They plan to burn every molecule of carbon on Earth

NPR host Mary Louise Kelly talked to congressional reporter Barbara Sprunt about what happened when the Senate took up the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. This was after two months of the House waiting for the right time to deliver the articles of impeachment. Short answer: The Senate rejected the articles and did so rather quickly. There will be no trial. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said:

We felt very strongly that we had to set a precedent that impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements.

I heard from another source that Moscow Mitch essentially said he did not like setting a precedent that the Senate didn’t take the House articles of impeachment seriously. I’m with Chuck on this one. Ariana Figueroa of Michigan Advance wrote a much more detailed account of the proceedings. She included the series of votes and the Republicans attempts to force a trial or postpone the trial. It came down to Democrats approving Schumer’s point of order that neither article of impeachment actually contained an impeachable offense. All votes were along party lines, though Sen. Murkowski voted “present” for the first article. Pakalolo of the Daily Kos community reported that Jerome Powell, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, identified an important component that is keeping the Fed from meeting its 2% inflation target. That is insurance. The price of auto insurance is up 20.6% from a year ago and home insurance went up 11.3% in 2023. Pakalolo quoted UPI:

Experts attribute the escalating insurance premiums to various factors, including the impacts of climate change and rising prices for car parts. These factors drive up insurers’ costs, prompting them to pass on the expenses to consumers through higher premiums. As insurance costs continue to climb, they exert upward pressure on overall inflation rates, complicating the Federal Reserve’s efforts to manage monetary policy and stabilize prices.

Pakalolo then discussed how climate change is a big factor in making some regions of the country uninsurable. How might we protect Boston from sea level rise? A hotter climate means larger and stronger weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires, gale-force storms, and flooding. There was the Bipartisan Infrastructure deal to help the nation prepare but that was a lot smaller than what is needed. On to a quote from Reinsurance News with data from Bloomberg Intelligence:

According to BI, global insured losses from natural disasters in 2023 are estimated at $118 billion, which is well above the 2017-21 average of $97 billion. The BI team also explained that more than 50% of the top 20 global reinsurers held or cut their natural-catastrophe exposure in the January 2023 renewals.

A reinsurer is an insurance company for insurance companies for the times when a payout for a storm is more than an insurance company can handle. All this comes to homeowners not being able to get insurance either because the costs have risen too high for their budget or too many companies have decided that a region (such as Florida) is too risky and have pulled out from doing business there.

To be clear, drastic sea level rise is baked in and will destroy coastal cities. Wildfires are baked in. Despite ignoring all the blinking red lights over the past decades, humanity will have to lie in the bed that we have made. There will be no do-over for the climate crisis. The best we can hope for is preventing the worst impacts, and that window is closing. Once a home is uninsurable, the owner can’t find a buyer to get a mortgage. The banks will want their money back, the little gals and guys will be on their own, and fossil fuel companies will not pay a dime to help. They plan to burn every molecule of carbon on Earth, and they know we will let them do it.

If a home can’t be insured it loses a great deal of value. Pakalolo discussed Acapulco, which was hit hard by hurricane Otis last October. Recovery and rebuilding has barely begun because of insurance problems. A lot of tourist accommodations are gone. The destruction has limited fumigation efforts and mosquitoes are spreading an outbreak of dengue fever. A quote from Rainforest Action Network:

Insurance companies are abruptly dropping customers, and premiums are doubling and tripling. Why? The cost of protecting customer from climate disaster has become too high. And yet, insurers continue to insure fossil fuels. Sit in that irony for a sec.

Kerry Eleveld of Kos discussed new polling by Civiqs. It didn’t ask which candidate was ahead, but asked what is motivating people to vote they way they intend. Would you be upset if the other candidate became president? That was a tie at 48%, so half of the electorate will be upset no matter who wins. Would you be very happy if your person won? Biden: 28% Nasty guy: 38% Would you be okay with him winning? (Is he at least better than the other guy?) Biden: 17% Nasty guy: 9% Are you extremely motivated to support your candidate? That was the case with 63% of voters. Biden: 62% Nasty guy: 78% Are you extremely motivated to vote against the rival candidate? Nearly 80% said that’s the case. Biden: 85% Nasty guy: 77%

This election is going to come down to which candidate voters simply can't stomach. And with third-party options available, the Biden campaign has to make the possibility of a Trump victory absolutely intolerable to a solid majority of voters.

In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times:

The states’ rights case for determining abortion access — let the people decide — falters on the fact that in many states, the people cannot shape their legislature to their liking. Packed and split into districts designed to preserve Republican control, voters cannot actually dislodge anti-abortion Republican lawmakers. A pro-choice majority may exist, but only as a shadow: present but without substance in government.

Eric Tucker, Sarah Brumfield, and Lea Skene of the Associated Press reported on the latest about the Baltimore bridge collapse. The ship ran off course because it lost electrical power and the ship could not be steered or slowed. This report says there were signs of electrical problems before the ship left port. There is now an FBI investigation to go along with the inquiry of the National Transportation Safety Board. Another body was recovered. It was in a construction vehicle in the bridge wreckage. The family requested the name not be released. Three bodies are still missing. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott announced legal action to hold responsible all entities accountable for the tragedy. The ship Dali is owned by Grace Ocean and managed by Synergy Marine Group. They filed a routine petition under US Maritime law to seek to limit their liability to the value of the vessel’s remains after an incident. Attorneys for the victims argued against the petition. If the ship’s electrical problems were fixed before it left port the accident and the deaths could have been prevented. Timothy Pratt, in an article for Capital and Main and posted on Kos, reported on “In Her Hands,” a pilot program in Atlanta to give 654 women an average of $850 a month for two years. It was a success. For Shamarra Woods it allowed her to pay off debt and afford child care. That allowed her to keep her job at a company that eventually promoted her.

Now a group of academics has completed a report on the first year of the two-year program. “In Her Hands” has had some initial success in paving a road out of poverty. The new data, when added to the results from dozens of other studies, has supporters of guaranteed income hopeful that policymakers will see the benefits of dedicating public funds to the idea, at the federal, state, or local level. One obstacle addressed by research findings, they note, is the longstanding narrative with roots in the Reagan-era “welfare queen” trope about poor people being “undeserving” of no-strings assistance. ... As with others researching guaranteed income, [Stephen] Roll [of Washington University of St. Louis] said findings continue to refute the belief that giving money to people in poverty will “allow people to not work, and stay home.” He said the studies show “the vast majority of people [receiving guaranteed income] don’t leave their jobs, and they use the money either to pursue their goals or to supply staples on the table.”