Connect with us

Published

on

Whispers are growing louder among Republicans that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has miscalculated in his battle with Disney — a struggle that has already gone on for more than a year and has no end in sight.

There are real dangers, they say, of his fight with the corporation becoming a distraction from his likely presidential campaign — and one that could make him seem petty and vindictive rather than strong or decisive.

Despite the fact many polls suggest GOP voters are sympathetic to DeSantis’s war on “wokeness” in general, there are also concerns among conservatives about a powerful elected official targeting a specific company for political reasons.

People close to former President Trump, DeSantis’s archrival if he should enter the 2024 race, are gleefully fanning those concerns.

“If you are allowing governors to dictate their own politics to private businesses, what is to stop a liberal governor from doing the same?” asked one source familiar with the former president’s thinking.

The Trump source complained about governors who “overstep their authority for their own political validation,” adding, “The conservative media attacked Gov. [Andrew] Cuomo and Gov. [Gretchen] Whitmer for doing the same thing during the lockdowns. You can’t have it both ways.”

Such commentary is not confined to pro-Trump circles, either. Related coverage from The Hill: McCarthy hits DeSantis on Disney prison quip: ‘Sit down and negotiate’ Rubio warns against Florida going after companies for ‘political purposes’ Justice jumps into race to unseat Manchin DeSantis-Disney feud heats up 19 Michigan state GOP lawmakers throw support behind DeSantis

One Republican strategist not aligned with any declared or likely 2024 candidate said that while it is true conservatives have “issues” with Disney, they also have “issues with government picking winners and losers.”

On a practical level, the strategist added: “I think DeSantis first got on the national radar by getting in a fight with Disney. I think his problem now is that he has to win it — and it is not clear that he can continue upping the ante.”

The latest twist in the long-running DeSantis-Disney saga came on Wednesday when the corporation sued DeSantis in federal court in Florida. 

The company’s filing alleged “a targeted campaign of government retaliation” that it said had been “orchestrated” by DeSantis. 

The alleged campaign, Disney contended, “threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights.”

DeSantis, who has been on an international trade mission in recent days, responded from Israel. At a news conference, he argued that the Disney suit was “political” and had no “merit.”

The governor further argued that Disney was seeking special treatment in his state and was “upset that they are actually having to live by the same rules as everybody else.”

But now, DeSantis faces the prospect of being mired in a protracted legal struggle even as he is perceived to be making moves toward launching a presidential candidacy. 

The Disney saga has its roots in the Florida legislation passed with DeSantis’s support last year that prohibited teaching about gender identity or sexual orientation through the third grade.

The legislation, tagged somewhat hyperbolically as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by critics, caused national controversy. Within weeks of its passage, Disney issued a statement expressing its opposition, adding that the bill “should never have been signed into law.”

DeSantis fired back in short order, moving to strip Disney of the significant level of autonomy it enjoyed in the area where Walt Disney World is. 

Then, there were further squabbles earlier this year over the makeup of the five-person board that runs the district.

DeSantis, with the backing of Florida Republicans, sought to appoint his own board. But the outgoing board then tried to outmaneuver him by making agreements at its last meeting that would have greatly constrained their replacements.

Earlier this month, DeSantis went even further, suggesting the state might build a prison near Disney’s theme parks, presumably as a means of exacting retribution.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released earlier this week found a clear majority of Republicans favoring DeSantis’s basic position but a significant majority dissenting.

Sixty-four percent of Republicans said DeSantis was “rightfully rolling back special treatment for Disney,” but 36 percent said he was “punishing Disney for exercising their right to free speech.”

Worryingly for the Florida governor — especially if he ever became the GOP nominee for president — independents broke heavily against him on that question, contributing to strong sympathy for Disney among the population at large.

Moreover, although 44 percent of Republicans said they had a more positive view of DeSantis because of the controversy, 19 percent said they had a more negative view. 

In potentially even worse news for DeSantis, majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who “supports or passes laws designed to punish a company for its political, social or cultural stances.”

The escalation of the controversy with Disney also comes as DeSantis has endured a bad time in his quasi-campaign, falling further behind Trump in the polls and having to mop up an assertion that the Ukraine-Russia war is a mere “territorial dispute.”

There will, of course, be many twists and turns in the presidential campaign, which will not see its first debates until August. No votes will be cast until early next year.

Still, for now, there is no sign that DeSantis’s battle with Disney is letting up anytime soon. And that could be a hindrance, at a minimum, if a presidential campaign gets underway in earnest. MTA ends real-time service alerts on Twitter, says platform is ‘no longer reliable’ Watch live: Jeffries holds weekly press conference

“It’s just the fiercest legal tug-of-war between two titans in our state that we have seen, maybe in our lifetimes,” said Susan MacManus, a University of South Florida professor emerita and a prominent commentator on politics in the state. 

“There are no holds barred, and neither side is blinking.”

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Semi suffers more delays and ‘dramatic’ price increase

Published

on

By

Tesla Semi suffers more delays and 'dramatic' price increase

According to a Tesla Semi customer, the electric truck program is suffering more delays and a price increase that is described as “dramatic.”

Tesla Semi has seen many delays, more than any other vehicle program at Tesla.

It was initially unveiled in 2017, and CEO Elon Musk claimed that it would go into production in 2019.

In late 2022, Tesla held an event where it unveiled the “production version” of the Tesla Semi and delivered the first few units to a “customer-partner”: PepsiCo.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Tesla Semi PepsiCo truck u/Tutrifor
Tesla Semi Image credit: u/Tutrifor

More than 3 years later, the vehicle never went into volume production. Instead, Tesla only ran a very low volume pilot production at a factory in Nevada and only delivered a few dozen trucks to customers as part of test programs.

But Tesla promised that things would finally happen for the Tesla Semi this year.

Tesla has been building a new high-volume production factory specifically for the Tesla Semi program in a new building next to Gigafactory Nevada.

The goal was to start production in 2025, start customer deliveries, and ramp up to 50,000 trucks yearly.

Now, Ryder, a large transportation company and early customer-partner in Tesla’s semi truck program, is talking about further delays. The company also refers to a significant price increase.

California’s Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) awarded Ryder funding for a project to deploy Tesla Semi trucks and Megachargers at two of its facilities in the state.

Ryder had previously asked for extensions amid the delays in the Tesla Semi program.

In a new letter sent to MSRC last week and obtained by Electrek, Ryder asked the agency for another 28-month delay. The letter references delays in “Tesla product design, vehicle production” and it mentions “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics”:

This extension is needed due to delays in Tesla product design, vehicle production and dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics. These delays have caused us to reevaluate the current Ryder fleet in the area.

The logistics company now says it plans to “deploy 18 Tesla Semi vehicles by June 2026.”

The reference to “dramatic changes to the Tesla product economics” points to a significant price increase for the Tesla Semi, which further communication with MSRC confirms.

In the agenda of a meeting to discuss the extension and changes to the project yesterday, MSRC confirms that the project went from 42 to 18 Tesla Semi trucks while the project commitment is not changing:

Ryder has indicated that their electric tractor manufacturer partner, Tesla, has experienced continued delays in product design and production. There have also been dramatic changes to the product economics. Ryder requests to reduce the number of vehicles from 42 to 18, stating that this would maintain their $7.5 million private match commitment.

In addition to the electric trucks, the project originally involved installing two integrated power centers and four Tesla Megachargers, split between two locations. Ryder is also looking to now install 3 Megachargers per location for a total of 6 instead of 4.

Tesla Semi Megacharger hero

The project changes also mention that “Ryder states that Tesla now requires 600kW chargers rather than the 750kW units originally engineered.”

Tesla Semi Price

When originally unveiling the Tesla Semi in 2017, the automaker mentioned prices of $150,000 for a 300-mile range truck and $180,000 for the 500-mile version. Tesla also took orders for a “Founder’s Series Semi” at $200,000.

However, Tesla didn’t update the prices when launching the “production version” of the truck in late 2023. Price increases have been speculated, but the company has never confirmed them.

New diesel-powered Class 8 semi trucks in the US today often range between $150,000 and $220,000.

The combination of a reasonable purchase price and low operation costs, thanks to cheaper electric rates than diesel, made the Tesla Semi a potentially revolutionary product to reduce the overall costs of operation in trucking while reducing emissions.

However, Ryder now points to a “dramatic” price increase for the Tesla Semi.

What is the cost of a Tesla Semi electric truck now?

Electrek’s Take

As I have often stated, Tesla Semi is the vehicle program I am most excited about at Tesla right now.

If Tesla can produce class 8 trucks capable of moving cargo of similar weight as diesel trucks over 500 miles on a single charge in high volume at a reasonable price point, they have a revolutionary product on their hands.

But the reasonable price part is now being questioned.

After reading the communications between Ryder and MSRC, while not clear, it looks like the program could be interpreted as MSRC covering the costs of installing the charging stations while Ryder committed $7.5 million to buying the trucks.

The math makes sense for the original funding request since $7.5 million divided by 42 trucks results in around $180,000 per truck — what Tesla first quoted for the 500-mile Tesla Semi truck.

Now, with just 18 trucks, it would point to a price of $415,000 per Tesla Semi truck. It’s possible that some of Ryder’s commitment could also go to an increase in Megacharger prices – either per charger or due to the two additional chargers. MSRC said that they don’t give more money when prices go up after an extension.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the 500-mile Tesla Semi ends up costing $350,000 to $400,000.

If that’s the case, Tesla Semi is impressive, but it won’t be the revolutionary product that will change the trucking industry.

It will need to be closer to $250,000-$300,000 to have a significant impact, which is not impossible with higher-volume production but would be difficult.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Technology

AI could affect 40% of jobs and widen inequality between nations, UN warns

Published

on

By

AI could affect 40% of jobs and widen inequality between nations, UN warns

Artificial intelligence robot looking at futuristic digital data display.

Yuichiro Chino | Moment | Getty Images

Artificial intelligence is projected to reach $4.8 trillion in market value by 2033, but the technology’s benefits remain highly concentrated, according to the U.N. Trade and Development agency.

In a report released on Thursday, UNCTAD said the AI market cap would roughly equate to the size of Germany’s economy, with the technology offering productivity gains and driving digital transformation. 

However, the agency also raised concerns about automation and job displacement, warning that AI could affect 40% of jobs worldwide. On top of that, AI is not inherently inclusive, meaning the economic gains from the tech remain “highly concentrated,” the report added. 

“The benefits of AI-driven automation often favour capital over labour, which could widen inequality and reduce the competitive advantage of low-cost labour in developing economies,” it said. 

The potential for AI to cause unemployment and inequality is a long-standing concern, with the IMF making similar warnings over a year ago. In January, The World Economic Forum released findings that as many as 41% of employers were planning on downsizing their staff in areas where AI could replicate them.  

However, the UNCTAD report also highlights inequalities between nations, with U.N. data showing that 40% of global corporate research and development spending in AI is concentrated among just 100 firms, mainly those in the U.S. and China. 

Furthermore, it notes that leading tech giants, such as Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft — companies that stand to benefit from the AI boom — have a market value that rivals the gross domestic product of the entire African continent. 

This AI dominance at national and corporate levels threatens to widen those technological divides, leaving many nations at risk of lagging behind, UNCTAD said. It noted that 118 countries — mostly in the Global South — are absent from major AI governance discussions. 

UN recommendations 

But AI is not just about job replacement, the report said, noting that it can also “create new industries and and empower workers” — provided there is adequate investment in reskilling and upskilling.

But in order for developing nations not to fall behind, they must “have a seat at the table” when it comes to AI regulation and ethical frameworks, it said.

In its report, UNCTAD makes a number of recommendations to the international community for driving inclusive growth. They include an AI public disclosure mechanism, shared AI infrastructure, the use of open-source AI models and initiatives to share AI knowledge and resources. 

Open-source generally refers to software in which the source code is made freely available on the web for possible modification and redistribution.

“AI can be a catalyst for progress, innovation, and shared prosperity – but only if countries actively shape its trajectory,” the report concludes. 

“Strategic investments, inclusive governance, and international cooperation are key to ensuring that AI benefits all, rather than reinforcing existing divides.”

Continue Reading

Environment

BP chair Helge Lund to step down after oil major pledges strategic reset

Published

on

By

BP chair Helge Lund to step down after oil major pledges strategic reset

British oil and gasoline company BP (British Petroleum) signage is being pictured in Warsaw, Poland, on July 29, 2024.

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

British oil major BP on Friday said its chair Helge Lund will soon step down, kickstarting a succession process shortly after the company launched a fundamental strategic reset.

“Having fundamentally reset our strategy, bp’s focus now is on delivering the strategy at pace, improving performance and growing shareholder value,” Lund said in a statement.

“Now is the right time to start the process to find my successor and enable an orderly and seamless handover,” he added.

Lund is expected to step down in 2026. BP said the succession process will be led by Amanda Blanc in her capacity as senior independent director.

Shares of BP traded 2.2% lower on Friday morning. The London-listed firm has lagged its industry rivals in recent years.

BP announced in February that it plans to ramp up annual oil and gas investment to $10 billion through 2027 and slash spending on renewables as part of its new strategic direction.

Analysts have broadly welcomed BP’s renewed focus on hydrocarbons, although the beleaguered energy giant remains under significant pressure from activist investors.

U.S. hedge fund Elliott Management has built a stake of around 5% to become one of BP’s largest shareholders, according to Reuters.

Activist investor Follow This, meanwhile, recently pushed for investors to vote against Lund’s reappointment as chair at BP’s April 17 shareholder meeting in protest over the firm’s recent strategy U-turn.

Lund had previously backed BP’s 2020 strategy, when Bernard Looney was CEO, to boost investment in renewables and cut production of oil and gas by 40% by 2030.

BP CEO Murray Auchincloss, who took the helm on a permanent basis in January last year, is under significant pressure to reassure investors that the company is on the right track to improve its financial performance.

‘A more clearly defined break’

“Elliott continues to press BP for a sharper, more clearly defined break with the strategy to pivot more quickly toward renewables, that was outlined by Bernard Looney when he was CEO,” Russ Mould, AJ Bell’s investment director, told CNBC via email on Friday.

“Mr Lund was chair then and so he is firmly associated with that plan, which current boss Murray Auchincloss is refining,” he added.

Mould said activist campaigns tend to have “fairly classic thrusts,” such as a change in management or governance, higher shareholder distributions, an overhaul of corporate structure and operational improvements.

“In BP’s case, we now have a shift in capital allocation and a change in management, so it will be interesting to see if this appeases Elliott, though it would be no surprise if it feels more can and should be done,” Mould said.

Continue Reading

Trending