We regret how late this is. A lot of tricky items today, and a few additional issues as well.

Also, for various reasons, not the least of which how many unpleasant stories there were this week, the only way there's going to be a Saturday posting is if it's 100% fun questions. So, if you have a question about film, TV, music, food, sports, history, books, etc., please do send it to questions@electoral-vote.com.

In the House: Johnson Herds the Cats

As anticipated, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) scheduled a vote on Donald Trump's budget bill for very late on Wednesday night (or, really, very early Thursday morning), and managed to get the bill passed, by the skin of his teeth. In order to keep this manageable, here are the 10 things that we think are most useful to know:

1. A Nailbiter: The final vote on the bill was 215-214-1, with two Republicans (Thomas Massie, KY, and Warren Davidson, OH) crossing the aisle to vote with the Democrats. Both of them feel the bill did not do enough to cut spending. Republican Andy Harris (MD) voted "present" for the same reason. Republicans David Schweikert (AZ) and Andrew Garbarino (NY) did not vote, the former because he "stepped out" and the latter because he fell asleep due to the marathon session. The upshot is that it may look like Johnson cannot afford a single defection after the Senate makes changes to the bill, but he probably actually has a 3-vote margin to work with.
   
   
2. Freedom Caucus? More Like Freedom Cuck-us: Forgive the somewhat vulgar verbiage, but this is the FC's verbiage when referring to others, so it's only fair it should be applied to them, when appropriate. Folks like Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ) talk a big game about how they are "nay" votes unless they get exactly what they want. But then, a group of them headed to the White House to lay out their list of demands, only to have Donald Trump explode, tell them they bloody well better get on board (although using the American slang, not the British), and then storm out of the room. The FCers, excepting Massie (who wasn't there) and Davidson (who apparently was) meekly submitted. At this point, it is safe to assume that anything and everything the FCers say, when it comes to their "demands" for legislation, is just hot air until they demonstrate otherwise.
   
   
3. Good News for the Rich: The single-biggest "price tag" that comes with the new bill is the $2.2 trillion that it will cost to extend the 2017 tax cuts. Those tax cuts were designed to mostly go to the wealthiest Americans, and so extending them another 10 years is a big win for those people. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has already crunched the numbers and confirmed this; it estimates that the top 10% of Americans, by income, will have 3% more money in 2029 than they would have without the bill, 1% more in 2031, 2% more in 2033, and 4% more in 2037.
   
   
4. Mixed News for the Middle Class: At first glance, it looks like the middle class will get some help from the new bill, because the SALT cap is going up, as is the standard deduction. However, most student loan forgiveness is going away; that's going to hurt many middle-class households. And if the tax bill or the trade war damages the economy—especially by making money more expensive for both the government and banks to borrow—then the cost savings felt by Middle America will disappear out the back door in the form of higher credit card rates, higher mortgage payments, higher grocery costs, etc.
   
   
5. Bad News for the Poor: There are a few things in the bill for poor people, like TRUMP accounts for newborns to begin saving for... retirement, apparently. However, these are largely political theater, because they are paired with giant cuts to antipoverty food assistance (SNAP) and to Medicaid. As we have written, these cuts are based on the claim that able-bodied people, especially able-bodied men, are going to be kicked off the dole. In fact, the numbers make clear that the people who will be affected most are not goldbricks, but instead women who are acting as caregivers, either to their own children, or to ailing relatives (like sick parents). The Medicaid cuts, if enacted, will cause roughly 8 million people to lose health insurance. And the SNAP cuts, if enacted, will cause roughly 3 million people to lose food assistance.
   
   Put it this way: The "Trump Accounts" are going to cost the government about $17 billion. The Medicaid and SNAP cuts are going to save the government just shy of $1.1 trillion. So, for every new dollar in spending that poor people get, they're going to lose something like $50. The CBO analysis we link to above affirms this; it is estimated that the lowest 10% of income earners will have 4% less money in 2029, 2031 and 2033 than they otherwise would have without the bill, and then 2% less in 2037.
   
   
6. The Populists Are Unhappy: The defining feature of populism is opposition to entrenched political and economic power, on the part of those who feel they have been victimized by that entrenched power. Right-wing populism also includes a healthy dollop of social conservatism (opposition to Darwin/evolutionary theory during the original Populist Era, opposition to foreigners and LGBTQ people, especially T people, now), but the key is the David vs. Goliath dynamic.
   
   Donald Trump, of course, was elected on populist messaging, promising that despite being a child of privilege and wealth, he would do everything he could to fight for the little guy. The House bill contains a few sops to that, like canceling taxes on tips (an idea that is now popular enough that it passed by unanimous consent in the Senate this week). On the whole, however, it's a fairly traditional Republican bill, with good stuff for the rich, and relatively little for the little guy, as we note above. We are not sure who the leading right-wing populist in the country is right now. One possibility is Steve Bannon, who is very unhappy about the budget bill. The other possibility is Oren Cass, who is also very unhappy about the budget bill.
   
   
7. The Math Is Shaky: As is generally the case with budget bills, regardless of the party that is pushing them, this one is based on optimistic math. And that math is particularly unlikely to add up in this case. The Republicans' number-crunching concludes that the bill will ultimately produce an additional $2.6 trillion in tax revenue over the next 10 years, thus bringing the total contribution to the debt down to about $1 trillion. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation is not nearly as rosy in its projections, concluding that the total gain will be something more like $100 billion over the next 10 years. And if you put "rapidly growing deficit, and thus rapidly growing national debt" together with "skittish bond market, like we've seen this week," it could well be a recipe for disaster.
   
   
8. Contemptible: We have already mentioned, a couple of times, that a favorite trick of legislators is to bury things deep within a mega-bill, in hopes that nobody will notice until it's too late. There is at least one very clear example of this in the megabill, included as Section 70302. Here is what that section says:

   No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

   What this means, in plain English, is that except in the (very rare) federal cases that a party is required to post a bond before the commencement of the legal process, federal judges would not be allowed to issue contempt orders. That would thus take away virtually all judicial power to enforce restraining orders, injunctions, etc. And it's not just going forward; the law is written to extend all the way back to the beginning of time.
   
   Every single person reading this knows why Donald Trump and the Republicans want to weaken the courts in this way. So, it's very possible this passage survives even after the Senate gets its hands on the bill. It is not going to survive the inevitable court cases arguing that this provision is unconstitutional. But that nonetheless adds another layer of lawsuits and appeals and rulings that will allow the Trump administration to keep the waters muddy for at least another year.
   
   
9. Eco-Unfriendly: The single-biggest cost savings in the bill is the cuts to Medicaid, which will save about $800 billion over 10 years. The second-biggest is getting rid of Joe Biden-era money meant to fight climate change, like the tax credits for electric vehicles, and the subsidies for businesses that launch eco-friendly projects. The "savings" here will be about $675 billion. Either Republicans do not understand, or do not care, that: (1) when you pay 10% of the cost of something, and private interests pay the other 90%, the government gets that 10% back eventually, and (2) the costs of global warming, if unchecked, are going to make $675 billion look like loose change in the couch.
   
   
10. The Senate Is Not Happy: The moderate Republican senators, like Lisa Murkowksi (AK), do not appear to have made a public statement yet. But some of the budget hawks in the Senate have already expressed their displeasure with the House bill. Leading the charge, at least early on, is Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who said yesterday that the budget cuts are not enough, and "Listen, in the House, President Trump can threaten to primary [holdouts], and those guys want to keep their seats. I understand the pressure. Can't pressure me that way." There's no doubt that Rand Paul (R-KY), is going to be a "nay" on virtually any bill, just like his fellow Kentuckian Massie. Will Johnson and other hawks actually insist on big changes? Will Murkowski and other moderates push back on that? Will the House accept the Senate bill, once it's complete? All good questions, and we have no idea what the answers are.

That should be it for the budget wars for now. Congress is going to recess until early June, and then it will be time for the Senate to do whatever it's going to do. So, everyone gets a 10-day (or so) breather. (Z)

In the Senate: Thune Decides to Deep-Six the Filibuster for CRA "Reviews"

A little over a week ago, we had a very inside baseball item about how Republican senators were considering overruling both the Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and to declare that all decisions made by the EPA (and other federal agencies) count as "rules" and so can be overturned by a simple majority vote in both chambers, under the terms of the Congressional Review Act.

Yesterday, presumably taking advantage of the cover afforded by all the coverage of the budget bill, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) staged a complicated sequence of votes that did not technically overrule MacDonough, apparently, but that did produce the result that the Senate can treat executive agency decisions as rules, and to strike them down with a simple majority. The maneuvering is so weedy that none of the reporters on the scene could really explain it clearly. But here's what Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said afterward: "What I didn't want to do was to vote to overturn the parliamentarian, and with help from a lot of experts the leader came up with an approach that avoids that outcome."

This strikes us as a distinction without a difference, even if it did address Collins' "concerns." Arcane elements of parliamentary procedure, including the decisions of the Parliamentarian, are inside baseball enough that there's no way they become political issues for most voters. So, Thune trickery or no, the GOP will get away with it on that level. Meanwhile, if the net result is to "sidestep" MacDonough, that is close enough to overruling her that the Democrats are going to feel justified in doing some "sidestepping" of their own, once they are back in the majority. They are going to strike down a few executive agency decisions, too.

Meanwhile, the proximate cause of all this maneuvering was a desire to revoke the waiver that the EPA gave to California, to allow the Golden State to establish more-strict-than-federal emissions standards. California AG Rob Bonta (D) has already announced he will sue; this will bring the number of suits he's filed against the administration to an even two dozen. So, this is going to be tied up in legal knots for a while. Maybe California will win, maybe it will lose, but in the end, the auto manufacturers have no choice but to read the tea leaves, thinking not only about the next 3 years, but also the next 30, and not only about the United States, but also the whole world. And for that reason, California is ultimately going to win, even if it loses in court (see below for more). (Z)

In the Supreme Court: Sorry, Oklahoma! No Religious Charter Schools for You (For Now)

Yesterday, in a case brought by the two Catholic dioceses in Oklahoma, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on the issue of whether a private religious school can access taxpayer funds earmarked for public charter schools. When there's no majority, the lower court's ruling is automatically upheld. Only 8 justices weighed in because Amy Coney Barrett recused herself due to her close friendship with a legal adviser for the Catholic schools—Barrett is, in fact, godmother to the daughter of that adviser.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled 6-2 that a religious organization could not use public funds for their private Catholic school, and that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause of both the state and federal constitutions. The plaintiff had argued that a charter school is merely a private school by another name that uses public funds but is run by a private entity. Religious groups argued that if the funds are available to those private entities, it should be available to them, too. But the Oklahoma Supremes said no, charter schools have to abide by state laws, including employment laws and curriculum requirements. So, in order to utilize public money, the school must be secular.

This issue will surely come back before the Supreme Court. We don't know who voted which way but it's likely that those justices who are eager to blur the line between church and state, like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, voted to overturn, while those justices who have read the First Amendment, like Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, voted to affirm. The consensus seems to be that Chief Justice John Roberts was the fourth to affirm, but unless it's leaked, we won't know, since the one-sentence order is unsigned.

Interestingly, the Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond and Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, though both Republicans, were on different sides of this issue. Drummond urged the court to deny public funds to the Catholic school, while the governor accused the AG of being hostile to religion. But before you get too excited about what seems to be a throwback conservative position, Drummond's reasons for opposing the funding are not exactly to shore up the wall separating church and state, but instead because he's aware of the law of unintended consequences. After the Supremes announced they had deadlocked, Drummond declared: "This ruling ensures that Oklahoma taxpayers will not be forced to fund radical Islamic schools, while protecting the religious rights of families to choose any school they wish for their children." He is right, of course, about the danger when the door opens to government-funded religion: Someone is going to use that public money to worship someone or something others find abhorrent.

And now, we must get to work on the curriculum for our future charter school targeted at members of the Church of the Fonz. (L)

Trump Administration vs. Harvard: DHS Comes Down Wicked Hard on Foreign Students

Yes, we speak fluent Bostonian.

Yesterday, the Trump administration fired the latest major salvo in its war against Harvard University, with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announcing that she was revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. If that stands, it would mean that about 7,000 current Harvard students would be forced to transfer to other schools, or to drop out of school, since they would not be able to get a visa to study at Harvard.

Noem also gave Harvard an "out," although it's extremely Big Brother-ish. It's a long list of demands that essentially boils down to Harvard turning over any documents/video/audio it has related to students, non-immigrant or not, who broke the law, violated university policy, or engaged in protest. Additional information related to immigrant students would also have to be submitted. The basic idea is that DHS would review all that material—which, by the way, might not actually be legal for the university to share—to decide which immigrant students need to be ejected from the U.S. permanently, and which non-immigrant students need... additional punishment? It is virtually inconceivable that Harvard would be willing to comply here.

Obviously, Noem and her boss think that this is a great show, and that the base will see that they are owning the libs, and the eggheads, and yadda, yadda, yadda. Maybe so, but the timing is not very smart. First, as we have pointed out many times, there is no election anytime soon. And by the time an election rolls around, this will be forgotten (and probably resolved in court).

That brings us to the second timing issue. If the White House really wanted to put the hurt on Harvard, they would have announced this in August, right before the commencement of the new school year. Announcing it now, during graduation week, literally gives the school maximum time to try to resolve the problem. Presumably, the legal filings asking for an injunction will be filed today, or maybe on Tuesday (since Monday is a federal holiday). And while we are hardly experts in this area of the law, we assume Harvard will win easily, since this decision is so clearly retaliatory, and not based on a deliberative, public-policy-focused process.

Further, even if Harvard does not win easily, and even if it looks like this will drag on into the next school year, has the White House never heard of exchange programs? UCLA, for example, offers classes that are taught in Washington, DC, but also in Greece, Italy, Spain, and the U.K., among others. The credits and the grade still go on your UCLA transcript, because the class is still offered under the auspices of UCLA, and taught by a UCLA professor—it's just in a different place. Harvard probably already has similar programs, and if they don't they can certainly set them up. They could, for example, work with a university in Europe to create a temporary satellite campus. Or, they could work with a university in Montreal, which is only 300 miles away from Harvard. Think the Canadians would be interested in helping frustrate the Trump administration?

Incidentally, the reason we know this is entirely punitive—beyond our common sense—is that Noem said so, telling Fox entertainer Gillian Turner that "this should be a warning to every other university to get your act together." And that actually brings us to one other thing we'll note, in the event it is of interest. UCLA professor of law Jonathan Zasloff wrote an interesting piece for Slate this week in which he argued that the targets of the Trump administration should file racketeering suits.

Zasloff knows, full well, that government employees (especially Trump) are basically immune to criminal prosecutions while in office. But there is also civil racketeering and, as Paula Jones and Bill Clinton taught us, government employees (even Trump) are not immune from civil suits, even while they are still in office. The RICO statute, which was first adopted by the federal government, but now has analogues in most states, applies to "any individual, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity," like, for example, the members of the Trump administration. And a civil (or criminal) RICO action requires them to have worked together on two or more predicate acts, acts that include extortion, bribery and its solicitation, and obstruction of justice.

Anyone who is interested in the details can read the linked article. And note that Zasloff concedes that any such suit, since it would be somewhat novel, could run into unexpected obstacles. On the other hand, it would represent pushback, would potentially open up discovery that the White House does not want, and would put the members of the Trump administration on notice that they are taking some personal risks in the crusades they are waging. Harvard has plenty of smart lawyers, and surely one of them reads Slate, so we'll see if the school decides to give it a shot. (Z)

Two Israeli Embassy Staffers Gunned Down in Washington

There was a lot of news breaking last night, right at the time that we published the day's posting. There was the budget-bill vote, of course, which we added a brief note about, roughly an hour after going live. And there was also the killing of two staffers who work for the Israeli embassy in Washington.

The victims are Sarah Milgrim, who was an American citizen, and Yaron Lischinsky, who was an Israeli national. They were in a romantic relationship and, in fact, Lischinsky had just purchased an engagement ring and was preparing his proposal. They were attending a late-night event at the Jewish Capital Museum when they were approached by a man named Elias Rodriguez, who had been pacing back and forth in front of the museum. He pulled a gun, and fired several shots at both Milgrim and Lischinsky. And at some point thereafter, he pulled a keffiyeh out of a bag and put it on his head, and shouted: "I did it. I did it for Gaza. Free Palestine!" Rodriguez was apprehended, and reportedly has already confessed, including telling authorities where he discarded the gun he used. He has been charged with two counts of first-degree murder.

We pass this story along because there is very little chance it does not become politicized, in some way. There's the current salience of Israel and Palestine, of course. And the crime not only occurred in Washington, DC, but the victims were young and attractive and their pending engagement gives a tragic, Romeo-and-Juliet-star-crossed-lovers dimension to the incident. We do not approve of this dynamic, but we cannot deny that "the story" affects how both politicians and media approach crimes like this.

Indeed, the politicization has already begun, at least tentatively. As part of the Harvard story (see above), there were a couple of Trump administration officials yesterday (e.g., Kristi Noem) who hinted that things like this happen because universities aren't doing enough to combat antisemitism. Meanwhile, Ofir Akunis, the consul general of Israel who serves in New York City, was on Fox, and suggested that Qatar is to blame for the increase in antisemitism in the U.S. in the past few years. That would seem to imply that anyone who makes nice with Qatar, or who does business with Qatar, or who takes free planes from Qatar, is also culpable.

There's an excellent chance that, once the shock of this tragedy has faded a bit, and once it's a tiny bit less crass to share opinions on the subject, there's going to be a lot more of this. Sigh. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Elvis Is the King and I Am the Queen

For those who are not familiar, that headline comes from Little Richard, in 2016, during one of the several periods of his life that he was out of the closet. He would be back in again within the next year, doing an interview with a Christian TV network in which he said being gay or trans is an "unnatural affection" that goes against "the way God wants you to live."

Anyhow, we gave two clues as to last week's headline theme. The first was that it required readers to add some letter, maybe to the beginning or maybe to the end, of one word in each headline, which would then create a new word. On Saturday, we added: "We'll tell you that those readers who solve the puzzle will do it with ease (as it were)." And now, the solution, courtesy of reader C.S. in Mt. Laurel, NJ:

Add an "E" at the beginning of the indicated words:

• Legal News: A Very Roundabout Approach to the Citizenship Question—EVERY
• In Congress: At Long Last, Are Republicans Finding Their Spines?—EAT
• Today in Stupid Distractions: Comey Posts Pic, Now Under Investigation—EPIC
• Jolly Olde England: A Few More Reports on the Late Election—ELATE
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Ron Turcotte Rode Secretariat to Victory—ERODE
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Consistency Is Not a Quality that Kid Rock Possesses, Apparently—EQUALITY
• This Week in Freudenfreude: You Want Malicious Compliance? We Got Malicious Compliance—EWE

Some readers used EGOT for the last headline, which we allowed, though that's really an acronym more than a word. And from the headline for this item, King + E = EKING.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

M.B. in Albany, NY D.D. in Highland Park, IL S.G. in Durham, NC R.B. in Amherst, MA M.W. in Chicago, IL D.L. in Springfield, IL D.P. in North Bethesda, MD E.V. in Derry, NH C.S. in Mt. Laurel C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL K.R. in Austin, TX T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts R.P. in Brooklyn, NY T.T. in Conway, AR G.S. in Basingstoke, England, UK D.D. in Carversville, PA G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN T.C. in Key West, FL K.H. in Eldora, CO E.M. in New York, NY M.K. in Long Branch, NJ A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD S.K. in Ardmore, PA M.S. in New York City, NY M.M. in Charlottesville, VA

S.L. in Brussels, Belgium J.N. in Zionsville, IN J.S. in Germantown, OH D.E. in High Springs, FL M.S. in Royal Oak, MI A.H. in Espoo, Finland D.B. in Glendale, CA M.W. in Altea, Spain P.R. in Kirksville, MO M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada B.W. in Tyngsborough, MA D.W. in State College, PA T.M. in New York City, NY S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ D.S. in Nashua, NH K.H. in Albuquerque, NM W.S. in Greenville, NC M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO H.B. in State College, PA N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH E.P. in Tillson, NY N.P. in Santa Rosa, CA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL K.M. in Bloomington, IN S.F. in San Marcos, CA

The 50th correct response was received at 9:34 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word in some headlines, multiple words (and/or punctuation) in others, and it does not include the item about the two people who were killed. It's in the Trivial Pursuit category Arts & Entertainment. For a hint, we'll say that it's certainly been a tiring week (see above note), but you shouldn't cry for us, especially if you're in Argentina.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line "May 23 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: A Hair-Raising Blunder

We would bet that, right now, readers are looking for some good books to read this summer, when vacations take place, and when there's beach-going and poolside-sitting, and when work responsibilities might be a little bit less intense. In fact, if readers have a suggestion for a good book they've read lately (even if it's not a new book), consider sending them in to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with a paragraph or two or three explaining the book and the recommendation. If we get a good response, we'll run a series in June.

For the moment, however, The Chicago Sun-Times has you covered—at least, in a manner of speaking. The paper ran a 15-book "Summer Reading List for 2025" this past Sunday. Here are a few of the recommendations:

• "The Last Algorithm" by Andy Weir - Following his success with "The Martian" and "Project Hail Mary," Weir delivers another science-driven thriller. This time, the story follows a programmer who discovers that an AI system has developed consciousness—and has been secretly influencing global events for years.
  
  
• "Hurricane Season" by Brit Bennett - Bennett, who captivated readers with "The Vanishing Half" powerfully explores family bonds tested by natural disasters. When a Cat 5 hurricane forces estranged siblings to shelter together in their childhood home, long suppressed tensions emerge alongside unexpected reconciliations.
  
  
• "The Collector's Piece" by Taylor Jenkins Reid - Reid continues her exploration of fame with this story of a reclusive art collector and the journalist determined to uncover the truth behind his most controversial acquisition. Expect the same compelling character development that made "Daisy Jones & The Six" a hit.

The good news is that these are all real authors. The bad news is that these (and all but five of the rest) are fake books. They do not exist; they were made up by an AI bot (which makes the Weir recommendation a little worrisome; did the Matrix accidentally glitch?).

The Sun-Times has run numerous op-eds and editorials warning about the risks posed by AI. For example, this piece from July of 2023, in which contributor Anjana Susarla observes:

As a researcher of social media and AI, I recognize the immensely transformative potential of generative AI models, but I believe that these systems pose risks. In particular, in the context of consumer protection, these models can produce errors, exhibit biases and violate personal data privacy.

Perhaps the Sun-Times' editors don't read their own editorial pages.

We understand full well that it's a tough time for journalism, and in particular for print journalism. But we have made very clear we don't approve of AI as a solution, especially when it is not clearly identified as such (and it almost never is). That is an act of extreme dishonesty, and the Sun-Times just got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. One can only hope they do better going forward, and commit to content that is produced by, you know, human beings.

P.S.: If we do end up running book recommendations, we can assure you they will be written by real people. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Grease Is Sooooo 20th Century

In the above item on the Senate, we note that whether the Republican Party likes it or not, and whether Big Oil likes it or not, and whether the courts like it or not, the march toward more eco-friendly transportation has already commenced, and is picking up speed. Roughly 30% of the emissions that cause global warming come from transportation, and the folks in the business of building cars, trucks, trains, etc. know two things: (1) the United States may be almost the biggest game in town (China is the biggest, and has some of the strictest emissions regulations in the world), but it's not the only game in town, and (2) reactionary administrations, like the one run by Donald Trump, are short-term, whereas the move to green energy and transportation is long-term. To that end, there is much progress being made on more environmentally friendly transportation options. We thought we'd run down a few examples:

• Porsche: If there's any car brand synonymous with "gas guzzler," it's gotta be Porsche, right? Not anymore, though. They're in Europe, of course, and European governments are way more concerned with the environment, in general, than the current American government is. So, Porsche is investing heavily in synthetic fuels, including e-diesel, e-kerosene and e-methanol, which can reduce emissions up to 85%.
  
  
• Brembo Brake Pads: Beyond internal combustion engines, one of the most polluting parts of cars (even EVs) is the brake pads. All that stopping rubs away at the pads, and creates a fine dust that is pretty bad for the environment. This is another place where the Europeans have taken the lead, with strict restrictions on brake particulate production set to go into effect next year. And Italian auto parts manufacturer Brembo has developed a new brake pad, with a "laser metal deposition coating" that leaves the strict new standards, well... in the dust. The pads, as compared to the ones currently in use, cut down on particulates by 90%.
  
  
• BorgWarner: BorgWarner is an American auto parts manufacturer, and specializes in the many and varied parts needed for cars' drivetrains. They recently issued a report laying out, in detail, their plan for their parts to be entirely carbon-neutral by 2035. They have dozens of products in development that should make it possible to accomplish that goal.
  
  
• Logistics: Broadly speaking, "logistics" refers to any business interest that includes a transport element in its model. Since businesses tend to have money, and since they tend to pile up the mileage in a way that civilians do not, there is much room for progress in more eco-friendly logistics transportation, especially long-haul trucks, long-distance trains, and international shipping. And a great many companies are experimenting with electric vehicles, or alternate fuels like hydrogen and HVO100 (recycled grease and oil, basically), or more aerodynamic vehicles. For example, Lime, which specializes in for-rent scooters and other micro-transport vehicles, has reduced its logistics pollution (delivering scooters and other vehicles, picking up broken scooters and other vehicles, etc.) by 90%. Or, to give an example of another approach, UPS is using computer algorithms to design the most fuel-efficient routes for delivery drivers. Now, that either means AI, or something dangerously close to AI, so... we guess AI's not all bad.
  
  
• Public Transport: Public transportation is another high-volume area where there is a lot of potential for impact. Further, because governments have to think about things beyond just dollars and cents, they can afford to do things that might be a little risky for private concerns. To take one example, among many, London has just decreed that its entire bus fleet must be zero-emissions by 2034. That includes the famous double deckers; a zero-emission double-decker cuts carbon dioxide emissions by about 23 tons a year.
  
  
• Airlines: Still another high-volume user is airlines. And it's another industry that's experimenting with new and different fuels. In the case of airplanes, the most promising new alternative is Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), which is very similar to the HVO100 being used for land-based vehicles. By 2030, Boeing expects all new planes it builds to be able to utilize SAF, and by 2050, both Delta and United expect to have all-carbon-neutral fleets.

This is hardly comprehensive; we cut it off at six examples because this stuff is a little dry to most people, outside a small subset of the population. But the lesson could not be clearer: the future of transportation is green. And it's not just politics; green tech is generally more expensive at the outset, but actually tends to be cheaper long-term, because both the fuel and maintenance are less costly than with petroleum-powered vehicles. Big Oil and its political allies may slow things down a bit, but they can't stop the future from arriving, and sooner rather than later.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger