After Recalls and Infections, Experts Say Safer Eyedrops Will Require New FDA Powers

WASHINGTON — When you buy eyedrops at a U.S. store, you might assume you’re getting a product made in a clean, well-maintained factory that’s passed muster with health regulators.

But repeated recalls involving over-the-counter drops are drawing new attention to just how little U.S. officials know about the conditions at some manufacturing plants on the other side of the world—and the limited tools they have to intervene when there’s a problem.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The Food and Drug Administration is asking Congress for new powers, including the ability to mandate drug recalls and require eyedrop makers to undergo inspections before shipping products to the U.S. But experts say those capabilities will do little without more staff and resources for foreign inspections, which were a challenge even before the COVID-19 pandemic forced regulators to skip thousands of visits.

“The FDA is not getting its job done in terms of drug quality assurance inspections abroad,” said David Ridley of Duke University and co-author of a recent paper tracking the downturn in inspections. “Very few foreign drugmakers have been inspected in the past four years.”

In 2022, FDA foreign inspections were down 79% from 2019, according to agency records collected by Ridley’s group. Inspections increased this year but are still far below pre-pandemic levels.

FDA spokesman Jeremy Kahn said: “The FDA works to inspect as many facilities possible, but ultimately industry is responsible for the quality of their products.”

An October recall of two dozen eyedrop brands came after FDA staff found cracked floors, barefoot workers and other unsanitary conditions at a Mumbai plant that supplied products to CVS, Walmart and other major retailers. It was the first time FDA staff had visited the site.

That inspection was prompted by an earlier recall of tainted eyedrops from a different Indian plant that’s been linked to four deaths and more than a dozen cases of vision loss. That plant had also never been previously inspected.

“These are very rare instances, but what we’ve seen is that these products can cause real harm,” said Dr. Timothy Janetos, an ophthalmologist at Northwestern University. “Something needs to change.”

Experts point to three possible changes:

Earlier inspections

Prescription medicines are highly regulated. Before a drugmaker can sell one in the U.S., it must undergo FDA review to establish its safety and effectiveness. As part of the process, the FDA typically inspects the factory where the drug will be made.

But eyedrops and other over-the-counter products don’t undergo preliminary review or inspections. Instead, they are governed by a different system called a monograph, essentially a generic recipe for all medicines in a particular class. So long as drugmakers attest that they are using the standard recipe, they can launch a product within days of filing with the FDA.

“It’s nothing more than electronic paperwork,” said Dr. Sandra Brown of the Dry Eye Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for increased regulation. “There’s no requirement for the facility to be inspected prior to shipping for sale.”

The FDA says it has flexibility to adjust its review process “to ensure safety.”

But the agency is asking Congress for the power to require manufacturers of eyedrops and other sterile products to give at least six months notice before shipping products from a new factory. That would give inspectors time to visit facilities that aren’t on their radar.

The proposal could face pushback from some over-the-counter drugmakers, who aren’t accustomed to preapproval inspections.

But Brown says the unique risks of tainted eyedrops require a different approach from pills and tablets.

“Anything you swallow is going to meet up with your stomach acid, which is going to kill most bacteria,” Brown said. “It’s much more dangerous to put a product in your eye.”

Requiring recalls

The FDA warned consumers in late October not to use the eyedrops sold at CVS, Rite-Aid and other stores. But the products weren’t officially recalled until Nov. 15, almost three weeks later.

That’s because Indian manufacturer, Kilitch Healthcare, initially declined to cooperate. The FDA can force recalls of food, medical devices and many other products, but it lacks the same authority for drugs and instead must ask companies to voluntarily take action.

The FDA recently asked Congress for mandatory recall authority over drugs.

Funding foreign inspectors

Since the 1990s, drug manufacturing has increasingly moved to India, China and other lower-cost countries.

The Government Accountability Office has raised concerns for years about the FDA’s oversight of the global supply chain, flagging it as a “high-risk” issue for more than a decade.

The FDA said in a statement it uses “all available tools” to ensure Americans get “high quality, safe and effective” medications.

The agency generally prioritizes factories that have never been inspected or haven’t been inspected in the last five years. It halted most routine, in-person foreign inspections in March 2020 and did not resume them until 2022. The agency didn’t conduct any inspections in India during the first year of COVID-19.

FDA leaders have long said it’s challenging to recruit and keep overseas inspectors.

Experts say Congress can and should address that.

“Federal hiring is inherently slow and pay is often not competitive,” said Ridley, the Duke researcher. ”Congress needs to try and help FDA solve that problem and then hold them responsible for staffing inspections.”

source https://time.com/6442732/safer-eyedrops-fda/

An Author Review Bombed Books on Goodreads. Then Her Debut Book Was Dropped

An author who left negative Goodreads reviews on the debut works of other authors has been dropped by her publisher and agent following uproar online. 

On Monday, U.S. publisher Del Rey Books announced it was dropping Crown of Starlight by first-time author Cait Corrain from its 2024 slate after several writers and readers said that she “review bombed” other authors by leaving negative reviews on their books. Corrain’s agent also said she would no longer work with the author.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In a TikTok, the author Xiran Jay Zhao detailed Corrain’s monthslong pattern of leaving one-star reviews through fake Goodreads accounts, mostly on the debut works of first-time writers of color, while leaving positive reviews on her own forthcoming book. 

@xiranjayzhao

A full explanation of reviewbombgate. #booktok #caitcorrain #crownofstarlight

♬ original sound – Xiran Jay Zhao

Corrain, who at first repeatedly denied the allegations, later admitted to them in a lengthy apology posted on X early Tuesday. In the statement, Corrain wrote that her actions on Goodreads were caused in part by a psychological breakdown she went through in early December, after making a medication change in November.

“During this time, I created roughly 6 profiles on Goodreads and, along with 2 profiles I made during a similar but shorter breakdown in 2022, I boosted the rating of my book, bombed the ratings of several fellow debut authors, and left reviews that ranged from kind of mean to downright abusive,” Corrain wrote.

A sincere apology. I know this is long, but that's because I'm trying to own and openly address every aspect of what I did. pic.twitter.com/MEtyDLCkDw

— Cait (@CaitCorrain) December 12, 2023

“Let me be extremely clear: while I might not have been sober or of sound mind during this time, I accept responsibility for the pain and suffering I caused, and my delay in posting this is due to spending the last few days offline while going through withdrawal as I sobered up enough to be brutally honest with you and myself,” Corrain wrote. “I know some of you won’t forgive me, and I recognize that you’re not required to. No one ever wants to be judged by their worst actions, but that’s not always up to us.”

The “review bombing” controversy

“Review bombing,” at least on Goodreads, is the practice of giving low reviews to a book (typically one star on a five-star scale) in order to sink its overall rating. Over several months, Corrain created a half dozen fake Goodreads accounts to “review bomb” other new authors, often those who wrote in a similar science fiction-fantasy genre. Those authors included R.M. Virtues, K.M. Enright, Frances White, Kamilah Cole, Molly X. Chang, Thea Guanzon, and Bethany Baptiste.

When Zhao tweeted about the controversy on Dec. 5, they didn’t mention Corrain by name—but the online book community took it upon themselves to figure out who it was. On Dec. 6, Zhao posted a link to a Google Doc “of receipts of the review bombing,” showing screenshots of low ratings allegedly made by Corrain through fake Goodreads accounts—as well as positive reviews and high ratings made to boost Corrain’s forthcoming book.

The practice of “review bombing” has previously led publishers to make changes to their plans for books. In June, Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of Eat, Pray, Love, canceled the release of her new book after it, too, was heavily review bombed. Goodreads users objected to the setting of the book in 1930s Russia, given the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine.

In October, Goodreads issued an announcement about “working together to protect the authenticity of ratings and reviews,” stating that the platform prohibits attempts to “artificially deflate or inflate the overall rating of the book.” The site has been criticized for its limited manual content moderation and the fact that a user does not have to have read a book to review it.

The backlash and apology

As claims against Corrain spread, outrage grew among a fervent online community of writers and readers, who pressured Corrain’s agent and publisher to take action. At first, the debut authors who had initially traced the accounts to Corrain wanted to resolve the matter privately. 

On Dec. 6, according to screenshots from a Slack conversation between Baptiste and Corrain, Corrain doubled down on the denial and crafted fake screenshots to create the impression that a friend had been the one behind the review bombing. 

“I made up the world’s sloppiest chat with a non-existent friend who was supposedly to blame, and sent fake apologies for the actions of said ‘friend,’ which only made things worse,” Corrain wrote in the apology. “I betrayed the confidence of my agent, my pub team, my readers, and my friends, and betrayed my own deeply held values.” 

On Tuesday, Del Rey Books said it would no longer publish any of the works in Corrain’s contract going forward. U.K. publisher Daphne Press also announced that it had dropped Crown of Starlight from its 2024 schedule. 

The response to the apology

The response to Corrain’s apology has been mixed, with emotions running the gamut from empathy to anger—although most fell toward the latter side.  

Corrain’s former agent, Becca Podos, tweeted that she woke up to the apology and was still processing it. “What I do know is that mental illness neither explains nor excuses racism,” she said, “and that the debut authors, primarily BIPOC authors, deserve every ounce of support available right now in the publishing community.”

Bethany Baptiste, one of the targeted authors, said: “Wrong time, wrong list. No, we were exactly where we were supposed to be. I have PTSD, depression, & anxiety. I understand the wrong meds or dose can make your mind feel like it’s snapping in half. Meds don’t make you racist. Racism is in you. You hid it by lurking and plotting.”

And R.M. Virtues, another targeted author, wrote: “I’m gonna be so completely honest rn. Personally. For me… the apology was worse than the reviews.”

welp 👀 I really hope that Cait has a good therapist on call bc while she deserves the consequences of her action, losing everything like this can't be easy, and I do hope she'll reflect on this time and heal eventually. https://t.co/Y2KlGzh2OS

— 💙 Rebekah FINISHED HER DRAFT ⁷ (@RABlack12) December 11, 2023

source https://time.com/6397305/cait-corrain-goodreads-review-bomb-authors/

Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Abortion Pill Access

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to take up a dispute over a medication used in the most common method of abortion in the United States, its first abortion case since it overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

The justices will hear appeals from the Biden administration and the maker of the drug mifepristone asking the high court to reverse an appellate ruling that would cut off access to the drug through the mail and impose other restrictions, even in states where abortion remains legal. The restrictions include shortening from the current 10 weeks to seven weeks the time during which mifepristone can be used in pregnancy.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The nine justices did not take up a separate appeal from abortion opponents who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s initial approval of mifepristone as safe and effective in 2000.

The case will be argued in the spring, with a decision likely by late June, in the middle of the 2024 presidential and congressional campaigns.

Mifepristone, made by New York-based Danco Laboratories, is one of two drugs used in medication abortions, which account for more than half of all abortions in the United States. More than 5 million people have used it since 2000.

The Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in June 2022. That ruling has led to bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy in 14 states, with some exceptions, and once cardiac activity can be detected, which is around six weeks, in two others.

Abortion opponents filed their challenge to mifepristone the following November and initially won a sweeping ruling six months later revoking the drug’s approval entirely. The appeals court left intact the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone. But it would reverse changes regulators made in 2016 and 2021 that eased some conditions for administering the drug.

The justices blocked that ruling from taking effect while the case played out, though Justices Samuel Alito, the author of last year’s decision overturning Roe, and Clarence Thomas said they would have allowed some restrictions to take effect while the case proceeded.

Women seeking to end their pregnancies in the first 10 weeks without more invasive surgical abortion can take mifepristone, along with misoprostol. The FDA has eased the terms of mifepristone’s use over the years, including allowing it to be sent through the mail in states that allow access.

In its appeal, the Democratic administration said the appeals court ignored the FDA’s scientific judgment about mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness since its approval in 2000.

Lawyers for the anti-abortion medical groups and individual physicians who have challenged the use of mifepristone had urged the Supreme Court to turn away the appeals.

“The modest decision below merely restores the common-sense safeguards under which millions of women have taken chemical abortion drugs,” wrote lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which describes itself as a Christian law firm. The lead attorney on the Supreme Court filing is Erin Hawley, wife of Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald Trump in Texas, initially revoked FDA approval of mifepristone.

Responding to a quick appeal, two more Trump appointees on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the FDA’s original approval would stand for now. But Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt said most of the rest of Kacsmaryk’s ruling could take effect while the case winds through federal courts.

Besides reducing the time during which the drug can be taken and halting distribution through the mail, patients who are seeking medication abortions would have had to make three in-person visits with a doctor. Women also might have been required to take a higher dosage of the drug than the FDA says is necessary.

Health care providers have said that if mifepristone is no longer available or is too hard to obtain, they would switch to using only misoprostol, which is somewhat less effective in ending pregnancies.

source https://time.com/6442713/supreme-court-case-mifepristone-abortion-pill/

How the Endangered Species Act Saved America

Climate change, it turns out, is not the first time humanity has re‑made the Earth. Or resorted to a Hail Mary to save it.

Fifty years ago, in a crowning achievement of American environmental legislation, the country passed a law on the short list of our very best ideas. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 reversed one of the most disturbing histories of wildlife destruction of any modern nation, meriting its characterization by the Supreme Court as the most comprehensive legislation for endangered species on the globe. The ESA was an expression of our country’s long history of extending rights to those who lack them, expanding the circle of morality and compassion in a history that reveals us as a people. Today, the ESA may be equally as important for what it says about our will to stave off environmental disaster.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Many Americans no longer remember what was at stake in the 1960s and 1970s. While creating the greatest nation in the world, the United States engaged in a staggering destruction of continental wildlife. Encouraged by notions of human exceptionalism and market capitalism to treat wild animals as commodities, convinced that in a deity-created world extinction was impossible, Americans had blithely obliterated one ancient species after another. Animals that had been here for millions of years were not able to survive four centuries of us. Some—the American bison, our national mammal—dwindled from vast numbers to almost nothing, yet survived. Others, like the great auk penguin, the parrot known as the Carolina parakeet, and the most numerous bird species on Earth, the passenger pigeon, we lost forever.

As American naturalist Henry David Thoreau put things as he mourned the disappearance of “an entire heaven and an entire earth” in a journal entry he wrote in 1856, it seemed as if some demi-god had preceded him and plucked from the heavens all the best of the stars. In a more modern reprise of that sentiment, a 2018 National Academy of Sciences study called humanity’s wildlife losses since the colonial age, with its sacrifice of half‑a‑million years of distinctive, cumulative genetics, “close to a worst‑case scenario.” In 1889 the Smithsonian had listed just four American species it considered extinct: the great auk, Labrador duck, northern elephant seal, and Steller’s sea cow. By the 1930s that list was close to doubling.. But several charismatic birds seemed to wake the country. New Englanders watched the heath hen, an eastern prairie chicken, collapse to a single male who died in 1931, followed quickly by the extinction of the most colorful of all our birds, the Carolina parakeet. Our giant ivory‑bill woodpeckers had dwindled to a mere seven pairs in Louisiana. Trumpeter swans were on the cliff-edge, and a 1935 count indicated only 16 whooping cranes remaining.

What really moved the needle on saving American wildlife was the shocking decline of our national symbol, the bald eagle. Regarded by livestock interests as a predatory threat, eagles in the 1930s were on a short road to entire loss. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 thus became the first step and model for later endangered species legislation.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 assumed first-draft form in the 1960s as part of environmental regulations that famously cleaned the country’s air and water. Inspired by the eagle act and by an idea in ecology called “biocentrism” (a philosophy of broadening moral treatment to all life in the natural world), ” in 1965 Interior Secretary Stewart Udall compiled a list of species scientists believed in danger. For the original 1966 law, Fish and Wildlife came up with 83, a stunning increase since the 1930s. A subsequent 1969 law added fish, crustaceans, and invertebrates to endangered mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.

Read More: Here’s Why the Endangered Species Act Was Created in the First Place

An aspect of our history we need to remember is that half-a-century ago, saving the world was not political. It was Republican President Richard Nixon who delivered the rationale for the Endangered Species Act in a 1972 speech. “This is the environmental awakening,” Nixon told us. “Wild things constitute a treasure to be protected and cherished for all time.” They possessed “a higher right to exist—not granted to them by man, and not his to take away.” So late in 1973 Senator Pete Williams, a Democrat from New Jersey, introduced the grand ESA in Congress. It passed 92‑0 in the Senate and 390‑12 in the House.

Perhaps the ESA’s most significant feature was a requirement for the recovery of endangered species. But restoring bald eagles, peregrine falcons, California condors, and gray wolves wasn’t just governmental theater. The ESA derived its potency by relying entirely on best science, no matter the economic cost. As everyone who remembers the spotted owl controversy knows, however, economic interests wasted little time pushing back. Eventually that pushback gave us the category of “experimental, non-essential” endangered populations, which now allows ranchers and Wildlife Services agents to kill endangered gray wolves as economic threats.

There’s little question the ESA helped transform environmentalism into a partisan issue. Republicans convinced themselves that protecting a species’ right to exist threatens the American economy. Today 41 states join the Fed in protecting endangered species, but the ones that don’t, like Wyoming, Alabama, and West Virginia, are among the reddest in the country. Democrats remain supporters: the Obama administration listed some 340 additional species. Trump, on the other hand, added a grand total of 20. Proclaiming a species endangered now takes more than a decade, and declaring one recovered, then turning its management over to the states, is fraught. The politics are evident today in states like Montana and Idaho, where recovered gray wolves have become symbolic avatars for environmentalists and coastal elites who tend to support endangered species policies.

Politics aside, the ESA’s successes are epic. Today 1,618 U.S. species (including plants) are on the threatened/endangered lists, primarily protected by the Fish and Wildlife Service, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (another Nixon creation) safeguards 65 global species. So far the ESA has recovered 54 of America’s native species, including most famously our bald eagles. While the threat of climate change now actually has ESA officials considering re-location programs for some species, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, U.S. animals and plants fare significantly better than those almost anywhere else in the world. Not that this helps all those we lost before 1973.

We are still losing some of the most charismatic species in our ancient bestiary today. On September 29, 2021, the Fish and Wildlife Service declared America’s magnificent ivory‑bill extinct. Forever gone. Along with the announcement of 21 lost species in October 2023, the Service decided to give the ivory-bill a temporary reprieve pending more hope against hope study.

I found it difficult not to think of Thoreau when this made the news, especially his comment in 1857 that he was that American citizen whom he pitied. I have little doubt he would be cheered by the historical lesson of the ESA: that while we may be slow to the game, we humans can find it in ourselves to save the world after all.

source https://time.com/6358278/endangered-species-act-50-anniversary/

What Happens When People Stop Taking the Weight Loss Drug Zepbound

As a new generation of highly effective weight loss drugs hits the market, doctors are still trying to figure out how long people will need to take them for the best results.

A new study offers a clue. Writing in JAMA, researchers report on what happens when people stop taking the weight loss drug tirzepatide, known as Zepbound. Tirzepatide can help people lose double digit percentages of their body weight, compared to single digit percentages with diet and exercise.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The study, sponsored by the drug’s manufacturer, Eli Lilly, included 670 people with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher, or with a BMI of at least 27 and one weight-related health complication other than diabetes. Everyone took tirzepatide for nine months, and then were randomly and blindly assigned to continue taking the drug or start taking a placebo for a year. Doctors provided all of the participants with diet and exercise support throughout the study.

After nine months on the drug, people lost an average of 20.9% of their body weight. Those who continued on the medication lost an additional 5% of their original body weight over the next year—but those who took a placebo gained 14% of their body weight back. Any improvements they had made in measures like blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and waist circumference also started to wane.

“Just like diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and many other metabolic diseases, the results show that chronic treatment of some type is going to be necessary in order to maintain all the benefits of weight loss achieved with the treatment,” says Dr. Louis Aronne, director of the comprehensive weight control center at Weill Cornell Medicine and lead author of the study.

But the benefits didn’t disappear as soon as people stopped taking tirpzepatide. Even a year after stopping, people still didn’t return to their original weight, and they continued to improve in some areas, such as becoming more sensitive to insulin, reducing their risk of diabetes, and having healthier triglyceride levels. “This tells us that chronic treatment is going to be necessary for optimal outcomes but that all of the benefit is not lost immediately if people stop taking that treatment,” says Aronne.

Since tirzepatide was just approved in November, it’s still too early to know how long people might need to take the medication, and how it can best fit into a weight loss program. “What if some people go to a lower dose of the medicine, or take it less frequently, or have more intensive behavioral or nutritional interventions? Will they be better able to maintain their weight loss?” Aronne says. “All of those things are possible; we’ll just have to wait and see.”

What is clear now is that pairing the drug with diet and exercise is likely to help people lose the most weight and keep it off. It’s possible that the initial weight loss the medication causes could jump start physiological changes that will make it easier for people to adjust their eating habits and become more physically active. “What these medicines do is they tend to help people comply with a good diet; they are not as hungry and may not have the same cravings,” says Aronne. Tirzepatide isn’t meant to replace healthy habits, “but to help make those habits better.”

source https://time.com/6344308/weight-loss-drug-zepbound/

COP28 Draft Climate Deal Floats Fossil Fuel Cuts for First Time

The United Arab Emirates, presiding over this year’s COP28 climate talks, presented a draft deal that called on countries to cut their consumption and production of fossil fuels, trying to end an impasse between developed countries and petrostates with less than 24 hours until the summit is due to end.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

If the language stays, it would mark the first time in nearly three decades that a call to reduce fossil fuels made it into the final deal at a United Nations climate summit.

The 21-page plan is meant to bring projections of global temperature increases to below 1.5C, and calls on the reduction of fossil fuels to be “just” and “orderly.” The text also says that coal should be “rapidly” phased down, with limitations on new power generation.

The proclamation is set to be the defining issue of the COP28 summit being held in Dubai, with some oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, fiercely resisting any move to chart an end to the use of polluting energy sources.

Mohamed Adow, the director of Power Shift Africa, said the blueprint’s language on fossil fuels “lays the ground for transformational change.”

“This is the first COP where the word ‘fossil fuels’ are actually included in the draft decision,” Adow said. “This is the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.”

Talks are scheduled to conclude Tuesday, bringing to a close a two-week summit that’s focused on whether countries would be willing to shift away from the oil, gas and coal that have powered the global economy for more than a century. Nations will now provide the UAE with their thoughts on the latest text, which also commits countries to tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of energy efficiency this decade.

Sultan Al Jaber, the COP28 president who’s been accused of conflicts of interest because he’s also head of Abu Dhai National Oil Co., said on Sunday that he was working on getting groundbreaking language of fossil fuels into the final text.

“The COP28 presidency has been clear from the beginning about our ambitions,” a spokesperson said after the draft’s release on Monday. “This text reflects those ambitions and is a huge step forward. Now it is in the hands of the parties, who we trust to do what is best for humanity and the planet.”

Read more: COP28 Is a Business Bonanza. Should It Be?

The EU, US and small island states have been among those pushing for a phase out of fossil fuels, albeit with various differences over issues such as the role carbon capture and storage should play. The draft text contains references to accelerating the deployment of carbon capture and storage, a controversial technology that has yet to be proven at scale.

Countries including Brazil want to see developed countries first start the shift away from fossil fuels, while members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, have opposed any mention of a phase down or phase out. “We are a country that produces oil, but we also have a very strong issue with our forests — we face an inflection point,” said Marina Silva, Brazil’s environment minister. “We clearly assume it is necessary to face the problem of fossil fuels and we are looking for a solution matches the 1.5C challenge.”  

Under the draft, countries would also gree for the first time to go beyond carbon dioxide in targeting methane and other potent greenhouse gases with substantial reductions by 2030. That follows a voluntary pledge for a 30% global reduction in methane first introduced by the US and EU two years ago.

The move is significant because methane, fluorinated gases and nitrous oxide are far more powerful at warming the earth’s temperature — and slashing them now is seen as vital to keeping short-term temperature targets within reach.

Following the Science 

Sharp observers noted that commitments in the draft text are preceded by the phrase: “take actions that could include.” That qualifier “makes all the listed actions optional for nations,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The text is “extremely disappointing, concerning, and nowhere close to the level of ambition people around the world deserve,” Cleetus said.

The UAE achieved a landmark deal on the first day to get a fund up and running to help developing countries pay for the losses and damages caused by increasingly extreme weather. The country and developed nations have since committed over half a billion dollars to the fund, with a further $80 billion of financial pledges being made during the summit.

source https://time.com/6344685/cop28-draft-climate-deal-fossil-fuel-cuts/

Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida Reportedly Set to Purge Cabinet Amid Scandal

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is set to replace as many as 15 ministers and junior ministers, the Asahi newspaper said, as he seeks to contain the fallout from a slush fund scandal threatening to paralyze his government. 

The reported purge of all officials from the Liberal Democratic Party faction formerly headed by the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe comes as suspicions emerge that the group had systematically concealed political funds, the paper said late Sunday. Kishida also plans to oust Abe faction members from senior party positions, according to media reports over the weekend. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“I’ll take appropriate action at the appropriate time, to avoid delays to management of the government,” Kishida told reporters Monday, declining to comment further on his plans.

The highest-profile among those set to be ousted are Trade Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura, who has helped drive Japan’s plans to regain its lost status as a world-class chipmaker, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno, the top government spokesman. The reshuffle is likely to come after the end of the parliamentary session Wednesday.

It’s unclear whether even such a drastic clampdown would stabilize support for Kishida’s government, which is the lowest for a Japanese premier in more than a decade in some polls. While no general election need be held until 2025, the LDP could opt to replace him when his term as party leader ends in September, or earlier.

Read More: Prime Minister Fumio Kishida Is Giving a Once Pacifist Japan a More Assertive Role on the Global Stage

A survey by the Sankei newspaper and broadcast news network FNN carried out Saturday and Sunday found support for Kishida’s cabinet had fallen more than five percentage points on last month to 22.5%, a fresh low since he took office just over two years ago. 

More than 90% of respondents said the suspicions over funding were a problem and a similar proportion said Kishida should be replaced when his term expires, or before. 

The long-ruling LDP includes five major factions that raise funds and vie to appoint their own members to government positions, with the Abe group being the largest. Kishida will this time seek to appoint lawmakers who don’t belong to any faction to some senior positions, the Mainichi newspaper said. 

LDP factions expect each of their members to sell a certain number of tickets to fundraising events. The income from any tickets sold in excess of the target is returned to the individual lawmakers. If more than ¥200,000 in party tickets is purchased by any one person or group, the amount must by law be registered as a donation. 

According to the Asahi and other media, the lawmakers are suspected of failing to declare about ¥10 million ($69,000) in income per person from fundraising events held by the Abe faction.

A loss of power for the conservative Abe faction, which has tended to maintain its late leader’s support for ultra-easy monetary policy, would have the potential to push the yen higher, according to Takeshi Ishida, currency strategist at Resona Bank. Instability in the administration as a whole could cause stocks to fall, and trigger risk aversion, he added.

The reports of a reshuffle come after the scandal dominated government briefings and a parliamentary committee session Friday. The opposition Constitutional Democratic Party is set to submit a no-confidence motion against Matsuno to parliament as soon as Monday, public broadcaster NHK said. 

Previous scandals have already weighed on Kishida’s support, while surveys have shown voters are dissatisfied with the measures he has taken to shield them from the effects of inflation. His policies include extending subsidies on gasoline and utilities to spring 2024 and ordering tax rebates and handouts for low-income households.

A poll by the Mainichi newspaper published in November found support for Kishida’s cabinet had slumped to 21%, the lowest for a Japanese premier since 2011. 

Data released Dec. 8 showed Japan’s economy shrank at the fastest pace since the height of the pandemic in the three months through September, giving voters little reason to warm to Kishida, who took office just over two years ago.

source https://time.com/6344573/fumio-kishida-japan-scandal-replace-ministers/