Connect with us

Published

on

Shanton Alcaraz from the Salvation Army Northwest Division gives bottled water to Eddy Norby who lives in an RV and invites him to their nearby cooling center for food and beverages during a heat wave in Seattle, Washington, U.S., June 27, 2021.

Karen Ducey | Reuters

Multnomah County in Oregon is suing oil and gas companies Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips and related organizations for the damages caused by the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome. Multnomah County said these and other fossil fuel companies and entities operating in the region are significantly responsible for causing and worsening the deadly heat event.

“The combined historical carbon pollution from the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products was a substantial factor in causing and exacerbating the heat dome, which smothered the County’s residents for several days,” Multnomah County alleges, according to a written statement released Thursday.

The lawsuit is filed against Anadarko Petroleum (acquired by Occidental Petroleum in 2019), American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Marathon Petroleum, McKinsey & Company, Motiva, Occidental Petroleum, Peabody Energy, Shell, Space Age Fuel, Total Specialties USA, Valero Energy and Western States Petroleum Association.

Multnomah County is seeking $50 million in actual damages, $1.5 billion in future damages, and an estimated $50 billion for an abatement fund to “weatherproof” the city, its infrastructure and public health services in preparation for future extreme weather events.

Starting on June 25, 2021, Multnomah County had three consecutive days where the heat reached 108, 112 and 116 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively. Each of those days was about 40 degrees above the regional average and were the hottest days in the County’s recorded history.

The heat event is called a heat dome which is a weather event caused by a high-pressure system that in this case prevented cooler maritime winds to blow and also prevented clouds from forming.

The heat caused the deaths of 69 people, and property damage and was a draw on taxpayer resources, Multnomah County says.

Multiple climate scientists researched the cause of the heat dome and all said that the event was caused by excessive carbon dioxide emissions released by the burning of fossil fuels, the plaintiff says.

“The heat dome that cost so much life and loss was not a natural weather event. It did not just happen because life can be cruel, nor can it be rationalized as simply a mystery of God’s will,” the lawsuit reads. “Rather, the heat dome was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ decision to sell as many fossil fuel products over the last six decades as they could and to lie to the County, the public, and the scientific community about the catastrophic harm that pollution from those products into the Earth’s and the County’s atmosphere would cause.”

Jessica Vega Pederson, the chair of Multnomah County, is seeking to protect the residents of the county she represents.

“This lawsuit is about accountability and fairness, and I believe the people of Multnomah County deserve both. These businesses knew their products were unsafe and harmful, and they lied about it,” Pederson said in a written statement announcing the lawsuit. “They have profited massively from their lies and left the rest of us to suffer the consequences and pay for the damages. We say enough is enough.”

The case is being brought by three law firms with expertise in catastrophic harm litigation: Worthington & Caron PC, Simon Greenstone Panatier PC, and Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants committed negligence and fraud and created a public nuisance.

Bill Forte from North Sky Communications works on a fiber optic line during a heat wave gripping the Pacific Northwest in Lake Forest Park, Washington, U.S., June 26, 2021.

Karen Ducey | Reuters

“There are no new laws or novel theories being asserted here. We contend that the Defendants broke long-standing ones, and we will prove it to a jury,” Jeffrey Simon, a partner at Simon Greenstone Panatier, said in a statement. 

The case is using new and expert climate science, according to Roger Worthington, a partner at Worthington & Caron.

“We will show that the normal use of fossil fuel products over time has imposed massive external, unpriced and untraded social, economic and environmental costs on the County. We will show that they were aware of this price, and instead of fully informing the public, they deceived us. And we will ask a jury to decide if it is fair to hold the polluters accountable for these avoidable and rising costs,” Worthington said in a written statement.

“We are confident that, once we show what the fossil fuel companies knew about global warming and when, and what they did to deny, delay and deceive the public, the jury will not let the fossil fuel companies get away with their reckless misconduct,” Worthington said.

Defendants say a court case won’t help

Exxon says the lawsuit is unproductive.

“Suits like these continue to waste time, resources and do nothing to address climate change,” a spokesperson for Exxon told CNBC. “This action has no impact on our intention to invest billions of dollars to leading the way in a thoughtful energy transition that takes the world to net zero carbon emissions.”

The American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group for the oil and gas industry, defended its constituents’ work making energy available to consumers and, like Exxon, called the lawsuit unproductive.

“The record of the past two decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable American energy to U.S. consumers while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint,” Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for API, told CNBC in a statement. “This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless lawsuits against our industry is nothing more than a distraction from important issues and an enormous waste of taxpayer resources. Climate policy is for Congress to debate and decide, not the court system.”

Legal counsel for Chevron called the lawsuit unproductive and unconstitutional.

“Addressing the challenge of global climate change requires a coordinated policy response. These lawsuits are counterproductive distractions from advancing international policy solutions,” Theodore Boutrous, Jr. of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, told CNBC in a statement. “The federal Constitution bars these novel, baseless claims that target one industry and group of companies engaged in lawful activity that provides tremendous benefits to society.”

People sleep at a cooling shelter set up during an unprecedented heat wave in Portland, Oregon, U.S. June 27, 2021.

Maranie Staab | Reuters

Shell said it is working toward a low-carbon future and does not see a lawsuit as productive.

“The Shell Group’s position on climate change has been a matter of public record for decades. We agree that action is needed now on climate change, and we fully support the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future. As we supply vital energy the world needs today, we continue to reduce our emissions and help customers reduce theirs,” a Shell spokesperson told CNBC.

“Addressing climate change requires a collaborative, society-wide approach. We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change, but that smart policy from government and action from all sectors is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress,” Shell said.

ConocoPhillips and the Western States Petroleum Association told CNBC they don’t comment on active litigation.

BP, Motiva, Occidental Petroleum, Space Age Fuel, Valero Energy, Total Specialties USA, Marathon Petroleum, Peabody Energy, the Koch Industries, and McKinsey did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Europe faces a growing heat wave crisis — and lack of air conditioning

Continue Reading

Technology

Chip giant ASML says it can’t confirm that it will grow in 2026

Published

on

By

Chip giant ASML says it can't confirm that it will grow in 2026

An icon of ASML is displayed on a smartphone, with an ASML chip visible in the background.

Nurphoto | Nurphoto | Getty Images

ASML reported second-quarter earnings that beat estimates with the its key net bookings figure ahead of consensus.

However, the chip equipment giant missed analyst expectations for revenue guidance in the current quarter and warned of the possibility of no growth ahead.

Here’s how ASML did versus LSEG consensus estimates for the second quarter:

  • Net sales: 7.7 billion euros ($8.95 billion) versus 7.52 billion euros expected
  • Net profit: 2.29 billion euros vs 2.04 billion euros expected

In its own previous forecast issued in April, ASML had said it expected second-quarter net sales of between 7.2 billion euros and 7.7 billion euros. In a pre-recorded interview posted on ASML’s website, the company’s Chief Financial Officer Roger Dassen said the beat was due to revenue from upgrading currently deployed machines as well as tariffs having a “less negative” impact than anticipated.

Analysts anticipated net bookings — a key indicator of order demand — would come in at 4.19 billion euros over the April-June stretch. ASML reported net bookings of 5.5 billion euros.

ASML is one of the most important semiconductor supply chain companies in the world. It makes extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) machines, which are required to manufacture the most advanced chips in the world, such as those designed by Apple and Nvidia.

Companies like Intel and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. are customers of ASML.

2026 warning

Like many companies in the semiconductor industry, ASML has been grappling with uncertainty created by U.S. tariff policy.

The company forecast third-quarter revenue of between 7.4 billion euros and 7.9 billion euros, which was shy of market expectations of 8.3 billion euros.

ASML said it expects full-year 2025 net sales to grow 15%, narrowing its guidance from a previously announced forecasts of between 30 billion euros to 35 billion euros.

However, the Dutch tech giant was less certain about the outlook for 2026.

“Looking at 2026, we see that our AI customers’ fundamentals remain strong,” ASML CEO Christophe Fouquet said in a statement.

“At the same time, we continue to see increasing uncertainty driven by macro-economic and geopolitical developments. Therefore, while we still prepare for growth in 2026, we cannot confirm it at this stage.”

The Veldhoven, Netherlands-headquartered company has released its next generation EUV tools known as High NA, which stands for high numerical aperture. These machines, which are larger than a double-decker bus and can cost more than $400 million each, are key to ASML’s future growth plans.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for more.

Continue Reading

Technology

Whoop says FDA is ‘overstepping its authority’ with warning about blood pressure feature

Published

on

By

Whoop says FDA is 'overstepping its authority' with warning about blood pressure feature

The logo for the Food and Drug Administration is seen ahead of a news conference on removing synthetic dyes from America’s food supply, at the Health and Human Services Headquarters in Washington, DC on April 22, 2025.

Nathan Posner | Anadolu | Getty Images

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday published a warning letter addressed to the wrist wearable company Whoop, alleging it is marketing a new blood pressure feature without proper approvals.

The letter centers around Whoop’s Blood Pressure Insights (BPI) feature, which the company introduced alongside its latest hardware launch in May.

Whoop said its BPI feature uses blood pressure information to offer performance and wellness insights that inform consumers and improve athletic performance.

But the FDA said Tuesday that Whoop’s BPI feature is intended to diagnose, cure, treat or prevent disease — a key distinction that would reclassify the wellness tracker as a “medical device” that has to undergo a rigorous testing and approval processes.

“Providing blood pressure estimation is not a low-risk function,” the FDA said in the letter. “An erroneously low or high blood pressure reading can have significant consequences for the user.”

A Whoop spokesperson said the company’s system offers only a single daily estimated range and midpoint, which distinguishes it from medical blood pressure devices used for diagnosis or management of high blood pressure.

Whoop users who purchase the $359 “Whoop Life” subscription tier can use the BPI feature to get daily insights about their blood pressure, including estimated systolic and diastolic ranges, according to the company.

Whoop also requires users to log three traditional cuff-readings to act as a baseline in order to unlock the BPI feature.

Additionally, the spokesperson said the BPI data is not unlike other wellness metrics that the company deals with. Just as heart rate variability and respiratory rate can have medical uses, the spokesperson said, they are permitted in a wellness context too.

“We believe the agency is overstepping its authority in this case by attempting to regulate a non-medical wellness feature as a medical device,” the Whoop spokesperson said.

Read more CNBC tech news

High blood pressure, also called hypertension, is the number one risk factor for heart attacks, strokes and other types of cardiovascular disease, according to Dr. Ian Kronish, an internist and co-director of Columbia University’s Hypertension Center.

Kronish told CNBC that wearables like Whoop are a big emerging topic of conversation among hypertension experts, in part because there’s “concern that these devices are not yet proven to be accurate.”

If patients don’t get accurate blood pressure readings, they can’t make informed decisions about the care they need.

At the same time, Kronish said wearables like Whoop present a “big opportunity” for patients to take more control over their health, and that many professionals are excited to work with these tools.

Understandably, it can be confusing for consumers to navigate. Kronish encouraged patients to talk with their doctor about how they should use wearables like Whoop.

“It’s really great to hear that the FDA is getting more involved around informing consumers,” Kronish said.

FILE PHOTO: The headquarters of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seen in Silver Spring, Maryland November 4, 2009. 

Jason Reed | Reuters

Whoop is not the only wearable manufacturer that’s exploring blood pressure monitoring.

Omron and Garmin both offer medical blood pressure monitoring with on-demand readings that fall under FDA regulation. Samsung also offers blood-pressure-reading technology, but it is not available in the U.S. market.

Apple has also been teasing a blood pressure sensor for its watches, but has not been able to deliver. In 2024, the tech giant received FDA approval for its sleep apnea detection feature.

Whoop has previously received FDA clearance for its ECG feature, which is used to record and analyze a heart’s electrical activity to detect potential irregularities in rhythm. But when it comes to blood pressure, Whoop believes the FDA’s perspective is antiquated.

“We do not believe blood pressure should be considered any more or less sensitive than other physiological metrics like heart rate and respiratory rate,” a spokesperson said. “It appears that the FDA’s concerns may stem from outdated assumptions about blood pressure being strictly a clinical domain and inherently associated with a medical diagnosis.”

The FDA said Whoop could be subject to regulatory actions like seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties if it fails to address the violations that the agency identified in its letter.

Whoop has 15 business days to respond with steps the company has taken to address the violations, as well as how it will prevent similar issues from happening again.

“Even accounting for BPI’s disclaimers, they do not change this conclusion, because they are insufficient to outweigh the fact that the product is, by design, intended to provide a blood pressure estimation that is inherently associated with the diagnosis of a disease or condition,” the FDA said.

WATCH: Watch CNBC’s full interview with FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary

Watch CNBC's full interview with FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary

Continue Reading

Technology

Amazon turns to rival SpaceX to launch next batch of Kuiper internet satellites

Published

on

By

Amazon turns to rival SpaceX to launch next batch of Kuiper internet satellites

United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket carrying the first two demonstration satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper broadband internet constellation stands ready for launch on pad 41 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on October 5, 2023 in Cape Canaveral, Florida, United States.

Paul Hennessey | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

As Amazon chases SpaceX in the internet satellite market, the e-commerce and computing giant is now counting on Elon Musk’s rival company to get its next batch of devices into space.

On Wednesday, weather permitting, 24 Kuiper satellites will hitch a ride on one of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets from a launchpad on Florida’s Space Coast. A 27-minute launch window for the mission, dubbed “KF-01,” opens at 2:18 a.m. ET.

The launch will be livestreamed on X, the social media platform also owned by Musk.

The mission marks an unusual alliance. SpaceX’s Starlink is currently the dominant provider of low earth orbit satellite internet, with a constellation of roughly 8,000 satellites and about 5 million customers worldwide.

Amazon launched Project Kuiper in 2019 with an aim to provide broadband internet from a constellation of more than 3,000 satellites. The company is working under a tight deadline imposed by the Federal Communications Commission that requires it to have about 1,600 satellites in orbit by the end of July 2026.

Amazon’s first two Kuiper launches came in April and June, sending 27 satellites each time aboard rockets supplied by United Launch Alliance.

Assuming Wednesday’s launch is a success, Amazon will have a total of 78 satellites in orbit. In order to meet the FCC’s tight deadline, Amazon needs to rapidly manufacture and deploy satellites, securing a hefty amount of capacity from rocket providers. Kuiper has booked up to 83 launches, including three rides with SpaceX.

Space has emerged as a battleground between Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, two of the world’s richest men. Aside from Kuiper, Bezos also competes with Musk via his rocket company Blue Origin.

Blue Origin in January sent up its massive New Glenn rocket for the first time, which is intended to rival SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9 rockets. While Blue Origin currently trails SpaceX, Bezos last year predicted his latest venture will one day be bigger than Amazon, which he started in 1994.

Kuiper has become one of Amazon’s biggest bets, with more than $10 billion earmarked for the project. The company may need to spend as much as $23 billion to build its full constellation, analysts at Bank of America wrote in a note to clients last week. That figure doesn’t include the cost of building terminals, which consumers will use to connect to the service.

The analysts estimate Amazon is spending $150 million per launch this year, while satellite production costs are projected to total $1.1 billion by the fourth quarter.

Amazon is going after a market that’s expected to grow to at least $40 billion by 2030, the analysts wrote, citing estimates by Boston Consulting Group. The firm estimated that Amazon could generate $7.1 billion in sales from Kuiper by 2032 if it claims 30% of the market.

“With Starlink’s solid early growth, our estimates could be conservative,” the analysts wrote.

WATCH: Amazon launches first Kuiper internet satellites into space

Amazon launches first Kuiper internet satellites into space

Continue Reading

Trending