the board in 2012. The Senate confirmed him in 2013, and the board voted to make him chairman in 2014. The nine-member board currently has four vacancies, not counting two sitting members who are still serving after their terms expired in May. The seats come with five-year terms, but when a board member’s term expires, that person can keep serving until the end of the current congressional session, typically in December, or until their successors take office, whatever comes first. Ritch would fill a vacant seat with a term expiring in May 2025. Board member Beth Harwell’s run for U.S. House this election cycle could add more uncertainty if she wins. Ritch now joins five other Biden board picks awaiting Senate confirmation. Three of them were nominated in April 2021. The other two — Lyon County, Kentucky Judge, Executive Adam Wade White, and Bill Renick, a former Ashland, Mississippi mayor and state lawmaker — were nominated in June. Once confirmed, the nominees would give Biden a majority that could reshape the federal utility, which now features only board members appointed by former President Donald Trump. Environmental advocates have urged the new Democrat-appointed board members, once installed, to move more quickly in transitioning to 100% carbon-free electricity, citing the Biden administration’s goal of a carbon-pollution-free energy sector by 2035. TVA has set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels. The utility has its own aspirational goal of net zero emissions by 2050. TVA provides electricity for 153 local power companies serving 10 million people in Tennessee and parts of six surrounding states, in addition to large industrial customers and federal operations. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
DOJ: Lawsuit should proceed over town’s police fines
The Justice Department is urging a federal judge to let a class-action lawsuit go forward against an Alabama town accused of policing for profit with excessive fines and aggressive enforcement of local laws. The U.S. attorney’s office this week filed a statement of interest in the civil lawsuit against Brookside. The lawsuit was filed by four people who paid hundreds of dollars in fines and said they were humiliated by what they described as a scheme to boost town revenue. Brookside is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit. The Justice Department argued that it should proceed against the police department and local officials. “Courts, prosecutors, and police should be driven by justice—not revenue,” an assistant U.S. attorney wrote in the court filing. The Justice Department said the United States has an interest in enforcing federal laws regarding the imposition and enforcement of unlawful fines and fees. “The United States also has an interest in addressing practices that punish people for their poverty, in violation of their constitutional rights.” Al.com reported in January that Brookside, which has a population of 1,253, saw revenue from fines and forfeitures jump 640 percent between 2018 and 2020 and grew to make up half the city’s total income. Lawyers for the town, in seeking to dismiss the case, wrote in a court filing that “very little is necessary to show that the fines and fees imposed by the Town of Brookside and/or the Brookside Municipal Court are rationally related to a governmental interest.” Institute for Justice, a group representing the plaintiffs in the case, welcomed the Justice Department’s action. “The Justice Department’s statement recognizes that Brookside’s abusive system of policing for profit violates the Constitution and that the town should be held accountable,” Jaba Tsitsuashvili, a lawyer with the group, said in a statement.
