LONDON — Frost/Nixon it was not. But at least the golf course got a good plug.
Brexit firebrand Nigel Farage bagged a half an hour sit-down interview with Donald Trump on Wednesday as part of the former U.S. president’s trip to his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland.
The hardball questions just kept on coming as the two men got stuck into everything from how great Trump is to just how massively he’s going to win the next election.
POLITICO tuned in to the GB News session so you didn’t have to.
Trump could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours
Trump sees your complex, grinding, war in Ukraine and raises you the deal-making credentials he honed having precisely one meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.
“If I were president, I will end that war in one day — it’ll take 24 hours,” the ex-POTUS declared. And he added: “That deal would be easy.”
Time for a probing follow-up from the host to tease out the precise details of Trump’s big plan? Over to you Nige! “I think we’d all love to see that war stop,” the hard-hitting host beamed.
Nicola Sturgeon bad, Sean Connery great
Safe to say Scotland’s former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon — who quit a few months back and whose ruling Scottish National Party now faces the biggest crisis of its time at the top — is not on Trump’s Christmas card list.
“I don’t know if I’ve ever met her,” Trump said. “I’m not sure that I ever met her.” But he knew one thing for certain. Sturgeon “didn’t love Scotland” and has no respect for people who come to the country and spend “a lot of money.” Whoever could he mean?
One Scot did get a thumbs-up though. Sean Connery, who backed Trump’s golf course and was therefore “great, a tough guy.”
Boris Johnson was a far-leftist
Boris Johnson’s big problem? Not the bevy of scandals that helped call time on the beleaguered Conservative British prime minister, that’s for sure.
Instead, Trump reckons it was Johnson’s latter-day conversion to hard-left politics, which went shamefully unreported on by every single British political media outlet at the time. “They really weren’t staying Conservative,” he said of Johnson’s government. “They were … literally going far left. It never made sense.”
Joe Biden isn’t coming to King Charles’ coronation because he’s asleep?
Paging the royals: Turns out Joe Biden — who is sending First Lady Jill Biden to King Charles’ coronation this weekend — won’t be there because he is … catching some Zs. “He’s not running the country. He’s now in Delaware, sleeping,” Trump said.
Don’t worry, though: Trump explained how Biden’s government is actually being run by “a very smart group of Marxists or communists, or whatever you want to call them.” Johnson should hang out with those guys!
Meghan Markle ain’t getting a Christmas card either
Trump found time to wade into Britain’s never-ending culture war over the royals, ably assisted by a totally-straight-bat question from Farage who said Britain would be “better off without” Prince Harry turning up to the weekend festival of flag-waving.
Harry’s wife Meghan Markle has, Trump said, been “very disrespectful to the queen, frankly,” and there was “just no reason to do that.” Harry, whose tell-all memoir recently rocked the royals, “said some terrible things” in a book that was “just horrible.”
But do you know one person who really, really respected the queen? Donald J. Trump, who “got to know her very well over the last couple of years” and revealed he once asked her who her favorite president was.
Trump didn’t get an answer, he told Farage — but we’re sure he had one in mind.
Trump’s golf course really is just absolutely brilliant
Only got half an hour with the indicted former leader of the free world now leading the Republican pack for 2024? Better keep those questions tight!
Happily, Farage got the key stuff in, remarking on how “unbelievable” Trump’s Turnberry golf course is, and how it slots neatly into “the best portfolio of golf courses anyone has ever owned.”
“We come here from this golf course,” Farage helpfully told Trump, from the golf course. “You turned this golf course around. It’s now the No. 1 course in the whole of Britain and Europe. You’ve got this magnificent hotel. You must have missed this place?”
Trump, it turns out, certainly had missed the place. He is, after all, a man with “very powerful ideas on golf and where it should go.” A news ticker reminded us Turnberry is the No. 1 rated golf course in Europe.
Legal troubles? What legal troubles?
A couple of minutes still on the clock, Farage danced delicately around Trump’s recent courtroom drama, saying he had never seen the former president “looking so dejected” as when he sat before the Manhattan Criminal Court last month.
Trump predicted the drama would “go away immediately” if he wasn’t running for president. But he made clear there are still some burning issues keeping him going: Namely, taking on the “sick, horrible people” hounding him through the courts and relitigating the 2020 election result.
In an actual flash of tension, Farage delicately suggested Trump won in 2016 by tapping into voters’ concerns rather than reeling off his own grievances. “You brought this up,” the former president shot back.
At least they ended it on a positive note. Trump said a vote for him in 2024 would “get rid of crime — because our cities, Democrat-run, are crime-infested rat holes.” Unlike Trump Turnberry, which is the No. 1 rated golf course in Europe!
[ad_2]
#Sorting #Ukraine #day #blasting #Meghan #learned #Trumps #Farage #interview
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Two and a half years ago, I read Greenlights by Matthew McConaughey. Billed as the actor’s life story and “guide to livin’”, it is one of the wildest books I have ever read. Over 300 pages, McConaughey recounts his trials (runner-up in Little Mr Texas, 1977; receding hairline) and takeaways from the desert and the Chateau Marmont hotel in Los Angeles.
It is hugely entertaining, with McConaughey’s voice as distinctive on the page as it is on screen. But his guiding philosophy of “chasin’ greenlights” (signs from the universe to steam ahead) struck me as about as relatable as his abs. After all, this was a man who followed an ambiguous wet dream to two continents.
Even so, Greenlights sold more than 3m copies, stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for 65 weeks and was widely hailed for its “outlaw wisdom”. (The owner of my local coffee shop says it changed his life.)
McConaughey, meanwhile, was transformed from an actor most famous for How To Lose a Guy in 10 Days and the chest-beating scene in The Wolf of Wall Street to one of those celebrities of substance who get urged to run for office.
So, when McConaughey announced that he would be expanding on “the art of livin’” in a first-of-its-kind, livestreamed virtual event, I gave over my Monday night to catchin’ those greenlights I had missed the first time round.
Watch the event on YouTube – if you’re sure you’re ready.
Invest in yourself – even pretend money
After I sign up, a steady stream of emails signed “McConaughey” urge me to set alarms, take notes and “go all in”. “Pretend like you paid $10,000 … though this event is free, it’s WORTH that much.”
When I join the YouTube livestream, more than 250,000 people are already there, including those who did pay – for the VIP “camera-on experience”, to be connected with McConaughey himself. Their faces appear in a grid behind the perky presenter, who is urging us all to stretch, smile and close any distracting tabs in our browser. I didn’t pay, so she can’t see me cooking dinner.
At last, McConaughey appears, introduced as a “thought leader” and a “guy who has been journalling for over 30 years”. He is playing a conga. In the VIP grid behind him, a woman raises her hands above her head in joy.
There are no answers
Nearly 400,000 people are watching on YouTube, but there is no studio audience, leaving McConaughey to perform, with unrelenting intensity, directly into the camera. An appreciative atmosphere is simulated with canned laughter and applause.
Audience participation is encouraged in the chat, however, and being beamed to McConaughey on stage. We are asked to begin messages with his star-making catchphrase: “All right all right all right”. The thread moves too quickly to read.
McConaughey says he will be expanding on Greenlights, going “deeper and even more practical”. Some people worry, he says: “How do I know if a greenlight is just a battery-powered flash in the pan, or some timeless, solar-powered green light I can rely on?”
He can’t promise answers – “My appetite may be your indigestion” – but he can help us to pose the right questions, to “chart a course on life’s highway that leads us to the ultimate destination”.
Death, I think, immediately.
“The life we love,” says McConaughey. This event is supposed to be four hours long.
The art of livin’ starts with admittin’
The word “self-help” is conspicuously absent. Instead, there are references to “self-growth, self-exploration and self-development” and many metaphors, often car-related.
To begin, McConaughey asks us to set aside judgment of ourselves and others, “to clear the lane” between head and heart. “The art of livin’ starts with admittin’ – if we want to be legit, we gotta first admit. Yeah, I just rhymed. Guilty. I do that. All the time!”
He asks us to “name, claim and declare” what brought us here today. The chat lights up; McConaughey reads some responses aloud as he bangs his drum. “‘I want a better life’ … ‘I want to be a better husband’ … ‘I’m lonely’ … ‘I want to keep growing’ …” McConaughey’s drumming quickens. “‘I want to be a better MOM!’”
Don’t hole yourself up in your echo chamber
‘My appetite may be your indigestion’ … Matthew McConaughey at the White House last year. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
People who make you feel safe – your tribe – “may also keep you small”, he says. Aligning on political beliefs, or against others’ perspectives or opinions, is often a false source of identity: “Just some passive-aggressive, counterpunch, default bullshit!”
Wild-eyed, McConaughey exhales and steps back from the camera. “Guilty – I said no judgin’. Couldn’t help myself.”
But, he adds, winningly: we could at least try to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. “It doesn’t mean we have to quit wearin’ our shoes.”
Keep on running
Our greatest strengths can also be our greatest weaknesses, says McConaughey. “That one just came to me, like, six months ago.”
His own example is resilience: “I fall down, I get up … I step in a pile of shit – I keep running.”
But, McConaughey goes on, he can be so quick to dust himself off that he makes the same mistakes. “I step in the same pile of shit every time around the bend, because I never stop to take inventory of just where that pile of shit that I keep stepping in was … I never take the time to ask: ‘Why do I keep stepping in the same pile of the shit?’”
He continues this metaphor for an unbelievably long time and returns to it three hours later.
Sweep up the crumbs of your past
When McConaughey was 11 and living in a trailer park, his dad told him that his mother was on an extended vacation in Florida. Twenty years later, McConaughey learned that his parents had actually been divorcing for the second time.
“Dad thought it was best for me not to know, and I gotta say: he was right,” McConaughey says. “And besides – they got remarried for the third and final time anyway. True story!” The automated audience hollers.
Everyone tells white lies, says McConaughey, “but those lies leave crumbs in our past – crumbs that we are eventually going to have to sweep up”.
He enacts a scenario of escalating deceit with such energy and conviction that I am left convinced that I have told a lie and forgotten about it, and will shortly be caught out. He is actually a really good actor.
You, too? McConaughey, too
McConaughey tells the story, familiar from Greenlights, of becoming famous overnight (well, 72 hours) thanks to 1996’s A Time to Kill. Shaken to his core by the attention, he sought out a monastery in the desert and counsel from a resident monk.
Over four and a half hours, McConaughey unburdened himself to Brother Christian, who never said a single word.
Finally, after McConaughey found himself with no more anguish to expend, Brother Christian leaned in. He said: “Me, too.”
“With those two words, Brother Christian invited me back to the human race,” McConaughey tell us.
He invites us to speak our fears aloud – “to confess”. Then he comes up close to the camera. “Me, too.”
We’re supposed to be sweatin’ in our boots
We’re too old to be afraid of the dark, says McConaughey. He entreats us to “shake those damn nursery rhymes … to quit turning our dreams into these damn nightmares”.
After all, what is it, really, lurking under our beds? Could it be our fear of failure?
“We have to look the monster in the eye and hold that son of a bitch’s eyes,” says McConaughey. “I’m tellin’ you: don’t blink. If you hold its gaze, it’s gonna bow and it’s gonna HEED … ”
Big break … watch the trailer for A Time to Kill.
And if we don’t, well: “That son of a bitch starts growin’, like a shadow on the wall.” He almost howls: “As we REcede, it PROceeds!”
McConaughey tells us to post our fears in the chat – “if you dare”. He then reads them aloud, banging the drum, accompanied by some bluesy guitar. “Alcohol … age, rejection, my past! Divorce, control … mental health! My finances! My father!” I imagine this is what Johnny Depp’s band sounds like.
McConaughey concludes on the fear of “not being able to pay my bills”. “Amen,” he adds, his hands in the prayer position. “It’s not easy, is it?”
Be grateful, achieve greatness
McConaughey urges us to embrace our individual talents – “something you do pretty darn well on a consistent basis”, be it caring for your children or telling jokes. “Maybe you’re a great whistler!” He whistles a jaunty tune to canned laughter.
Whatever it is, McConaughey says, “have more GRATITUUUUUDE for it”.
“The recipe for your particular secret sauce is under the hood of what you do WELLLLL, not what you don’t. Start trying to be great at what you’re good at, instead of good at what you’re bad at.”
This is, in fact, good advice. I feel invigorated, despite myself.
Trust just a little bit more
McConaughey retells the story of the wet dream – in which he was floating down the Amazon, naked, watched for some reason by “African tribesmen” – acknowledging that it is “peculiar and ironic”.
His point turns out to be about learning to trust ourselves and each other. We live in a world where distrust has become our default position, says McConaughey.
The findings of a study last year, which said fewer than 30% of people trust their neighbours, seem to cause him physical pain. “Aww, jeez – that’s gross,” he says, his hands at his temple.
“I don’t believe we are ever going to truly move forward, individually or collectively, without having more trust.” Again, I agree!
He proposes that we agree to try to trust “just 5% more” and see where it leads us. He calls it “The 5% More Trust Coalition”.
Merge on to the highway – but there’s a toll charge …
For nearly two hours, McConaughey has not stopped moving, rhyming, drumming, singing, all with seemingly the utmost sincerity. It has been unexpectedly mesmerising – somewhere between the actor’s studio and a new-age preacher.
By now, I am riled up. I am ready to start livin’.
But, for some, this new commitment to trusting and risk-taking is shaken by what happens next. This live event that we have all been part of, makin’ history for the past few hours, is revealed to be a promo for Roadtrip: The Highway to More – McConaughey’s new “immersive learning experience”.
Basically, it is an online course – and a great deal, we are told (not by McConaughey, but by one of his partners in this endeavour, the celebrity entrepreneur and business author Dean Graziosi). Normally $4,507, today only it is $397!
As we are shown a 10-minute commercial, I am surprised to see people in the chat – who have just unloaded their fears and dreams on to McConaughey, and heard him sing them back – almost uniformly raging against the hard sell. “What a long commercial,” writes one. “This is America,” writes another.
I have no doubt the course will make a gazillion dollars, all the same. That the organisers don’t turn off the chat, now being flooded with angry and crying emoji, suggests they think so, too.
[ad_2]
#monster #eye #learned #Matthew #McConaughey #night
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
The 2019 road trip was a lollapalooza: Nine reporters took turns at the wheel and covered a total of 8,000 miles. We drove a counterclockwise arc around the contiguous U.S., starting in Houston and ending in Los Angeles. Over the better part of two months, we blogged, posted videos and maintained a real-time dashboard of key data.
The occasion for the new trip in November 2022 was an offer from Ford Motor Co. to borrow an F-150 Lightning for a week.
I got behind the wheel of Ford’s new electric truck and drove from my home in Seattle to visit family in Denver, and then headed back. This 2,888-mile trek across the intermountain West took nine days. The 2019 and 2022 routes covered different territory, except for a portion of Washington state.
Starting from Seattle, I followed Interstate 90 and I-82 to navigate Washington and plied I-84 across Oregon, Idaho and Utah. Then I took I-80 across Wyoming and turned south on I-25 into metro Denver. On the way back, I drove west on I-70 through Colorado and took I-15 north into Salt Lake City. From Utah, I rejoined I-84 and retraced our route back.
The F-150 Lightning deserves some comment. Ford supplied us with its second-most deluxe ride, a 2022 four-wheel-drive, dual-motor, extended-range model with 320 miles of range.
The truck’s handling was powerful and authoritative, smooth enough on the highway that my 9-year-old daughter could not only read but write in a journal in the backseat. Outside Denver I did a speed test, mashing the pedal to the metal from a dead stop. In energy-conserving eco mode and burdened with four passengers, the Lightning sped from zero to 60 in an impressive 4.3 seconds.
Here are eight lessons the trip provided on what’s changed, and what hasn’t, with EVs and EV charging in the last three years:
1. Despite billions of dollars, the charging system is largely the same
On the 2019 road trip, the spotty state of the charging network forced the driving team into certain patterns. We stuck with the big highways because they were the only ones with fast chargers that allowed for midday refueling. The decision on where to stay overnight was almost always determined by which cities had hotels with chargers — and those cities were rare. And we never passed up a fast-charging station, because the next station might disappoint.
On the new trip, all those rules still applied.
That was so despite the huge cash infusion for EV infrastructure in the past three years.
Between the end of 2019 and the end of 2022, U.S. spending included $600 million by federal, state and local governments; more than $4.3 billion by private companies; and more than $1.7 billion by electric utilities, according to data from Atlas Public Policy, an EV data consultancy. Much of that hasn’t yet resulted in chargers in the ground because the permitting and construction of chargers can take 18 months or more. Nonetheless, Atlas calculates that the number of U.S. public EV fast-charging ports nationwide has more than doubled, from about 14,000 to almost 30,000.
Our route included states like Washington and Colorado, which have lots of EVs and EV charging investments, and states that don’t, like Idaho and Wyoming. Both sets of states have seen strong growth in the number of charging networks. According to station counts from the Department of Energy, Utah and Washington have more than doubled charging stalls since 2019, and Colorado has tripled. Idaho increased its number by 35 percent and Wyoming by 45 percent.
But it doesn’t feel that way.
The rare, watering-hole-in-the-desert infrequency of charging stations still sets the rhythm of an EV road trip. Where the stations are determines where you stop and where you sleep. The prospect of the next station — and its quality — decides which direction you go at every fork in the road. Overall, they add a layer of anxiety to a journey that would be carefree in a gasoline-powered car.
Of the 21 commercial charging points used on the 2019 trip — including both highway fast chargers and overnight slow, or Level 2, chargers — only five had been installed in the last three years. Several had been upgraded.
It’s possible all this will soon start to change.
The Biden administration is funding charging stations every 50 miles along the interstate highway system as a result of the bipartisan infrastructure law that put $7.5 billion toward EV charging infrastructure. However, because it takes so long to permit and construct them, many may not come online until 2024 — shortly before President Joe Biden could be on the ballot again.
The funding has galvanized a wave of promised corporate investment. In the last half-year, businesses near highways — gas stations, truck stops and coffee shops — have announced plans to provide over 700 charging stations near highways. Last month, Tesla Inc. said it would open 3,500 highway charging points on its Supercharger network to non-Teslas.
However, the second road trip demonstrated that even an upgrade that looks big on paper can seem to vanish in a country as big and sprawling as the U.S. Its thousands of miles of roads can absorb hundreds of chargers without creating an atmosphere of complete coverage.
2. The players haven’t changed either
It is also noteworthy how the names on the chargers haven’t budged.
New aspirants are entering the EV charging space all the time and promise to shake things up, but there are few new brands on the roadways.
Electrify America — the charging network that Volkswagen AG was forced to create as part of a legal settlement for cheating on its diesel emissions — is still dominant. In the cities, charging station brands also mirror 2019: EVgo Inc.; Chargepoint Holdings Inc.; and Shell Recharge, which was called Greenlots before it was acquired by the oil company Shell PLC. At hotels, chargers had the same names as in the past, like SemaConnect and ClipperCreek.
Alongside these names is a network that has grown in size but essentially remained the same: Tesla. We used it only occasionally on our 2019 trip, when we were piloting Teslas, and tapped it not at all on this trip because F-150s were not yet welcome. Tesla’s network is divided into Superchargers, which deliver a flood of electrons on highways and at city nodes, and destination chargers, at places like hotels and tourist spots. Tesla’s charging network is far larger than the others, a reflection of the fact that most EVs sold in the U.S. are Teslas.
3. The variety and capability of EVs is changing fast
The 2019 electric road trip was unusual because we drove such a wide variety of EVs, including the Tesla Model 3 and Model S, the Chevrolet Bolt, the Kia Niro, the BMW i3, and the Nissan Leaf. That roster represented most of the new mass-market EVs that one could buy at the time.
Our 2022 adventure had its own variety, but of a different sort. I drove just one vehicle, but around me I saw a menagerie of EV models that didn’t exist three years ago.
Along with the familiar Bolts and Leafs, I spotted the Volkswagen ID.4, Ford Mach-E, Polestar 2, Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6 at charging stations, along with some luxury high-end rides, like the BMW iX, Mercedes EQS and Lucid Air.
The newbies included the F-150 Lightning. In 2019, road-ready electric trucks were just a dream. Now, our electric pickup sometimes charged alongside another, the Rivian R1T.
The F-150’s listed range — 320 miles — highlighted another shift: EVs are capable of traveling much farther than before. In 2019, there were three EV models with 300 miles or more of range. As of last year there were 14, according to DOE.
However, the vehicle fell short of its promise. My battery never exceeded 240 miles of range, even when full, according to the Lightning’s dashboard estimator. Range is often hindered by low temperatures. However, the November trip had spells that were not especially cold — temperatures in the desert West in November ranged from the low 20s to the low 50s Fahrenheit.
Another difference: In 2019, only one type of vehicle we drove, the Tesla, had a “frunk,” the area under the hood that in an electric vehicle can be converted to storage space if the automaker designs it that way.
Now frunks are becoming more common with more capability. On Thanksgiving Day in Denver, the frunk allowed for the cooking of dinner rolls and green beans in the driveway, with a steamer and toaster oven plugged into its electrical outlets.
4. Chargers are more reliable but have a long way to go
On the 2019 road trip, malfunctioning charging stations often thwarted our daily plans. This time, we experienced fewer chargers that were flat-out broken because of neglect or vandalism, but still found many that malfunctioned in nearly every way possible.
In metro Denver, a bank of chargers simply refused to recognize my F-150, no matter how many times I plugged in or fiddled with the app. In Ellensburg, Wash., the Shell Recharge station kept booting me off after just a few seconds.
Electrify America stations would, quite regularly, display the “spinning wheel of death” as it’s sometimes called — the spiraling icon that tells you a computer is struggling for unknown reasons. Sometimes the wheel would stop after 30 seconds or a couple of minutes, and the charging session would begin. Other times it wouldn’t.
There was almost always another charger at the plaza to try as a backup, but that usually involved the inconvenience of maneuvering to a different parking space.
At this stage in the technology’s evolution, getting a station to work means making an old-fashioned phone call to customer service. Often — but not always — the provider finds a solution. “Like your phone, sometimes you just need to restart it,” said Octavio Navarro, a spokesperson for Electrify America.
Even when a charger is working, the rate at which it refills the battery can vary widely — and mysteriously.
Take, again, the example of Electrify America. Its charging stations are designed to deliver power at two different power levels, 150 kilowatts and 350 kW. In session after session, the actual charging rate varied widely, and even at its peak often bore little relationship to the kiosk’s power rating. In Loveland, Colo., for example, a 350-kW station delivered to the Ford at a pokey 88 kW. Meanwhile, a neighboring Kia plugged into a 150 kW got close to its max, at 138 kW.
There are reasons for this variability, though “it’s hard to pinpoint what the issue is,” Navarro said.
Charging rates can vary depending on the outside temperature, how full or warm the battery is, what charging level the vehicle is designed to accept and whether another car is sharing the electric current. After reaching a certain state of charge, often 80 percent, the rate of charging drops dramatically, a measure taken to preserve the battery’s longevity.
Nearly everywhere the Lightning fast-charged, the charging rate would oscillate up and down. Electrons are finicky, which can be difficult to accept when one is used to the predictable output of a gasoline pump.
On our November trip, in every case but one, the charger eventually delivered. But erratic performance is not what Americans are striving for as they get into their expensive new EVs. They inevitably compare the experience with the gas pump, which typically operates without a hint of drama.
The Biden administration is seeking to address reliability problems by requiring chargers funded under the bipartisan infrastructure law to function 97 percent of the time.
Numerous studies, and my driving trek, suggest we are nowhere close to that goal.
Last year, the data analytics firm J.D. Power surveyed more than 11,500 EV drivers and found that one out of five visitors to an EV charging station came away without a charge. Almost three-quarters of those said it was because of a malfunctioning station.
5. Some stations are getting crowded, or will be soon
Traffic jams at charging kiosks used to be rare. In 2019, we experienced only one, at a Tesla station in Los Angeles. Elsewhere, the Nissan Leafs and Chevy Bolts were so infrequent that charging was a lonely endeavor.
In 2022, more often than not, we had company. A plaza with four or six outlets would typically play host to at least one other car. Economically that’s a good thing — in order for charging stations to make money and thrive, they need lots of usage. A busier plaza can also be a social forum, creating the opportunity for the still-rare EV drivers on the road to discuss their vehicles or charging problems, or engage in small talk about life on the road.
The shift was apparent in Perry, Utah, outside Salt Lake City, while a light snow fell across the Wasatch Range. The Electrify America station had four parking spaces, and four EVs — a Ford Mach-E, a Rivian, a Kia EV6 and a Mercedes — occupied each one.
The wait for the charging space was only a few minutes until the Rivian cleared out. But while waiting, it wasn’t difficult to imagine that a modest increase in the number of EVs could make that wait uncomfortably long. That could be a trying experience for drivers used to a quick gas station stop.
That prospect is becoming a worry in numerous quarters.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group of U.S. auto manufacturers, pointed out in a blog post last month that while the U.S. added 652,000 EVs since the start of 2022, it had added just 20,300 charging ports during the same period.
That equates to 32 EVs for each public port. The alliance pointed out that California, the nation’s leading EV state, has estimated that its charging network in 2030 will require roughly seven charge points for every EV.
“We need more of it,” John Bozzella, the CEO of AAI, wrote about charging infrastructure. “Much more.”
6. Finding stations is simpler
While the number of stations lags far behind the number of cars, in recent years chargers at least have become easier to find.
In 2019, planning an EV road trip in a non-Tesla meant getting cozy with PlugShare, the only viable app for finding charging stations. It was a little clunky, but its map held information on just about every U.S. charging station, along with crowdsourced reviews and a route-planning tool.
It didn’t have the features that Tesla had been offering for years through its smartphone app and onboard display. Tesla takes the additional steps of planning for its drivers a route on its extensive network, suggesting where to stop, how long to charge and how many plugs are available at that station.
Companies that aren’t Tesla — both automakers and charging networks — have strived to re-create that kind of simplicity and insight. It’s difficult because unlike Tesla, which owns and operates its network, the other “networks” are actually amalgams. They are coalitions of automakers, equipment providers, electric utilities and payment systems that share only fragmentary data with one another.
PlugShare hasn’t changed much since 2019, but a variety of other services are starting to offer better options. For example, two smartphone apps, A Better Routeplanner and Chargeway, offer real-time data on some charging networks.
So do automakers. From the dash of the F-150 and on the Ford app, real-time information was available on three charging networks — ChargePoint, EV Connect and Electrify America — and Tesla-like recommendations for where to charge and how long you need to dwell.
Such navigation systems aren’t flawless, however. Once late at night in Rock Springs, Wyo., the Ford dashboard navigator overrode my instructions to head to the address of a public charging station downtown and instead directed me to what seemed like a random parking lot. Turns out it was the local Ford dealership, which was closed and dark at that hour.
7. Payment is easier
In 2019, the charging network was just emerging from its subscription model. Drivers from that era needed membership cards for each of the networks they visited.
Today, those membership cards have receded into the background, and it’s often easy to pay for a charging session with a credit card or by authorizing a payment through a network app.
In fact, some charging networks are beginning to one-up the gas station in terms of convenience.
The “plug and charge” protocol, as it is known, is a virtual handshake between car and charger. If a particular EV is registered on the network and is linked to a form of payment, then charging starts immediately, no card or app required. Ford, because it owned the vehicle for the road trip and has a “plug and charge” relationship with Electrify America, paid for all of my sessions on that network.
8. There’s still not much to do while you wait
On both trips, another thing held true: Highway charging means wandering through a lot of Walmarts.
Electrify America is the most common plug near the highway, and Walmart is home to most of those plugs. The drill is almost always the same: Pull off the highway and look for Walmart’s blue sign. Seek out the neon-green glow of Electrify America’s boxy charger in the parking lot.
A lot of retailers are starting to think about how to make the 15 to 30 minutes of a charging session into experiences that are engaging for the customer and lucrative for business. Our road trip showed that these experiments are barely underway.
Besides Walmart, the F-150 also fast-charged at a Target, a Taco Bell, three gas stations, a downtown city parking lot, a traditional supermarket and a couple of cafes with varying levels of charm.
While the car gets its electron allotment, the options to pass the time are limited outside the walls of a big-box store. You may find a restaurant via a longish walk across a vast parking lot or across a busy intersection. Or there may be no sit-down dining options at all. Want a restroom break or a snack? Venture into the Walmart to dodge the shoppers and their carts.
It’s not an experience that’s tailored to the EV driver. Along with the paucity of roadside chargers and the frustrations at the charging screen, it is another piece of evidence that the electric road trip isn’t debugged, scaled up or ready for mass adoption in America.
A version of this report first ran in E&E News’ Energywire. Get access to more comprehensive and in-depth reporting on the energy transition, natural resources, climate change and more in E&E News.
[ad_2]
#learned #road #trip
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
The seeds of success in 2022 began in June 2010, when Democrats last attempted to pass a sweeping climate-change bill. Back then, the party had far greater numbers in the House and Senate, but lacked the courage of their convictions.
The “Waxman-Markey” bill, which would have set an emissions trading plan and capped the amount of greenhouse gasses that could be emitted nationally, squeaked through the House in which the Democrats had a nearly 40-seat majority by seven votes. But the mood on the floor the day of the vote was grim. Democrats were divided. Dozens of them, fearing electoral blowback, were voting against it, while many voting for it expected to pay a price.
“Everyone saw it as a walking the plank vote,” recalled Perriello, one of the few lawmakers in competitive districts, along with Ohio Rep. John Boccieri, who voted yes. “We said, if this costs us our seat to save the planet, we are going to do it anyway.”
The Senate, where Democrats held 60 votes — enough to defeat a filibuster — never brought the legislation to the floor, just as many House holdouts had feared.
After the House voted, Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters. “We passed what you wanted,” she said. “Now are you going to have our backs?”
Karpinski told the speaker that, of course, his group would do everything in its power to support Democrats like Perriello who’d cast difficult votes. But it became clear soon enough that his organization — and the environmental movement writ large — had little political muscle to flex. That November, Democrats were obliterated in midterm elections driven by voter frustration over the initial rollout of the Affordable Care Act and the country’s slow economic recovery. Among the whopping 63 seats that Republicans took back was Perriello’s.
Last year, Democrats once again controlled Congress. But things were different. They had almost no margin for error in either the House or the 50-50 Senate. It took every last bit of pressure a far stronger, broader and more strategic climate movement could muster to get Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on board. But once he finally signed on, the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act was never in doubt.
This time, there were no defections.
On the morning of the House vote, some of Perriello’s former colleagues invited him to join them on the floor. He joined a flurry of caucus-wide jubilation and, amazingly, optimism about passing the largest climate package ever — and what it meant for the midterms just three months away.
“What was remarkable wasn’t just how excited everyone was to vote for this,” Perriello recalled. “People were talking about how they were going to run on this. It was a complete sea change in the politics.”
Last November, when Democrats defied history and averted the sweeping midterm defeats that the president’s party usually endures, it offered further proof, for many activists and policymakers, that acting on climate was essential not just for the planet’s survival but, politically speaking, their own.
“The politics have changed so dramatically that it is not okay to be against taking action any longer,” said Lori Lodes, the executive director of Climate Power, a paid media operation founded in 2020 to build support for legislative action. “Climate has come a long way over the last 12 years and it’s due to a lot of hard work.”
The IRA’s passage, ultimately, is more than a story of one powerful West Virginia senator reluctantly falling in line with the rest of his party. It’s the story of how the same activists who failed 12 years earlier succeeded in bringing enough pressure to bear that Manchin, who held up climate legislation for nearly a year until finally authoring a compromise, came back to the table — despite facing the prospect of seeking reelection in a state long considered synonymous with the fossil-fuel industry.
“It’s an infinitely more powerful movement than it was,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the 2010 bill’s co-sponsor. “And it is the movement that created the momentum for the moment when we finally passed the legislation.”
The climate coalition’s hard-won success is even being held up now as a template for other progressive advocacy groups. When Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to the president, has met with care economy activists about their priorities falling out of the final version of the IRA, she’s urged them to study the environmental groups’ political metamorphosis and the kind of long-term commitment that’s often required to win in Washington.
Twelve years after his grim conversation with Pelosi had clarified LCV’s shortcomings, Karpinski and other activists spoke with Dunn on a Zoom shortly after the IRA’s passage. Climate action, she told them, finally got done because of the campaign they ran.
“You guys made it impossible,” Dunn told the group, “for us to leave climate on the cutting room floor.”
[ad_2]
#climate #movement #learned #win #Washington
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Reckitt had found Cronobacter sakazakii in a batch of formula made at its Zeeland, Mich., plant, during internal testing conducted in early September. The batch that tested positive was destroyed, but the FDA later determined that not enough cleaning had been done following the positive test. Two batches of formula made right after the contaminated batch would ultimately be recalled on February 20 — more than five months after the products had been distributed nationally, including in Guam and Puerto Rico.
The revelation that this recall took months to announce comes more than a year after a massive infant formula recall from Abbott Nutrition, renewing questions about FDA’s oversight of formula and whether enough has changed in the wake of this crisis to prevent another one. There have been four formula recalls over Cronobacter contamination in the past year — more formula recalls than there have been in the last decade combined.
The Reckitt recall in February was relatively small compared to the Abbott recall — which was likely the largest in history — and both FDA and the company maintain there have been no reports of illness related to this incident. For food safety advocates, however, it feels like a test that the agency didn’t pass.
“It’s stunning that it’s almost identical to what happened in 2021,” said Mitzi Baum, CEO of STOP Foodborne Illness, a group that advocates on behalf of victims of outbreaks, referring to the lengthy timeline from positive test to recall. “Lessons have not been learned.”
“FDA continues to be reactive,” Baum added. “It’s the internal processes that have not been fixed, if this is happening again.”
A House oversight subcommittee has scheduled a hearing on the agency’s handling of the infant formula crisis on Tuesday. Food safety advocates are eager for Congress to look into the problems, though they are wary of the issue becoming partisan. The committee also last week sent a letter to top agency officials seeking a trove of documents and communications.
Reckitt did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
The FDA, for its part, has over the last year been taking a closer look at formula makers’ own records during food-safety inspections as a response to last year’s incident, which was initially set in motion by reports of four infant illnesses, including two deaths, from Cronobacter infections. FDA officials later found serious food safety violations at Abbott’s Sturgis, Mich., plant, which was shuttered for months for cleaning and upgrades, fueling a national shortage and a major disruption to the market because the plant had once made roughly a fifth of the U.S. supply. The FDA also found Cronobacter in 20 places in the plant, though none of the strains matched the illnesses.
One of the biggest unanswered questions remaining from the formula crisis of last year is why FDA inspectors had missed major food safety problems at Sturgis, including things like roof leaks — conditions that FDA Commissioner Robert Califf later characterized as “egregious.”
The agency has not provided a full explanation for why these issues were not found during a routine inspection five months prior to the recall. The FDA also did not heed a detailed warning from a whistleblower about the plant, a revelation that was first reported by POLITICO.
In the case of Reckitt’s Zeeland plant, FDA inspectors initially “made note” of the positive Cronoacter test in November while they were in the facility for a “limited inspection” that was sparked by a “non-illness” complaint FDA had received related to the plant, the agency said.
The formula recall didn’t happen, however, until FDA inspectors went back to this plant for a follow up inspection in February — a visit that was scheduled because agency inspectors found food-safety problems when they were in the plant for a routine inspection in July, the agency said.
It was during this February follow-up visit that inspectors “obtained additional information which, when combined with the positive sample, led to the agency’s concerns about the adequacy of cleaning in relation to the production of these two product lots that are the subject of the recall,” a spokesperson said.
The FDA determined the plant did not perform a sufficient “sanitation break” — an industry term for a thorough cleaning — to essentially make sure all food contact surfaces were properly sanitized after the contamination.
The FDA said it didn’t follow up more fully on the issue in November because it was a “limited inspection” and the company was still investigating the root cause of the contamination when inspectors were there.
Food safety experts POLITICO spoke with described the agency’s timeline as “baffling” and “inexcusable” and said the fact that the company was still investigating shouldn’t have prevented further action from the agency.
The FDA, for its part, said that inspections provide “only a single snapshot in time of the operations, preventive controls, and compliance at a firm. The firm ultimately has a responsibility to implement a constant system of sanitation and food safety controls to produce a safe product in compliance with FDA regulations.”
FDA declined a request for an interview about the agency’s timeline of its oversight of infant formula.
“They need to do better,” said Sarah Sorscher, deputy director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Sorscher pointed to the fact that the FDA had waited six months to re-inspect the Zeeland plant after having found significant food safety problems in an earlier inspection last July.
At that earlier inspection, the Zeeland plant was cited for failing to maintain the building in “a clean and sanitary condition” and for not establishing a full system of process controls “designed to ensure that infant formula does not become adulterated due to the presence of microorganisms in the formula or in the processing environment,” per FDA inspection records. The citations were serious enough to warrant what’s known as an OAI, or official action indicated.
“If something like that is coming up, FDA should be back in there sooner to ensure that the corrective actions were adequate,” Sorscher said. “That’s a problem.”
Reckitt said in its recall announcement that the company had “identified the root cause” of the contamination, which was “linked to a material from a third party.”
“We have taken all appropriate corrective actions, including no longer sourcing this material from the supplier,” the company said in February.
A spokesperson for FDA argued that the recent uptick in recalls — earlier this month, Perrigo recalled some Gerber formula over the same bacteria — were essentially a sign of an improved system because the recalls were smaller than the historic recall and plant shutdown last year.
“As part of the FDA’s oversight to ensure safe and nutritious infant formula, the agency’s more recent engagements with manufacturers through inspections and ongoing meetings has limited the scope of these recalls and minimized disruptions to the market,” a spokesperson said. “Compared to the Abbott recall and the temporary closure of the Sturgis facility, the recent recalls are much narrower in scope, only impacting a few weeks of product with no additional facility closures.”
Following the slew of Cronobacter recalls over the past year, FDA this month wrote to infant formula manufacturers and others in the industry urging them to follow federal safety rules. The agency also asked companies to voluntarily report any positive tests for Salmonella or Cronobacter to the agency, even if the product hadn’t shipped out — something that could have prevented the delayed Reckitt recall.
FDA officials contend this reporting is also important because positive tests can be an early sign of larger problems in a facility.
“The FDA remains committed to strengthening the resiliency and safety of infant formula in the U.S., however there are significant gaps in data and authority that we have identified and are seeking support to address,” wrote Susan Mayne, director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in a recent op-ed defending the agency’s work on the issue.
The FDA has determined the agency does not have the authority to require this reporting, and no formula companies have yet said publicly whether they will voluntarily comply with the agency’s request. The agency recently asked Congress for this authority in the Biden administration’s budget request. Asked why the agency did not request this authority earlier, a spokesperson said the agency’s “thinking on this need evolved following our investigation at Sturgis and other facilities.”
FDA said in a statement that it lacks the authority under federal law to mandate the notification unless the product has been shipped. “Congress alone can change that provision, not the FDA,” the spokesperson said.
Some consumer advocates, however, disagree with the agency’s assertion that it doesn’t already have this authority.
Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy at Consumer Federation of America, believes FDA’s lawyers are interpreting the law far too narrowly, essentially concluding that inspectors can have access to testing records only when they are physically present, not upon request, or otherwise.
“Consumer groups support expanding FDA’s authority to require infant formula pathogen testing records, but it would be nice if FDA just used its existing authority,” Gremillion said.
The FDA has insisted repeatedly the agency does not have the authority to mandate this reporting and that Congress must change the law.
A spokesperson for FDA said that the statutory language Gremillion is looking at “identifies a manufacturer’s obligation to retain records and provide those on request, not to the manufacturer’s obligation to proactively notify the agency of a possibly adulterated or misbranded product.”
Gremillion said he doesn’t accept the agency’s interpretation of the law and has raised this issue directly with top officials over the past several months, he said.
“They have the authority to tell the plants to hand over their testing records,” he said. “FDA has bent over backwards to interpret the law in a way that justifies the inaction.”
[ad_2]
#Lessons #learned #FDA #knew #positive #test #months #latest #infant #formula #recall
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Germany has a unique historical responsibility to help defend a free and sovereign Ukraine. Europe’s central power is also uniquely qualified to shape a larger European response designed to end Vladimir Putin’s criminal war of terror in a way that deters future aggression around places such as Taiwan.
As a signal of strategic intent to measure up to this double obligation, from the past and for the future, the Berlin government should commit at the Ukraine defence contact group meeting in Ramstein, Germany, this Friday not only to allow countries such as Poland and Finland to send German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine but also do so itself, in a coordinated European action. Call it the European Leopard plan.
Germany’s historical responsibility comes in three unequal stages. Eighty years ago, Nazi Germany was itself fighting a war of terror on this very same Ukrainian soil: the same cities, towns and villages were its victims as are now Russia’s, and sometimes even the same people.
Boris Romanchenko, for example, a survivor of four Nazi concentration camps, was killed by a Russian missile in Kharkiv. No historical comparison is exact, but Putin’s attempt to destroy the independent existence of a neighbouring nation, with war crimes, genocidal actions and relentless targeting of the civilian population, is the closest we have come in Europe since 1945 to what Adolf Hitler did in the second world war.
The lesson to learn from that history is not that German tanks should never be used against Russia, whatever the Kremlin does, but that they should be used to protect Ukrainians, who were among the greatest victims of both Hitler and Stalin.
The second stage of historical responsibility comes from what the German president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has honestly described as the “bitter failure” of German policy towards Russia after the annexation of Crimea and the start of Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine in 2014. That policy could accurately be characterised as appeasement. (In a recent interview, former chancellor Angela Merkel praised the Netflix drama Munich – The Edge of War for suggesting that Neville Chamberlain might be seen in a more positive light.) Fatefully, far from reducing its energy dependence on Russia, Germany further increased it after 2014, to more than 50% of its total gas imports, as well as building the never-used Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
This historic mistake led to the third and most recent stage. A month after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February last year, a group of leading German figures formulated an appeal for an immediate boycott of fossil fuels from Russia. “Looking back on its history,” they wrote, “Germany has repeatedly vowed that there must ‘never again’ be wars of conquest and crimes against humanity. Today the hour has come to honour that vow.” (Full disclosure: I co-signed this appeal.)
Chancellor Olaf Scholz decided against this radical course, arguing that it would endanger “hundreds of thousands of jobs” and plunge both Germany and Europe into recession. Instead, the country made hugely impressive efforts, led by the Green economy minister Robert Habeck, to wean itself off Russian energy.
While doing so, however, it was paying Russian bills that had soared precisely because of the impact of the war on energy prices. According to a careful analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, in the first six months of the full-scale war, Germany paid Russia some €19bn for oil, gas and coal. For comparison: Russia’s entire military budget for six months in 2021 was around €30bn. (No reliable figures are available for 2022.) Since a large part of Russia’s budget revenues comes from energy, the unavoidable conclusion is that Germany was contributing to Putin’s military budget, even as he prosecuted a war of terror on the very soil where Nazi Germany had prosecuted a war of terror 80 years before. Yes, other European countries also went on paying Russia for energy, but none had Germany’s unique historical responsibility towards Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin in Moscow at last year’s Russian Energy Week, when he talked of increasing gas supplies to Europe through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Photograph: Getty Images
To its credit, the German government’s position on military support for Ukraine has moved a very long way since the eve of the Russian invasion. In total figures of defence aid promised, Germany is among Ukraine’s leading supporters, as it is in humanitarian, economic and financial support. But on arms supplies it has been hesitant and confused, always at the reluctant end of the western convoy. As the Ukrainian foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, tartly comments: “It’s always a similar pattern: first [the Germans] say no, then they fiercely defend their decision, only to say yes in the end.” It’s worth noting that Germany has a formidable defence industry that has very profitably exported lethal equipment to some quite dubious regimes around the world. So why not send it to defend a European democracy against the new Hitler?
Berlin’s concerns about Russian escalation in response to higher-end western arms supplies – possibly even to the first use of a Russian nuclear weapon – are shared by the Biden administration in Washington. But there is no risk-free way forward. By systematically targeting Ukraine’s civilian population, Putin has already escalated. Now he is mobilising the Russian Federation’s vast reserves of manpower, and probably intends to launch a new offensive sometime this year. And in the meantime, there is daily and continuing tragedy. Witness today’s terrible helicopter crash, which killed Ukraine’s interior minister, Denys Monastyrskyi, his first deputy, Yevhen Yenin, other senior officials and several children.
On a sober strategic analysis, the only realistic path to a lasting peace is to step up military support for Ukraine so it can regain most of its own territory and then negotiate peace from a position of strength. The alternatives are an unstable stalemate, a temporary ceasefire or an effective Ukrainian defeat. Putin would then have demonstrated to Xi Jinping, and other dictators around the world, that armed aggression and nuclear blackmail can pay off handsomely. Next stop, Taiwan.
The exact mix of military means needed by Ukraine is a matter for the experts. It includes more air defence, reconnaissance systems, ammunition and communications equipment as well as armoured vehicles. But any large-scale Ukrainian counteroffensive will now require modern battle tanks. Leopard 2 is the best suited and most widely available such tank, with – so successful are German arms exports – more than 2,000 of them held by 12 other European armies besides the Bundeswehr.
This has also become a litmus test of Germany’s courage to resist Putin’s nuclear blackmail, overcome its own domestic cocktail of fears and doubts, and defend a free and sovereign Ukraine. Scholz’s speech at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday gave no hint of such boldness. But in stepping to the front of a European Leopard plan for Ukraine, Scholz would be showing German leadership that the entire west would welcome. He would also be learning the right lessons from Germany’s recent and very recent history.
Timothy Garton Ash’s Homelands: A Personal History of Europe will be published this spring
This article was amended on 19 January 2023. An earlier version said that the film Munich – The Edge of War was a Netflix series, rather than a Netflix drama.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
[ad_2]
#Germany #learned #history #send #tanks #defend #Ukraine
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )