09 jili
Malik Nabers tees off on 'soft as f---' Giants after embarrassing home lossCapacitive Touch Switches Market Next Big Thing | ABB Group, AVE Spa, DNA GROUP
NoneKitchens will lead Tar Heels in Fenway Bowl against UConn. Another ex-Browns coach is standing by
Newsom wants CA consumers to pay to replace $7,500 federal EV credit, Tesla excludedIn a world context marked by the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Palestine, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the emergence of a new Right, the debates on war and imperialism, notions that seemed to have been filed in the drawer of memories by a large part of critical theories, are coming back to the forefront. But what do we mean when we speak of imperialism, and what is the relationship between imperialism and capitalism? What is the centrality of the anti-imperialist struggle for socialist strategy in the 21st century? On all these issues, there are important divisions on the Left. In what follows, we will focus in particular on some recent debates. On the one hand, there are those who argue that the Marxist theory of imperialism is obsolete, either because of the transformations of capitalism at the global level, or because it has always been wrong. For Vivek Chibber, editor of Catalyst Magazine and other authors of Jacobin Magazine, it isn’t necessary to build an “anti-imperialist Left,” but the key is to develop “class struggle at home” around “bread and butter” demands, namely, the elementary economic demands of the working class. From another angle, there are those who emphasize the inequalities between the “Global South” and the “Global North” while considering China and Russia as new axes of support for the struggle against imperialism. While the former seeks to recreate a kind of “welfare chauvinism,” the latter “Global South” positions denounce Western imperialism, but align themselves with other powers with strong imperialist traits. In the following, we will address some of these debates, in a counterpoint with Vivek Chibber and John Bellamy Foster. The first position is the one defended by the editors of Jacobin magazine in the United States, a magazine linked to the DSA (Democratic Socialist of America). In several articles, such as here and here , Matías Maiello polemicizes with the recovery of Karl Kautsky’s work by these authors and points out that there is no struggle for socialism without anti-imperialism. The debate is not secondary. In an interview published in the Jacobin Review , Vivek Chibber argued that the theory of imperialism developed by Lenin in his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” was wrong. For Chibber, as far as this question is concerned, the “Leninist legacy produced much damage” in the Marxist left. His arguments can be synthesized as follows: 1) imperialism must be distinguished from capitalism, to confuse them would be a serious mistake; 2) the idea that capitalism entered a “new stage” characterized by monopolies is wrong; 3) the thesis that the confrontation between “rich countries” would be a constant in the following decades was “spectacularly wrong”; 4) Kautsky was right with his theory of ultra-imperialism when he “predicted that what there would be would be cooperation between capitalist countries, not competition”; 5) Lenin’s errors led to a mistaken position on “bourgeois revolutions” in countries like China and others, which gave rise to support for “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist” bourgeois nationalist sectors; and 6) there never existed a “labor aristocracy” in the central countries. Chibber artificially separates imperialism from capitalism , as if the former referred only to the “aggressions” of some nations over others, and the latter to economic or class relations. On that basis, he concludes that anti-imperialism means nothing more than “collective action in your country against militarism and aggression by your government against other countries, and convincing your working class that its material interests are tied to the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of its own state.” We will return to these conclusions, but first let us address their foundations. The Marxist theory of imperialism, developed by Lenin, Luxemburg, and Trotsky, among others, is precisely counter to the idea that imperialism was a “militaristic excess” of some states, which could be contained by diplomatic means, as if wars between powers or colonial plunder were not inscribed in the tendencies of capitalism itself. In this sense, taking up the studies of Hilferding and other Marxist authors on financial capital, Lenin defined that the transformation of “free competition” capitalism into monopoly capitalism had given rise to a new stage of development of the capitalist system, its imperialist stage. And that this opened the way to an epoch marked by the tendency to wars, crises, and also revolutions. Chibber, like other authors, centered his criticisms of Lenin’s theory of imperialism on the definitions of his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” focused above all on the economic dynamics of monopoly capitalism and on the inter-imperialist contradictions. While authors like Bellamy Foster rightly point out that to “understand the complex theoretical and historical issues involved” in this theory, one must put this work “in relation to his entire body of writings on imperialism from 1916-1920,” where the political elements and the question of national oppression have much more weight. In the Second International, the debate on imperialism divided the waters between Marxists and revisionists. At the beginning of the 20th century, the sector headed by Bernstein came to propose that there was a progressive, civilizing colonialism, and that there could even be a “socialist colonialism.” These positions were not in the majority and were rejected by different socialist congresses, which approved internationalist resolutions in the face of the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. At that time, Kautsky was still in the left-wing of the International. However, the chauvinist positions were becoming increasingly more pervasive in the leadership of the social democratic parties, gaining a foothold among the trade union bureaucracies and the labor aristocracy. From 1910 onwards, Kautsky moved towards centrist positions that diluted the struggle against imperialism and conciliated with the reformist and social chauvinist wing. Kautsky–as Chibber now proposes–in his analysis of imperialism, separated militarist tendencies from economic tendencies. He argued that capitalist expansion into new regions could be carried out by violent as well as peaceful means. He asserted that “imperialist methods,” which involved clash and confrontation between powers, were more a hindrance than a foothold for capitalist development, so that the capitalists themselves would seek ways to “coordinate” on an international scale. On this basis, Kautsky formulated the theory of “ultra-imperialism.” Just as capitalism had given rise to monopolies, these could give rise to the “cartelization” of the foreign policy of the states. That is to say, a phase that would not be marked by geopolitical and military confrontation between powers, but by their unification in a “Holy Alliance.” Remarkably, the article in which Kautsky formulated these ideas was published in September 1914, a few weeks after the outbreak of the First World War. We need hardly recall that what followed was not anything like greater concord among the states, but several years of imperialist carnage. The brutal tendencies towards military clashes between powers would explode again on a new scale in the Second World War. Yet, even after the whole 20th century passed with two world wars and was plagued by regional wars, Chibber affirms that Lenin was wrong, since from the 1950s onwards, the world had become “more Kautskyan.” However, in the postwar years, what there was was not an “ultra-imperialist” tendency toward harmony among the powers, but a “ Pax Americana” imposed after the defeat of the Axis powers (with the end of the war being a huge demonstration of imperial power with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The post-war “boom,” which followed the previous enormous destruction of productive forces, was not the beginning of a new “ultra-imperialist” epoch as Kautsky announced. The pact with the Stalinist bureaucracy at Yalta and Potsdam allowed imperialism to avoid the danger of revolution in the capitalist center for an entire period (not so in the periphery) and to postpone the confrontations between powers. But that would not last forever. That post-war order was questioned on all its flanks at the end of the 1960s, with a profound workers’ and popular upsurge in the central countries, the capitalist periphery, and the countries behind the “iron curtain” (which was combined with the economic crisis from 1973 onwards). The defeats and deviations of these processes gave way to the neoliberal period, the leap in the internationalization of value chains, and the formation of an Atlanticist global order from which all major powers benefited for several decades. Now, was this the proof that Kautsky was right, that as a result of the internationalization of capital a harmonization of the interests of the powers had been achieved in an “ultra-imperialism”? The disputes between the imperialist states were partially suspended during the period of “globalization,” even with the formation of supranational structures such as the WTO, the European Union, or free trade agreements between regional blocs. But that does not mean that contradictions were eliminated. Chibber confuses here American hegemony (undisputed for a long period) with the historical overcoming of the imperialist epoch. And although the tendencies to clash between powers were largely contained since the second post-war period (there was no new world war), the current crisis of the neoliberal order poses its actualization in a violent way. Chibber’s timing for the defense of the thesis of “ultra-imperialism” does not seem much better than that of Kautsky. At present, it is not difficult to recognize the leap towards greater conflagrations between rival powers, with the return of war to European territory. Mainstream analysts write in the latest Foreign Affairs Magazine about a dynamic towards what they call a “total war,” with Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency adding uncertainty to the global outlook. Imperialism’s warmongering tendencies are also on display in the Middle East, with the brutal genocide in Palestine, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s escalation with Iran. In Gaza, Netanyahu has deployed old-school colonial violence with state-of-the-art weapons provided by the U.S., Germany, and others. Now, Israel’s massacres and the complicity of Western powers have generated a wave of outrage and solidarity with the Palestinian cause not seen for decades. In the streets and on university campuses in the U.S., UK, France, and Spain, a massive youth movement emerged in support of the Palestinian people and against Zionist crimes. Hundreds of thousands of young people point the finger at their own imperialist governments as accomplices of genocide. In the United States, this led many to break politically with the Democratic Party and “ Genocide Joe,” and refuse to support Kamala Harris as the “lesser evil,” as Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez called for. Those who believe that the socialist Left in the U.S. can recreate itself with one foot in and one foot out of the Democratic Party, like Jacobin ‘s editors and DSA leaders suggest, are opposed to fighting for an anti-imperialist Left. The theory of ultra-imperialism served Kautsky to reconcile positions with the chauvinist wing of social democracy, which closed ranks with its own bourgeoisie in the war. It enables Chibber to continue to harbor illusions that the Democrats can be a progressive alternative, should they decide to take up the “bread and butter” agenda to seduce the working class. Let us now return to Chibber’s conclusions about what “anti-imperialism” means. In the interview with Jacobin , he states that it would be to push for “collective action in your country against your government’s militarism and aggression against other countries, and convincing your working class that their material interests are bound up with the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of their own state.” In other words, it would be a matter of demanding, on a national level, that less money be allocated to military budgets, to be reinvested in schools and hospitals. This policy, while partially correct, when considered in isolation from a consistent anti-imperialist program, has enormous contradictions. In the first place, it seeks to obtain partial improvements for a sector of the working class in the central countries, without questioning the imperialist oppression of the semicolonial and dependent peoples. In the United States, paradoxically, it has been Donald Trump who has questioned the billionaire funds destined to the war in Ukraine, demagoguing that these funds should be dedicated to “making America great again.” Second, he generates illusions that militaristic tendencies and greater clashes between powers can be moderated with a little union pressure. And, finally, he believes that all of this would be possible with a Democratic government, if it were to adopt some old-fashioned social-democratic policies. In a recent article, John Bellamy Foster puts forward in a very suggestive way that: It is a sign of the depth of the structural crisis of capital in our time that not since the onset of the First World War and the dissolution of the Second International — during which nearly all of the European social democratic parties joined the inter-imperialist war on the side of their respective nation-states — has the split on imperialism on the left taken on such serious dimensions. He finds that “the gap between the views of imperialism held by the Western left and those of revolutionary movements in the Global South is wider than at any time in the last century.” He goes on to list some of the (contradictory) ideas that characterize what he defines as a Eurocentric Left. These include the denial of national oppression by imperialism and the idea that imperialism “is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another” as we have already seen in the case of Chibber. This is also often accompanied by the justification of a “humanitarian imperialism aimed at protecting human rights.” He also notes the idea that “imperialist rivalry and exploitation between nations has been displaced by global class struggles within a fully globalized transnational capitalism,” or, in other occasions, the idea that “economic imperialism has been ‘reversed’ with the Global East/South now exploiting the Global West/North.” In the article, Bellamy Foster traces various debates on the Marxist Left about imperialism in the 20th century, from the Second and Third Internationals, to the elaborations of dependency theory, world-system theory, the cultural turn of the post-colonial left, and the more contemporary debates on global value chains and uneven development. He rightly points out that at the heart of all Eurocentric positions is the negation of Engels’ and Lenin’s theses on the labor aristocracy. In response, he responds that “existence of a labor aristocracy at some level is difficult to deny on any realistic basis.” As an example, he points out that the AFL-CIO leadership has historically been linked to the military-industrial complex in the United States and “has worked with the CIA throughout the post-Second World War era to repress progressive unions throughout the Global South, backing the most exploitative regimes.” As part of the “abandonment of the theory of imperialism on the left,” Bellamy Foster mentions among others, Empire by Toni Negri and Michael Hardt; David Harvey’s elaborations on the so-called accumulation by dispossession or the positions of Vivek Chibber, to which we refer. In particular, he argues that Chibber’s attack on the concept of monopoly capital shows “his ignorance of the enormous growth in recent decades in the concentration and centralization of capital associated with successive merger waves, leading to the continuing augmentation of monopoly power, along with the centralization of finance.” Now, while Chibber and other sectors of the Left deny the existence of imperialism from an abstract definition of class, Bellamy Foster tends to make the national question absolute in the periphery, diluting the struggle for class independence in what he calls “the Global South.” Vivek Chibber considers that the “Leninist legacy” has been detrimental to the Left, because in the case of revolutions in the periphery it meant support for the national bourgeoisies, with the idea of “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist revolutions.” One of the examples he gives is the support of the Chinese Communist Party to Chiang Kai-shek and his nationalist party, the Kuomintang, during the Revolution of 1925-28. However, what he omits is that there was no continuity between the Marxist theses on imperialism and the policy of Stalinism: the latter took up Menshevik stagism, subordinating the workers vanguard to the leadership of the reactionary Chinese bourgeoisie, which led to the defeat of the revolution. The important lessons on the Chinese Revolution and the opposition to that stagist orientation were the basis for the generalization of the Theory of the Permanent Revolution by Leon Trotsky. For his part, Bellamy Foster correctly questions Chibber for denying the national oppression imposed by imperialism on the “third world” or “Global South.” However, he does so by aligning himself politically with the national bourgeoisies (as in his defense of Chavism) and with China, which is another bloc with a strong dynamic of imperialist development. On this particular issue, he deploys several arguments. On the one hand, he argues that it is wrong to present “the People’s Republic of China as an imperialist (and straightforwardly capitalist) power in the same sense as the United States, disregarding the role of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the whole Chinese road to development, as well as processes of unequal exchange.” He goes on to state that China’s foreign policy is geared towards “promoting the self-determination of nations, while opposing bloc geopolitics and military interventions. Beijing’s threefold Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative together constitute the leading proposals for world peace in our era.” For Bellamy Foster it would be necessary to stand politically with the “underdeveloped nations” (he includes China among them) against imperialism. He points out that this would not mean “abandoning the class struggle in the core capitalist nations themselves, quite the contrary.” But what about class struggle in the nations of the “global south”? What he proposes is a new stagism of the 21st century, as if imperialism could be confronted without fighting the national bourgeoisies in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It is as if there were a progressive way out of imperialist warmongering, on the basis of the proposals “for world peace” of the authoritarian Chinese government. A Left that leaves aside the struggle against imperialism, as Chibber proposes, is evidently contrary to the increasingly warlike tendencies of the world situation and also of the international movement in solidarity with Palestine. But the struggle against imperialism and capitalism are intertwined, so it is not possible to recreate a socialist and anti-imperialist perspective without class independence. To deepen these debates seems more and more necessary. Originally published in Spanish in La Izquierda Diario . Translated by Sou Mi. Capitalism China Imperialism Karl Kautsky
Israeli troops forcibly remove staff and patients from northern Gaza hospital, officials say
BIRMINGHAM, England, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Aston Villa had to settle for a 0-0 draw against depleted Juventus in the Champions League on Wednesday after a last-gasp effort by Morgan Rogers was chalked off for a foul on Juventus keeper Michele Di Gregorio. Villa thought they had won it at the death to end a six-game winless streak when Di Gregorio failed to catch a free kick, but Diego Carlos fouled the Juventus keeper as Rogers was lashing the ball into the net, and boos poured out from Villa fans after the final whistle. The match was far from a classic, with Juventus seemingly content to keep possession, and both sides squandered chances, with Villa's best coming from Lucas Digne who hammered a free kick off the crossbar seconds before halftime. Midway through the second half, Francisco Conceicao's short-range header from a corner looked destined for the back of Villa's net but Villa's World Cup-winning goalkeeper Emi Martinez dived to get his fingertips to the ball. Television replays showed a mere sliver of the ball failed to cross the goalline. Villa captain John McGinn almost gave the home side the lead when he latched on to a pass from Leon Bailey in the 70th minute, but the Scotland international's shot was blocked by Manuel Locatelli. Unai Emery's Villa, who had kicked off their Champions League campaign with three victories and three clean sheets, are ninth in the table after five games. Their Italian visitors, who had are unbeaten in Serie A this season but had only 14 outfield players available on Wednesday, are 19th in the 36-team table. The top eight qualify automatically for the last 16, with the next 16 sides entering a two-leg playoff to try to join them. Victory would have been a big confidence boost for Emery's team, who have not won since their 2-0 Champions League victory over Bologna on Oct. 22 and have slipped to eighth in the Premier League table with one win in their last five games. Sign up here. Reporting by Lori Ewing, editing by Ed Osmond Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tabCanadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he has had an "excellent conversation" with Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club following the US president-elect's threat to impose significant tariffs on Canada and Mexico. It was unclear, as Trudeau headed back to Canada from Florida, whether the conversation had alleviated Trump's concerns. A person familiar with the details of the leaders' hastily arranged meeting on Friday night said it was a "positive wide-ranging dinner that lasted three hours". The official, who was not authorised to discuss the matter publicly and spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said topics included trade, border security, fentanyl, defence, Ukraine, NATO, China, the Middle East and pipelines as well as a G7 meeting in Canada next year. A photo of Trudeau sitting next to Trump during dinner was posted on X by Pennsylvania senator-elect Dave McCormick. The Republican president-elect has threatened to impose tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico if the governments there do not stop what he called the flow of drugs and migrants across their borders. Honored to have dinner with @realDonaldTrump and to celebrate two big wins in PA! Ready to join him in Washington to shake things up and fight for every single Pennsylvanian! pic.twitter.com/uKap3kkUkx— Dave McCormick (@DaveMcCormickPA) November 30, 2024 He said he would impose a 25 per cent tax on all products entering the US from Canada and Mexico as one of his first executive orders when he takes office in January. As he was leaving his West Palm Beach hotel, Trudeau stopped briefly to answer a reporter's question about the dinner meeting, saying it was "an excellent conversation". Trump's transition team did not respond to questions about what the leaders had discussed. Trump, during his first term as president, once called Trudeau "weak" and "dishonest" but it was the prime minister who was the first G7 leader to visit Trump since the November 5 election. "Tariffs are a crucial issue for Canada and a bold move was in order. Perhaps it was a risk, but a risk worth taking," Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University, said. Among those at the dinner were Howard Lutnick, Trump's pick for commerce secretary; North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, in line to lead the Interior Department; and Mike Waltz, Trump's choice to be his national security adviser. Accompanying Trudeau were Canada's public safety minister Dominic LeBlanc, whose responsibilities include border security, and Katie Telford, Trudeau's chief of staff. Trudeau had said earlier on Friday that he would resolve the tariffs issue by talking to Trump. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said a day earlier after speaking with Trump that she is confident a tariff war with the United States will be averted. Trudeau said Trump got elected because he promised to bring down the cost of groceries but now he is talking about adding 25 per cent to the cost of all kinds of products including potatoes from Prince Edward Island in Atlantic Canada. To Nelson Wiseman, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, Trump "doesn't need convincing that new tariffs on Canadian products would not be in US interests. He knows that but cannot say it because it would detract from what he has said publicly. His goal is to project the image that he gets action when he talks." When Trump imposed higher tariffs during his first term in office, other countries responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own. Canada, for instance, announced billions of new duties in 2018 against the US in a response to new taxes on Canadian steel and aluminium. Canada is the top export destination for 36 US states. Nearly $C3.6 billion ($A4.1 billion) worth of goods and services cross the border each day.
Special counsel moves to abandon election interference and classified documents cases against TrumpNEW YORK — Cam Johnson has been a powerful offensive force for the Nets in December. The 28-year-old forward has averaged 23.4 points per game in his first nine appearances this month while shooting 50% from the field, 44.3% from 3-point range and 87.7% from the free-throw line. That includes four games with at least 20 points and one 33-point eruption in a 101-94 defeat of the Toronto Raptors last week. Johnson has been the difference for Brooklyn in close games, for better or worse, depending on how you measure team success. Few wings on the open market have matched his recent production. And as he continues to surge, so does the price tag for any contending team looking to acquire him. “He’s our movement guy. He creates a lot of attention,” Nets coach Jordi Fernandez said. “He’s running miles and miles and miles and a lot of the time he’s not the one taking the shot. But he’s definitely brought that composure to the group that has helped us in big-time moments where we were able to take the lead and close the game.” One of those moments came in Thursday’s 111-105 defeat of the Milwaukee Bucks at Fiserv Forum. An 82-76 game entering the fourth quarter, the Nets stormed back behind Johnson and Shake Milton to take a 99-97 lead with 3:40 left. The Nets were up three with 1:06 left when the Bucks suffered their worst mental lapse of the night. For whatever reason, they doubled Ben Simmons on a ball screen at the 3-point line and left Johnson wide open. The forward knocked down the trey despite getting fouled by Milwaukee’s Ryan Rollins on the attempt. He completed the four-point play at the free-throw line moments later, which gave Brooklyn a seven-point edge with 47.9 seconds left. Johnson scored 10 of his game-high 29 points in the final frame. Trade speculation has followed Johnson since the offseason, but he continues to stay in the moment and fight for his current team. Some fans may not appreciate it, given the Nets’ rebuilding situation. But Johnson and company pay no attention to the noise. “When we believe we can win the game, which we did the entire game, we give ourselves a chance,” Johnson said. “So, it kind of starts with that belief. ... And then that kind of empowers guys to go out there and make plays, like Shake did, like Keon [Johnson] did, Noah [Clowney] hitting threes. So, it’s just that belief that we have to have across our roster that showed up in the second half for us today.” ©2024 New York Daily News. Visit nydailynews.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Uruguay's voters choose their next president in a close runoff with low stakes but much suspense
Tiger Woods may no longer be at his peak powers, but golf fans still love to see the star on the links. Woods made an announcement about his future availability that has fans feeling disappointed. The golf legend has not appeared in a tournament since The Open back in July. It looks like we may not be seeing Woods on the course any time soon. Woods has missed the cut in three straight tournaments and has only played all four rounds in one of his last five outings. The golfer took to social media to reveal that he will not be competing in the Hero World Challenge that tees off on Dec. 5. John David Mercer-Imagn Images "I am disappointed that I will not be able to compete this year at the Hero World Challenge, but always look forward to being tournament host and spending the week with @HeroMotoCorp ," Woods said in the Nov. 25 message on X. "Excited to welcome our exemptions @JustinThomas34 , @JDayGolf [Jason Day] and @NickDunlap62 into the field." Fans were disappointed with Woods' announcement with many hoping the star will be able to compete at The Masters on April 10, 2025. "Hope to see you @TheMasters ," one fan reacted. "Too bad," another said . "Always better with Tiger." "Get well soon GOAT," a fan responded . "As long as you’re back for Augusta I’ll be fine," another stated . Related: Tiger Woods ‘Excited’ About New Golf Course and Dude Ranch in Texas
ND NOTEBOOK: Mills’ absence means another hill to climb for ND’s top unit
(The Center Square) - California Gov. Gavin Newsom said if President-elect Donald Trump ends the $7,500 electric vehicle rebate program, he’ll get Californians to pay for new credits. However, the credits would not include Tesla, which is the most popular EV company and the only EV manufacturer in the state. This comes weeks after Newsom and his administration passed new refinery and carbon credit regulations that will add up to $1.15 per gallon of gasoline and require Californians with gasoline-powered cars to earn up to another $1,000 per year in pretax income to afford. “We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” said Newsom in a statement. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose rocket launches were recently blocked by a California regulatory board that cited his personal politics, shared his disapproval on his social media platform, X, after Newsom staff told Bloomberg that Tesla models would not qualify for California rebates. “Even though Tesla is the only company who manufactures their EVs in California,” said Musk. “This is insane.” Musk recently moved SpaceX and X out of California, citing a new law signed by Newsom banning parental notification for gender change requests from K-12 students. The credits would be paid for through California’s cap-and-trade program, which requires carbon emitters to purchase credits from the state — costs which are generally passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive gasoline, energy, and even concrete. Emitters buy a few billion dollars worth of credits from California each year, with the state’s $135 billion high speed rail project getting the lion’s share of the revenue. The California Resources Board — all but two of whose voting members are appointed by the governor — recently approved $105 billion in EV charging credits and $8 billion in hydrogen charging credits to be largely paid for by drivers of gas cars and diesel trucks. An investigation by The Center Square found the change was pushed by EV makers and the builders of EV charging systems. Buyers of EV chargers, who pay for the energy and own the charger, sign installation contracts that permanently give away their rights to government or other EV charging credits generated from fueling a vehicle with electrons instead of gasoline. These chargers are often bundled with the purchase of an EV, or covered entirely by utility or government rebates, meaning they are permanent, zero-or-low-cost revenue streams for the company collecting the credits.