Why Women Will Suffer the Most if the Supreme Court Rules Against Bidens Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

Sahara Artiga, one of 16 million student loan borrowers who was approved for student loan forgiveness but has not yet received aid because of ongoing legal challenges to President Biden’s loan relief plan, spends her days balancing her job as a benefits specialist and mom to a 2-year-old child.

Artiga, 30, originally took out $29,000 in student loans to go toward her education at Massachusetts College of Art and Design. She started paying off her loans in 2014 after she graduated. But while she has been making monthly payments towards her loans (even during the payment pause), she still owes some $27,000.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

That debt, she says, is affecting her career aspirations. “I actually cannot afford child care. The daycares around me are $3,600 a month, which is more than my rent in D.C.” Artiga tells TIME. “I’m essentially staying in a work-from-home job so that I can take care of my kid at the same time, and while that’s saving me money, it’s not easy.”

As millions of borrowers anxiously await a looming Supreme Court opinion that will decide whether President Biden’s student loan forgiveness is constitutional, a subset of that population finds themselves especially eager to hear the news: women. Women hold nearly two-thirds of the country’s student loan debt, owing $929 billion of the $1.54 trillion student debt, according to the American Association of University Women (AAUW).

“That’s a pretty substantial amount of money that women are taking on in many cases to just sort of achieve what men don’t even need to have a degree to achieve,” Gloria L. Blackwell, CEO of AAUW, tells TIME.

Why do women owe so much more than men?

Although women make up more than half of the college educated labor force, per the Pew Research Center, women still face barriers to paying off their loans due to the gender wage gap, a lack of generational wealth and gender norms placed on women.

Black women are particularly affected by student loan debt, owing an average of $37,558 compared to the $29,862 white men owe and $31,346 white women owe. “If you are coming from a space where you have fewer resources available, that means that you’re going to take longer to pay your loans off,” says Blackwell.

The gender wage gap has remained relatively stable in the U.S. throughout the past two decades, with women earning an average of 82% of what men earn. Black women make less, earning about 63 cents for every dollar made by non-Hispanic white men, though Hispanic and Native American women fare even worse, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor.

That gap means women earn less, delaying the time it takes to pay off their student loans, but also pushes women to pursue advanced degrees in an effort to increase their pay and reach the economic standing of their male counterparts.

“Women are still required to have higher credentials to really pursue their careers and to seek out the same opportunities that men have, and so that means that they are going to school, not just for undergraduate degrees, but for graduate degrees as well,” Blackwell says. Other experts, like Sabrina Calazans, managing director at the Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC), concur. The SDCC is a national nonprofit that advocates on behalf of student loan borrowers and also conducts education and outreach work for borrowers.

“What we hear from women is oftentimes, ‘I went to grad school because I needed to make up for the gender pay gap.’ Or, ‘I went because I’m a woman of color, and I’m often paid less than my white and male counterparts,’” she tells TIME.

And the lack of familial support faces an additional barrier for borrowers who come from low-income backgrounds. Calazans says that the lack of generational wealth makes it difficult to pay for not only tuition, but also additional costs like books, supplies and transportation. “For a lot of people who don’t come from generational wealth, it is tough because it’s not just tuition, right? It’s a cost of living,” Calazans adds.

Student loan debt is stifling

Calazans adds that for many, student loan debt is something that borrowers carry for life. The SDCC mostly speaks to women between the ages of 35 to 50, which she says is the point when the economic harm of their debt really begins to settle.

“One of the main concerns that I see coming into my inbox is from older folks who are looking to retire or thinking about retirement, or their children are now going to college and so they’re concerned they can’t retire now,” Calazans tells TIME. Artiga’s mother, for instance, is paying off a Parent Plus loan she took out to support her daughter’s college aspirations in addition to her own student loans she took out in the ’90s.

That financial burden takes an emotional toll on women’s lives. “Women are caregivers, women are mothers, women are, you know, more likely to be raising children or taking care of elders and other people while they’re pursuing their college degrees,” Blackwell tells TIME. “Working and taking care of those other responsibilities certainly have a disproportionate impact on women.”

Artiga especially felt that two years ago when she had her child and she was unable to breastfeed her baby, forcing her to pay for baby formula during the formula shortage, a period where prices skyrocketed. The payment pause was a saving grace for her, but as payments are set to resume in the fall, Artiga fears that the ongoing economic crisis in America will impact her and make it even more difficult to pay off her student loans.

“Once the payment pause comes off I’m nervous that we’re going to have to start going into like our mortgage savings because I don’t want the interest to kind of catch me like it did the first time,” Artiga says.

Artiga and her family believe it will be feasible for them to purchase a home within the next three years but they are prioritizing paying off their existing student loan debt first. Student loan cancellation could have helped them achieve that goal more quickly, but Artiga says she does not want “the interest to make [her] loan way more than [she’s] ever taken out.”

Her fears are well-founded, according to Blackwell. “So much research has demonstrated that 10 years after [graduating] you’re paying your student loans, and many students, particularly Black women, owe more than when they started out. It’s that cycle that they can’t get out of. You’re just on that hamster wheel, and there’s literally no relief,” Blackwell says.

The Supreme Court is set to make their decisions on student loan forgiveness in the upcoming days.

source https://time.com/6291068/student-loan-forgiveness-women/

Daniel Penny Pleads Not Guilty in Chokehold Death of Jordan Neely on NYC Subway

NEW YORK — A U.S. Marine veteran who placed a homeless man in a fatal chokehold aboard a New York City subway train last month pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to revised charges.

Daniel Penny, 24, pleaded not guilty to second-degree manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the May 1 death of Jordan Neely, a former Michael Jackson impersonator who was shouting and begging for money on the Manhattan train, according to witnesses.

Penny pinned him to the ground with the help of two other passengers and held him in a chokehold for more than three minutes. Neely, 30, lost consciousness during the struggle.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The chokehold death, which was caught on bystander video, has prompted fierce debate, with some praising Penny as a good Samaritan and others accusing him of racist vigilantism. Penny is white and Neely was Black.

At a brief arraignment on Wednesday, Penny, who is free on bond, uttered only the words “not guilty” before leaving the courtroom with his lawyers.

Penny was initially arrested on the manslaughter charge in May, but a grand jury earlier this month added the negligent homicide count, potentially giving a trial jury the option of finding him guilty of the lesser charge.

To get a manslaughter conviction, which carries a prison sentence of up to 15 years, prosecutors would have to prove Penny recklessly caused Neely’s death while being aware of the risk of serious harm.

A conviction for criminally negligent homicide would require the jury to find that Penny unjustifiably put Neely at risk of death, but failed to perceive that risk. The maximum penalty would be four years in prison.

Penny, who served in the Marines for four years and was discharged in 2021, has said he acted to protect himself and others from Neely, who allegedly shouted “I’m gonna’ kill you” and said he was “ready to die” or go to jail for life.

Following the arraignment, an attorney for Penny, Steven Raiser, predicted that a Manhattan jury would empathize with the experience of confronting erratic subway behavior while “confined underground.”

“Danny isn’t the only one on trial,” he said. “The rights of people to defend one another will be on a trial too.”

Neely’s family members and their supporters have said Neely, who struggled with mental illness and homelessness, was crying out for help and was met with violence.

Neely’s father, Andre Zachery, was in attendance for the arraignment on Wednesday. At a brief press conference, an attorney for the Neely family, Donte Mills, sought to paint Penny as a vigilante killer who hasn’t taken responsibility for his actions.

“Daniel Penny did not have the courage to look Jordan’s father Andre in the eyes,” Mills said. “But from now on, don’t be shocked when justice happens for Jordan, for you or for anyone.”

Neely’s death aboard an F train in Manhattan quickly became a flashpoint in the nation’s debates over racial justice and crime. Republican politicians like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have hailed Penny as a hero, helping him to raise more than $3 million in legal expenses.

Meanwhile, civil rights leaders, including Rev. Al Sharpton, have compared the killing to the 1984 subway shooting of four Black men by Bernhard Goetz, a white man dubbed the “subway vigilante” who was eventually acquitted of charges in the shooting except for carrying an unlicensed gun.

“A good Samaritan helps those in trouble. They don’t choke him out,” Sharpton said during Neely’ May 19th funeral. “What happened to Jordan was a crime and this family shouldn’t have to stand by themselves.”

 

source https://time.com/6291024/daniely-penny-jordan-neely-subway-nyc/

How Sunscreen Became Controversial

Wearing sunscreen every day sounds like a no-brainer piece of health advice. Research suggests regular sunscreen use reduces the risk of potentially deadly skin cancers like melanoma, as well as visible signs of skin aging. The American Academy of Dermatology states its position in no uncertain terms: Everyone should wear sunscreen every day they’ll be outside.

But there’s been mounting pushback to that idea in recent years, mainly due to concerns about the health risks associated with chemicals in many popular sunscreens. These days, it’s not hard to find sources—including influencers, marketers, consumer-protection groups, and scientists—raising questions about the safety and necessity of sunscreen.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Here’s how sunscreen became controversial—and how to interpret safety concerns.

Why is there skepticism about sunscreen?

There are two main types of sunscreens: chemical and mineral formulas. The former use organic filters to absorb potentially harmful UV rays. About a dozen of these filters are commonly used in the U.S., including oxybenzone, octinoxate, avobenzone, homosalate, and octocrylene. Meanwhile, mineral formulas create a physical barrier against the sun’s rays using inorganic filters like zinc and titanium dioxide. Much of the concern about sunscreen centers on the chemical formulas.

In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested additional safety data from sunscreen manufacturers. At the time, the agency said zinc oxide and titanium dioxide should be “generally recognized as safe and effective,” while PABA and trolamine salicylate, two lesser-used chemical filters, should not. The agency said it didn’t have adequate evidence to determine whether other chemical filters could be considered safe and effective. That doesn’t necessarily mean other chemical filters are unsafe, only that regulators wanted more data about them—but the FDA’s request kicked off a flurry of headlines about the potential risks of common sunscreens.

Then, in 2019 and 2020, FDA researchers released two studies that reached the same conclusion: Common sunscreen chemicals, including oxybenzone, can pass through the skin and into the bloodstream. That finding also sparked alarm among some consumers, even though the researchers encouraged people to keep wearing sunscreen.

Adding fuel to the fire, a lab in 2021 found the carcinogen benzene in many suncare products, and big brands including Coppertone issued recalls. The same year, Hawaii began enforcing a sales ban on sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, citing harm to coral reefs. Other localities have enacted similar policies, raising concern about the environmental as well as physiological effects of sunscreen.

Are the concerns about sunscreen legit?

Researchers have found that frequent sunscreen use is linked to higher oxybenzone levels in urine. But studies haven’t concretely proven the absorption of UV filters is dangerous to humans.

“The question is, is that significant? Does it mean anything?” says Dr. Victoria Werth, a dermatologist at Penn Medicine who is also board-certified in internal medicine. “Just because you can measure it doesn’t mean it’s a problem.”

There are some concerning signals. Some studies have found links between sunscreen chemicals, namely oxybenzone, and changes in hormone, kidney, and reproductive function, and animal research has raised questions about whether oxybenzone may increase cancer risk.

But “it’s really hard to say, ‘Would that really happen in the human body?’” says Dr. Archana Sadhu, an endocrinologist at Houston Methodist Hospital. Animal and laboratory research doesn’t always translate to real-life conditions. Animals’ bodies work differently than humans’, and real people may not use sunscreen at dosages or frequencies comparable to those in lab studies. (European scientists have, however, recommended capping oxybenzone and homosalate concentrations at levels below those used in U.S. products.)

Similarly, much of the research on sunscreen and coral damage has occurred in the laboratory, rather than under real-world conditions, leading some researchers to question whether sunscreen is actually damaging ocean life enough to necessitate bans on certain formulas.

Should I still wear sunscreen?

The FDA, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and many medical associations all recommend using sunscreen. An estimated one in five people in the U.S. will develop skin cancer during their lifetimes, and more than 7,000 people in the U.S. die from melanoma every year. Sunscreen can help prevent those outcomes.

Ultimately, Sadhu says, most people are better off reaping that known benefit, rather than swearing off sunscreen due to unclear risks. Plus, she notes, people are exposed to potentially harmful chemicals constantly, whether in beauty products, plastics, food and water, or the environment. “It’s not like you’re making this one switch and all of a sudden you’ve made your risk zero,” Sadhu says. People who are worried, she says, would likely be better off ditching cosmetics—which typically have no health-related purpose—than sunscreen.

Physicians often recommend mineral-based products to people who are concerned about sunscreen safety. There is some inconclusive evidence about whether titanium dioxide particles can be absorbed into the body or cause health problems, but mineral sunscreens are generally considered less-risky than chemical-based products.

The consumer watchdog Environmental Working Group (EWG) evaluates the safety and efficacy of sunscreen formulas, and the “vast majority” of products that receive its top scores are mineral formulas, says David Andrews, one of EWG’s senior scientists working on sunscreen. (Since last year, EWG has tracked a 50% drop in the number of non-mineral sunscreens that use oxybenzone, a shift Andrews thinks is driven largely by safety and environmental concerns.)

Andrews agrees that consumers shouldn’t stop wearing sunscreen, but warns the products can provide a “false sense of security.” Some consumers overestimate the efficacy of sunscreen, staying outdoors longer than they otherwise would and increasing their overall sun exposure. Instead of relying solely on sunscreen, Andrews says, people should wear protective clothing, seek out shade, and limit their time in the sun.

source https://time.com/6290923/is-sunscreen-safe/

Ryan Seacrest Will Host Wheel of Fortune After Pat Sajak Retires

The category? “Proper Name.” The answer? Ryan Seacrest, who will become the new “Wheel of Fortune” host after Pat Sajak’s retirement next year.

Seacrest and Sony Pictures Television announced Tuesday that Seacrest has signed a multiyear deal to host the long-running game show starting with Season 42. Sajak recently announced the upcoming 41st season would be his last on the show.

It’s the latest hosting gig for Seacrest, the popular “American Idol” host who also now rings in the new year for many on “Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve.”

“I’m truly humbled to be stepping into the footsteps of the legendary Pat Sajak,” Seacrest said in a statement. “I can say, along with the rest of America, that it’s been a privilege and pure joy to watch Pat and Vanna on our television screens for an unprecedented 40 years, making us smile every night and feel right at home with them.”

Seacrest in his statement also praised Vanna White, another mainstay of “Wheel of Fortune.” Both White and Sajak have been on the show since the early 1980s.

source https://time.com/6290703/ryan-seacrest-host-wheel-of-fortune/

This Blood Type Could Make You More Vulnerable to COVID-19

Soon after SARS-CoV-2 began its assault on the world, scientists began searching for clues about what, if any, factors made people more or less likely to get infected with the virus, and more or less likely to get severely sick if they did.

Early studies from China in 2020 suggested people with certain blood types—specifically blood type A—might be at greater risk for getting infected—while those with type O may be protected against infection. Some small studies confirmed the connections, while others did not, leaving public health experts agnostic about how important blood type might be as a potential risk factor for COVID-19.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

While working with scientists at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop a blood-based test for COVID-19, Dr. Sean Stowell, an associate pathology professor at Harvard Medical School, learned the finger-like projections jutting from the SARS-CoV-2 virus were very similar to those from blood groups on human cells. The connection is important because the virus uses those projections, or proteins, as the entryway to bind to and then infect human cells. If the virus recognizes the blood group proteins, then that might mean certain blood groups could enhance the viruses’ ability to infect cells. That would provide an explanation for how blood type might play a role in COVID-19 risk.

With his team, Stowell, who also heads a unit at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital that studies the use of blood in curing disease, did a series of experiments to understand the connection, and reported the results in a paper published this week in the medical journal Blood. He found that, indeed, the cells from people with blood type A were more likely to get infected with SARS-CoV-2 than cells from people with blood type O. Type O is essentially a clean slate when it comes to blood type proteins, so it can serve as a universal donor and be transfused to people with type A, B or AB and not trigger an immune response. Types A, B and AB, however, each contain different groups of proteins, or antigens, which, as Stowell learned, makes them interact differently with the COVID-19 virus.

Read More: How COVID-19 Changes the Heart

In the studies, type A was linked to anywhere from a 25% to 50% increased risk of infection, depending on the particular variant involved. Type A blood group cells were particularly vulnerable to getting infected with Omicron variant viruses.

The reason has to do with SARS-CoV-2’s affinity for type A blood proteins. The virus has receptors that help it to bind to cells with antigens from blood type A, so they’re “stickier” for the virus, says Stowell. With more virus attached to cells, the virus is more likely to find the keyhole it needs to infect cells, called the ACE2 receptor. “Blood group A doesn’t itself help the virus get into cells, but because it makes cells more sticky to the virus, the chance that the virus can find ACE2 receptors and get into cells is higher. Since the group A antigens are all over the place in someone with type A blood, the virus can land on a cell surface more readily than in someone with type O blood,” he says.

Does that mean that people with type A should be especially careful about getting exposed, and are at higher risk of developing more severe disease if they do get infected? Possibly, says Stowell, but it’s not a given. That’s because blood type is one of many factors that influences the risk of COVID-19 infection, as well as the risk of developing severe complications. While some studies have documented that type A is linked to a 48% increased risk of dying from COVID-19, not everyone with type A blood has the same amount of A group antigens among their cells. People also have varying levels of ACE2 receptors on their cells, so even those with type A blood may not necessarily be at higher risk of getting infected compared to people with type O blood. So there could be variability even among those with blood type A.

By the same token, Stowell says people with type O blood shouldn’t assume they have a free pass when it comes to COVID-19. Regardless of blood type, people should continue to take the proper precautions, including staying up to date on their vaccines and wearing masks when infections start rising. “I worry from a public health standpoint that the data suggests that people with type A are more likely to get infected and the counter is that people with type O might be partially protected,” he says. “I don’t want people to think that somehow their blood group status should make them less concerned about being wise and using standard precautionary measures when it comes to COVID-19.”

From a practical standpoint, however, the new information about how blood types may influence COVID-19 risk could help doctors better manage risk among groups such as the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. While those with any blood type will likely be treated the same, if doctors know certain elderly people or cancer patients have type A blood, for example, it might make them more vigilant about watching for signs and symptoms of infection and educating their patients about protecting themselves from exposure.

Stowell plans to build on this work and explore how people with type B blood, whose antigens differ only slightly from those with type A, fare when it comes to COVID-19 risk. “We don’t know why the virus doesn’t bind to type B quite as well, but we are doing that work right now,” he says.

source https://time.com/6290439/covid-19-a-blood-type/

The IRA Is Our Best Shot at Tackling Climate ChangeBut Only If We Dont Squander It

I grew up watching Schoolhouse Rock, the animated shorts that educated American children of the seventies while we zoned out in front of the TV. The most memorable segment was the one where an adorable singing bill—literally a piece of paper rolled up and tied with red ribbon—started out bored and neglected on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. When he finally made it through the many steps of the legislative process and became a law, everyone would cheer, and then Tom and Jerry or Land of the Lost would come back on. After years of Saturday mornings with “I’m Just a Bill,” the lesson was burned into my young brain: when you want to make change, pass a law. But this lesson was incomplete, and there’s no better illustration of what was left out than the change we must make to slow global warming. The journey of the Inflation Reduction Act from bill to law was contested at every turn, and pushed relentlessly by heroic activists determined to get us a shot at avoiding a climate collapse. But the law’s passage wasn’t the shot. Getting it signed into law just gave us the shot. Implementing it properly is how we take it.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

What happens after a bill becomes law doesn’t get much attention, except when it does. Almost ten years ago, the website that was supposed to operationalize the Affordable Care Act launched. With millions to enroll in health plans, only eight people managed to sign up on the first day, and it was months before the site could handle the load. The ACA faced daunting political opposition, but at launch it faced an entirely different threat, one that had little to do with politics. Bad implementation nearly undid the whole legislative effort.

The IRA, which passed last August, required similarly herculean strength, especially with only 50 Democratic votes in the Senate. This landmark legislation is designed to, among other things, lower the prices of prescription drugs and modernize the IRS, but its real breakthrough is the incentives it provides to every American household to upgrade their appliances to electric versions, and spur EV and solar adoption. The IRA is inspired by research that shows that we could solve half of our climate problem, and give us a fighting chance to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees, if we use modern machines powered by increasingly clean electricity. Households don’t have to do it all at once—if each of us just made the electric choice when it’s time to get a new hot water heater, stove, furnace or car—and really, electric machines are better machines—we would buy the time we need to tackle other sectors of the economy and hopefully bring new carbon-focused inventions and technology to market. If we don’t buy that time, we are headed for a climate collapse that will further wreck the planet for future generations.

Implementation of the IRA doesn’t depend on one big website like healthcare.gov, but the risk that it fails to achieve its policy goals are similar in several ways. Both laws rely heavily on financial incentives, ones that have been carefully modeled by economists, tested by pollsters, and approved by politicians. But the success of a program starts with getting the incentives right—it doesn’t end with them. If it’s hard to take advantage of them—if the rules are confusing, if the website doesn’t work, if you don’t trust that you’ll get the rebate, or if there’s an alternative that’s just quicker and easier—the most carefully crafted incentives will sit largely unused.

This is where things get tricky for the IRA. For example, the IRA’s rebates are scaled to income—the less you make, the more you’ll get back when you buy an electric induction stove, for instance (up to 100%!). But many of these appliances will be bought and installed by contractors on behalf of their customers, and who wants to share their personal income details with someone they’ve hired? The non-profit Rewiring America has made recommendations about how to overcome these and other barriers based on practical considerations and real-world research. The federal and state agencies charged with implementing the law would do well to follow them.

But reducing friction for consumers is not something many government agencies excel at. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, for example, was plagued for years by complicated rules and poor communication to borrowers, resulting in denial rates as high as 99% for several years, until recent reforms. The agency responsible for implementing the ACA, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems (CMS), had very little prior experience building what’s essentially consumer software. Like the Department of Energy (DoE), Department of Commerce (DoC), and Environmental Protection Agency today, they mostly built systems for people who were paid to use them and received training (in the case of CMS, insurers, medical systems, etc), so they were rarely forced to make them intuitive. Today, CMS is building some of the most user-friendly services in all of federal government. But they learned to do that the hard way, and their learning curve almost took down President Obama’s signature policy initiative. The agencies responsible for administering the IRA need to get this right pretty much from the start.

Federalism can complicate implementation. The ACA assigned certain roles to the states. States were supposed to, for instance, decide whether they would participate in the federal marketplace (healthcare.gov) or build and run their own. But the rules states needed to know in order to make that decision and others came out in dribs and drabs, and weren’t totally finalized until the very month that the federal marketplace launched. Federal agencies like the DoE and DoC are in the same boat: they need to issue clear and timely guidance to the states under conditions of uncertainty, and already, much of that guidance is delayed.

For the consumer-focused provisions, that guidance needs to prioritize ease of use for contractors and consumers. There will always be ways a system could be more accurate in, for instance, verifying consumers’ incomes, but given what’s at stake, an “accurate enough” option needs to be okay if it means higher adoption of the program. Federal regulators are too often focused on getting every tiny little requirement exactly right in the most technically legally accurate way possible, at the expense of usability. As one implementation leader at CMS who has seen this happen too many times told her staff: “I get that it’s complicated. But it needs to make sense to a person.” If the priority is speed and scale, both federal guidance and state implementation will need to make different kinds of choices than they’re used to.

Local government will have to step up its game as well. At least cities and counties are used to dealing directly with the public, but it’s not as if anyone welcomes the chance to visit their local building department to secure a permit. If the IRA does its job of boosting demand, the number of people seeking permits for electrical upgrades and solar installations should multiply. Can these local offices meet the demand? I’ve worked with hundreds of local governments over the last twelve years and at best, I’ve seen modest increases in throughput on services like permitting after a year or more of redesign. More dramatic advances are possible, but only with pressure from the public and significant political will to overcome “statusquoism.”

Recently I asked a young climate activist what she was doing about the IRA. This young woman had been deeply committed to averting a climate disaster. “I don’t think much about it,” she said. “There’s nothing for young people to do.” But there is! Activists of all ages could start showing up at city council meetings and asking pointed questions about average permitting times. Designers, including those laid off from big tech, could use tools like journeymaps and service blueprints to find the bottlenecks in the system and suggest optimizations. These activities don’t sound radical—they don’t carry the shine of civil disobedience— but they are immensely practical and effective ways of reducing our country’s carbon emissions. Without attention to our own communities across the country, we could win the battle but lose the war.

“Manchin got a lot of what he wanted,” the climate activist also said. This speaks, I fear, to another reason there is insufficient effort behind following up on IRA implementation. The law as passed is imperfect. All laws are. But the likelihood of another comprehensive legislative package on climate in the next several years is extremely low. The IRA is our shot, and we’d better take it.

Kids today don’t watch I’m Just a Bill on a TV the way I did, but they may watch it on a screen. They’re growing up in a world where you can summon a car or a meal with a few taps on their phone, and their parents are less and less tolerant of burdensome paperwork processes that “don’t make sense to a person.” If we want them to electrify and solarize, we’re going to have to make it easy. And many more of us are going to have to take responsibility for that happening, and sweat the boring, bureaucratic details. In learning to celebrate legislation, we have ignored implementation. Today, one of the greatest threats to our kids and the world they will inherit is the belief that having passed a law, the work is done.

source https://time.com/6290582/inflation-reduction-act-climate-change-implementation/

Margot Robbie and the Barbie Cast Are Here for a Barbie Challenge

source https://time.com/6290649/the-barbie-cast-doll-challenge/