Month: April 2023

The next stop for net neutrality? (credit: Joe Ravi (CC-BY-SA 3.0))

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear five appeals from the fossil fuel industry seeking to move climate change lawsuits it faces to the federal courts. The decision opens the door for Baltimore and other cities, states and counties to pursue their claims for damages from climate-related extreme weather events, flooding and sea-level rise in state courts.

Since the localities began filing their climate suits six years ago, they have, for the most part, seen state courts as the appropriate, and more advantageous, jurisdiction for seeking damages caused by climate change using product liability, deceptive advertising and nuisance statutes.

They have contended that the industry has known for decades that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases that warm the planet—harming local jurisdictions, their infrastructure and, ultimately, their citizens.

Enlarge / Farewell Chevy Bolt, we'll miss you. (credit: Steve Fecht for Chevrolet)

Expect the worst and you'll never be disappointed, a pessimist once said. And boy is that ever true about General Motors, a company cursed with the ability to build great products and then doom them with business decisions. The latest casualty? One of our favorite electric vehicles, the Chevrolet Bolt.

During an early morning earnings call to report GM's Q1 2023 results, CEO Mary Barra confirmed that production of both the Bolt EV and Bolt EUV (a stretched version) will cease later this year at its factory in Orion Township, Michigan.

The Bolt gets much less respect than it deserves. Tesla made a lot of noise about building an electric car for the masses in the mid-2010s, but it was GM that delivered. The Bolt made it to market before the Model 3, and other than some rather firm front seats, it was a very fine, if frill-free, EV.

Enlarge / Protesters holding banners outside the courthouse. Members of P.A.I.N. (Prescription Addiction Intervention Now) and Truth Pharm staged a rally and die-in outside New York's Southern District Federal Court in White Plains, where Purdue Pharmaceuticals bankruptcy hearing is being held. (credit: Getty | Erik McGregor)

Members of the Sackler family—the infamous, mega-wealthy family largely seen as sparking the nationwide opioid epidemic—donated roughly $19 million to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine while the organization drafted two reports that influenced national policies around opioids, according to an investigation by The New York Times.

The revelation is another glimpse at the extent to which the Sacklers apparently tried to manipulate science and policy to plump its profits. The report also raises questions as to why the National Academies has been quiet about the donations and has not conducted a review of whether the funds and other potential conflicts of interest influenced its reports. The Times notes that in 2019, the World Health Organization retracted two opioid guidance documents after a review backed up concerns that the drafting process had been influenced by opioid manufacturers, including the Sacklers' Purdue Pharma.

Members of the Sackler family owned and largely directed Purdue Pharma in the late 1990s when the company allegedly began aggressively and deceptively selling its highly addictive opioid painkiller, OxyContin. The Sacklers are estimated to have raked in more than $10 billion from opioid sales in the years after.