Tag Archives: Negatively

Tesla Cautions UK: Easing EV Regulations Could Impact Sales Negatively

Posted on by
Reply

Tesla has notified the UK government that loosening electric vehicle regulations could negatively impact battery car sales and hinder the achievement of carbon targets, as highlighted in recently disclosed documents.

Elon Musk’s electric vehicle manufacturer also requested “support for the used car market,” as per a government consultation submission acquired earlier this year. fast charging, a newsletter focused on electric vehicles.

In April, the Labor government raised concerns among some electric car manufacturers by relaxing rules known as the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate. Previously, this mandate aimed to increase EV sales annually, but the new loophole allowed manufacturers to sell more gasoline and diesel vehicles.


Critics argue that a new tax on electric vehicles introduced in last week’s budget may further dampen demand.

Automakers such as BMW, Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, and Toyota, all operating factories in the UK, expressed in their submissions during the spring consultation that the mandate was discouraging investment, as they were selling electric vehicles at a loss. In contrast, environmentalists and brands focusing primarily on electric vehicles assert that the rules are serving their intended purpose, with no manufacturers expected to be penalized for 2024 sales.

Tesla emphasized that avoiding new loopholes referred to as “flexibilities” was “essential” for the success of electric vehicle sales.

According to Tesla, these changes could “diminish the availability of battery electric vehicles (BEVs), significantly impact emissions, and jeopardize the UK’s carbon budget.”

Prime Minister Rachel Reeves has committed to imposing a “pay-per-mile” charge on electric vehicles from 2028, warning manufacturers of even stricter budgets to come. This could make electric vehicles less appealing compared to more polluting petrol and diesel options. Simultaneously, she announced an extension of subsidies for new electric vehicles, which was positively received by the industry.

Tom Reilly, author of Fast Charge, remarked: “Just as the shift to EVs seemed stable, the Budget has pulled it in two different directions, effectively taking from Peter to pay Paul. If car manufacturers seek mitigation obligations again, Labor will only be held accountable when climate targets are not met.”

Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, and Ford expressed concern about their responses being made public and were only permitted to reply through appeals under the Freedom of Information Act. Several documents were extensively redacted, yet the headline still indicated Tesla’s call for “support for the used car market.” Tesla opted not to comment on whether this assistance would involve subsidies.

Conversely, U.S. manufacturer Ford and Germany’s Mercedes-Benz are advocating against stricter regulations after 2030, which would require them to further lower average carbon dioxide emissions, allowing them to continue selling polluting vehicles longer.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Ford has strongly criticized European governments for retracting support for electric vehicle sales, stating, “Policymakers in various European regions are not adhering to the agreement.” Ford had previously backed stronger goals but has since changed its position.

U.S. automakers also highlighted the risk of being overshadowed by Chinese manufacturers, which “lack a foothold in the UK and benefit from lower costs.”

Mercedes-Benz contends that the UK should lower the value-added tax on public charging, which is equivalent to household electricity, from 20% to 5%, and suggests that a price cap on public charging fees should be considered.

Additionally, Tesla advocated for banning the sale of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a battery-only range of less than 160 miles starting in 2030, a rule that would exclude many of the best-selling models in this category.

Ford, Mercedes-Benz, and Tesla chose not to provide further comments.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Prohibiting Phones in Schools Might Negatively Impact Certain Students’ Mental Well-Being

Posted on by
Reply

Some schools mandate that students store their cell phones in lockers throughout the school day.

Robin Utrecht/Shutterstock

Concerns about the adverse effects of excessive screen time are growing. Specifically, phone usage in educational settings can detract from learning experiences. However, some studies indicate that outright banning smartphones from schools can lead to feelings of loneliness among students, at least initially.

“When a school opts to completely prohibit smartphones, several factors should be considered,” explains Sanyogita Kare from Radboud University in the Netherlands. “Socially vulnerable youth may face additional challenges, leading to a possible sense of estrangement from peers.”

Mobile phones and similar devices have been linked to various issues, ranging from declining academic performance to worsening mental health among adolescents. However, there is a lack of concrete evidence supporting these claims. As of January 1, 2024, the Netherlands has instituted a ban on the use of smartphones and other smart devices in classrooms. Many schools enforce strict rules, prohibiting students from using such devices at all during class and often requiring that they be stored in lockers.

Seeking to unravel this impact, Carré and colleagues conducted a study with students from two middle schools in the Netherlands, both of which disallow smartphone usage during class. Surveys were administered initially in December 2023, prior to the nationwide ban, and repeated in March or April 2024.

The researchers aimed to analyze two types of loneliness: social loneliness and emotional loneliness. “Social loneliness pertains to your overall network and feelings of group belonging,” states Carre. “Emotional loneliness speaks to the depth of connection in close friendships.”

Upon comparing loneliness rates before and after the ban, findings were mixed. “Though we did not observe a significant change in social loneliness, there was a slight uptick in psychological loneliness,” Carre mentions. This surge may occur if some classmates are absent, thereby limiting students’ ability to connect with close friends during the school day.

The research also revealed that while the general sense of social loneliness didn’t rise among children, those who found social interactions more challenging were likely to feel increased loneliness. Carre notes that these impacts might not be long-lasting as students adjust to the ban over time.

A limitation of the study is that there was no comparison made with other Dutch schools where regulations are more lenient, such as allowing phones during breaks. Jonathan Canter from RAND, a U.S. nonprofit research organization, states, “To draw meaningful comparisons, we need data from similar students in schools without prohibition. Without that, we can’t ascertain whether our findings reflect broader patterns.”

Both Carre and Cantor express that there’s a gap in fundamental data regarding the effects of phone bans in schools. Canter and his team have recently attempted to address this issue by looking into voluntary bans on phones in U.S. schools.

They discovered significant variability in policies; certain schools enforce total bans on phones, while others permit their use at the discretion of teachers. In the UK, government guidelines suggest the use of phones in schools but leave the final decision to the discretion of school leaders regarding whether these devices should be banned.

“The pressing issue is the need for rigorous evaluations to assess the effectiveness of these policies at the school level. This requires detailed data on the types and timing of policies implemented,” Kanter states. “This is the focal point of current analysis efforts.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Republican Proposal to Eliminate EV Tax Credits May Impact GM and Ford Negatively

Posted on by
Reply

In recent years, the popularity of electric vehicles has surged, fueled by a $7,500 tax credit from the federal government aimed at making purchases more affordable.

However, the budget bill unveiled by House Republicans on Monday suggests eliminating this tax credit. This proposal also introduces new limitations on other tax incentives that motivate automakers to invest significant sums into establishing new battery facilities in the United States.

Starting next year, the legislation is set to abolish the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle buyers, as well as a $4,000 credit applicable to used car and truck acquisitions.

If signed into law, these changes could lead to a spike in electric vehicle sales in the near term, as consumers rush to take advantage of tax credits before they vanish. Nonetheless, analysts predict that sales may drop or slow drastically once the credits are no longer available.

“This will undoubtedly slow down the adoption rate significantly,” remarked Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive.

Cox anticipates that electric vehicles will comprise 10% of all new vehicle sales this year. If Congress does not alter the tax credit, that figure is expected to increase by nearly a third by 2030, according to their estimates.

However, if Congress eliminates the credits, Valdez Streaty projects that electric vehicles could make up only 20-24% of new car sales by 2030.

Eliminating these credits would further financially burden automakers who are already dealing with increased costs stemming from a 25% tariff on imported cars and auto parts established during the Trump administration.

The Republican tax proposals could adversely affect numerous automakers striving to launch new models, particularly General Motors and Ford, both of which have made substantial investments in their manufacturing facilities and supply chains with the goal of producing millions of electric vehicles annually.

GM has inaugurated two battery plants located in Ohio and Tennessee, developed through a joint venture with LG Energy Solution. Ford is currently constructing three battery plants, including one in Michigan, in collaboration with two South Korean firms, SK-ON, in Kentucky and Tennessee.

Both Detroit-based automakers are also investing in mining operations to secure domestic lithium supplies, which is crucial for battery production.

Tesla, the leading electric vehicle seller in the U.S., is also facing challenges. Its sales have decreased in recent months due to consumer backlash against CEO Elon Musk, associated with the Trump administration, coupled with the absence of a new affordable model.

However, Tesla enjoys several advantages. While most manufacturers still incur losses on electric vehicles, Tesla has been profitable for over a year, allowing the company to lower prices to stimulate demand if credits are eliminated. Additionally, Tesla relies less on imported components compared to other U.S. manufacturers.

Many large automakers are racing to catch up with Tesla in the electric vehicle landscape, particularly in states with a significant number of Republican lawmakers, by establishing numerous new factories.

Toyota has constructed a battery facility in North Carolina, while Hyundai is set to begin electric vehicle production at its Georgia site, which will also house battery manufacturing. Stellantis, along with its partners, is currently developing two battery plants in Indiana, with the local economies relying on the jobs these plants will create.

Should tax regulations undergo significant changes, automakers may reconsider, scale back, or postpone their plans.

“If the government wishes for the U.S. to effectively compete with China and the rest of the world in the expansive EV sector, as well as encourage GM and Ford to make considerable long-term investments in EV development and domestic production, we must enhance the tax credits instead of causing whiplash,” Valdez Streaty stated.

China dominates global electric vehicle production and is a primary supplier of essential materials for batteries and electric motors, such as processed lithium and rare earth minerals. The elimination of the tax credit would significantly hinder the U.S. automotive industry’s ability to keep pace.

“This could adversely impact our global standing and the competitive capabilities of the U.S. automotive sector,” Valdez Streaty remarked. “It’s likely to slow us down when we are already trailing China.”

Neither Ford nor Stellantis had comments to share, and neither did the policy group, the Automotive Innovation Alliance.

The federal government initially introduced $7,500 in credits during President Barack Obama’s administration, maintaining this incentive throughout President Trump’s first term. These credits were subsequently updated and expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted by President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Given the higher costs of electric vehicles compared to traditional combustion engines, such credits have been vital in encouraging consumer purchases.

The credits are applicable to sports utility vehicles and pickups priced under $80,000, as well as sedans priced below $55,000. The vehicle must be assembled in North America, with the battery meeting specifications based on the country of origin for its materials. Additionally, to qualify, individual buyers must earn less than $150,000 per year, while joint filers must earn under $300,000.

Many of these criteria do not apply to leased vehicles. However, tax credits for cars and trucks are typically transferred to leasing companies, which are divisions of automakers. Many leasing firms have passed on their savings to customers, contributing to the notable increase in electric vehicle leases.

According to Valdez Streaty, approximately 595,000 electric vehicles were leased in 2024, a significant rise from roughly 96,000 in 2022, prior to the availability of leasing incentives.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Experts warn that cuts in Trump’s science funding may negatively impact the economy

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump’s tariffs can increase prices, and efforts to reduce the federal workforce may lead to higher unemployment. Many economists are concerned about administration policies that will cut federal support for scientific research.

The Trump administration has recently canceled or frozen billions of dollars in federal grants for researchers, resulting in significant cuts to funding for academic medical centers and other institutions. It has also attempted to dismiss hundreds of workers at the National Science Foundation and has revoked visas for numerous foreign-born students.

These policies could jeopardize the US’s competitiveness in emerging fields like artificial intelligence, affecting the nation’s health and productivity in the long run.

“Universities play a crucial role in innovation,” says Sabrina Howell, a professor at New York University. “These policies are detrimental to our ability to innovate and grow.”

Scientists warn that the US risks losing its position as a leading research hub and a top destination for scientific talent globally.

Laboratories across the country are already laying off workers and halting projects, potentially affecting ongoing clinical trials. Top universities like Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania have announced employment freezes. Other countries are actively recruiting American scientists, offering a more welcoming environment.

Economists argue that taxpayer-funded research is crucial for early-stage studies that may not attract private investors. Research has shown that every dollar invested in research and development yields about $5 in economic returns, including intangible benefits like increased longevity and leisure time.

“Research is a high-return activity that benefits society in many ways,” said economist Benjamin F. Jones from Northwestern University. “We need to invest more in research to stay competitive.”

Hudson Freeze’s groundbreaking research in microorganisms in the 1960s led to important discoveries in DNA replication and genetic sciences. His work showcases the vital role of government funding in scientific research.

Dr. Freeze’s discoveries underscore the importance of government support for scientific breakthroughs. While private investors may overlook research on rare disorders, government funding has led to significant advancements in medical science.

The US research and development system, established during World War II, has been instrumental in driving economic growth and innovation. Federal investments in research have led to key technologies like the Internet and modern medicine.

…

Immigration plays a crucial role in driving scientific and technological advancements in the US. Despite accounting for a small percentage of the population, immigrants have contributed significantly to innovation, patents, and entrepreneurial ventures.

Changes in immigration policy and the perception of the US as unwelcoming could deter foreign students and scientists from choosing the US for education and research. Research has shown that restrictions on immigration during the Trump administration led to a decline in Chinese students studying in the US.

“International students and scientists are responsive to the environment in the US,” said economist Britta Glennon from the University of Pennsylvania. “A welcoming atmosphere is crucial for attracting global talent.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Trump’s layoff negatively impacts safety program for firefighters

Posted on by
Reply

WASHINGTON – Patrick Montague, a federal firefighter investigator, was unexpectedly fired by the Trump administration on Saturday night, along with thousands of other Department of Health and Human Services employees. Patrick, 46, from Kentucky, had 26 years of experience in firefighting and prevention programs, as well as academic training and technical expertise. Despite receiving repeated praise from his supervisors, he was let go before completing his two-year probationary period due to his alleged inadequate performance.

Follow the live politics report here

Montague was part of a program aimed at reducing firefighters’ risks while on duty. Three out of the five members of his program were fired in a similar manner. The sudden layoffs were attributed to billionaire Elon Musk’s influence on cutting federal programs and reducing government workforce.

The termination of these employees, including Montague, has raised concerns about the impact on important public safety programs, such as the Fatal Firefighter Survey and Prevention Program. These programs were created to enhance the safety and well-being of firefighters across the country.

Edward Kelly, general president of the International Association of Firefighters, emphasized the importance of investing in firefighter safety programs and expressed hope that the Trump administration would prioritize such initiatives.

In addition to the firefighter safety programs, layoffs within the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have also affected workers responsible for maintaining the national firefighters’ cancer registry. The registry, established by a law signed by Trump in July 2018, tracks and fights cancer deaths among firefighters.

The disconnect between Trump’s public praise for firefighters and the sudden layoffs of those working on critical firefighter safety programs has left many scratching their heads. Union officials and advocates for fire safety are puzzled by the contradictory actions taken by the administration.

Despite the termination notices citing performance issues, many affected employees, like Patrick Montague, believe that their performance was satisfactory and are baffled by the decision to let them go.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Fact-checkers react negatively to Meta’s decision to transition to a scrappy role

Posted on by
Reply

Founder of Facebook
Mark Zuckerberg

His company Meta announced on Tuesday that it would scrap the facts.
He accused the US checkers of making biased decisions and said he wanted greater freedom of speech. Meta uses third-party independent fact checkers from around the world. Here, one of them, who works at the Full Fact organization in London, explains what they do and their reaction to Zuckerberg’s “mind-boggling” claims.

I was a fact checker at Full Fact in London for a year, investigating questionable content on Facebook, X and newspapers. Our diet is filled with disinformation videos about wars in the Middle East and Ukraine, as well as fake AI-generated video clips of politicians, which are becoming increasingly difficult to disprove. There is. Colleagues are tackling coronavirus disinformation, misinformation about cancer treatments, and there’s a lot of climate-related talk as there are more hurricanes and wildfires.

As soon as you log on at 9am, you’re assigned something to watch. By accessing Meta’s system, you can see which posts are most likely to be false. In some cases, there may be 10 or 15 potentially harmful things and it can be overwhelming. But you can’t check everything.

If a post is a little wild but not harmful, like this AI-generated image of the Pope wearing a giant white puffer coat, we might leave it. But if it’s a fake image of Mike Tyson holding a Palestinian flag, we’re more likely to address it. We propose them in the morning meeting and are then asked to start checking.

Yesterday I was working on a deepfake video in which Keir Starmer said many of the claims about Jimmy Savile were frivolous and that was why he was not prosecuted at the time. We’re getting a lot of engagement. Starmer’s mouth did not look right and did not appear to say anything. It seemed like a false alarm. I immediately started doing a reverse image search and discovered that the video was taken from the Guardian newspaper in 2012. The original was of much higher quality. The area around his mouth is very blurry and you can see exactly what he’s saying when you compare it to what he shares on social media. We contacted the Guardian for comment on the original Downing Street. You can also get in touch with various media forensics and deepfake AI experts.

Some misinformation continues to resurface. There is a particular video of a gas station explosion in Yemen last year that has been reused as either a bombing in Gaza or a Hezbollah attack on Israel.

Fact checkers collect examples of how that information has appeared on social media in the past 24 hours or so, often times like the number of likes or shares, and how do they know when it’s incorrect? indicates.

Attaching fact checks to Facebook posts requires two levels of review. Senior colleagues question every leap in logic we make. For recurring claims, this process can be completed in half a day. New, more complex cases may take closer to a week. The average is about 1 day. It can be frustrating to go back and forth at times, but you want to be as close to 100% sure as possible.

It was very difficult to hear Mark Zuckerberg say that fact checkers are biased on Tuesday. Much of the work we do is about being fair, and that’s instilled in us. I feel it is a very important job to bring about change and provide good information to people.

This is something I wanted to do in my previous job in local journalism, go down rabbit holes and track down sources, but I didn’t have many opportunities. It was very Churnalism. As a local reporter, I was concerned and felt helpless at the amount of conspiracy theories people were seriously engaging with and believing in Facebook groups.

At the end of the day, it can be difficult to switch off. I’m still thinking about how to prove something as quickly as possible. When I see things like content stock prices constantly going up, I get a little worried. But when a fact check is published, there is a sense of satisfaction.

Zuckerberg’s decision was unfortunate. We put a lot of effort into this and we think it’s really important. But we renew our resolve to fight the good fight. Misinformation will never go away. We will continue to be here and fight against it.

Source: www.theguardian.com

The harm of toxic positivity: How relentless optimism can negatively impact your health and mental wellbeing

Posted on by
Reply

Having a positive mindset can have unexpected results

DEEPOL (Plain Picture/photo by Anja Weber Dekker)

Do you suffer from low self-esteem? If so, you may have been told to repeat phrases like, “I am worthy of love, I am worthy of love, I am worthy of love.” Repeating positive statements like these is called self-affirmation, and it's said to boost a person's mood and sense of worth. Sounds incredible, right? Well, it is. When psychologists tested the effectiveness of this mantra, it backfired. Participants who started out with low self-esteem ended up feeling worse. The problem was, they simply didn't believe what they were being told.

We know that a positive attitude is good for your health, and that the right mindset can really impact your health and happiness. But it turns out that too much of a good thing can be bad. What psychologists who study self-esteem have discovered is an example of “toxic positivity” – the idea that forcing yourself to interpret your experiences in an optimistic way and suppressing negative emotions can actually do you harm. The term has become something of a buzzword in both academia and pop culture. And yet, the messages that “happiness is a choice” and “positivity is a mindset” are rampant.

What is needed is a return to balance. It is not enough to say that excessive positivity is harmful; we need to know when, why and for whom it is harmful. Fortunately, there is a growing body of research addressing these questions. …

Source: www.newscientist.com

Here’s How Daylight Saving Time Can Negatively Affect Our Health – And How to Take Action

Posted on by
Reply

It feels harsh. Losing one precious hour of sleep tonight.

As Daylight Saving Time (DST) begins in the UK during the summer months, clocks are scheduled as follows: Move forward one hour tonight to 1 a.m. local time. As a result, the new local daylight saving time will be 2:00 AM.

Scientists are concerned that switching to daylight saving time could have negative effects on health, including an increase in strokes, heart attacks, car accidents, and sleep deprivation, according to neurology professor and director of Vanderbilt’s sleep division, Dr. Beth Murrow in an interview with BBC Science Focus.

The impact of “springing forward” is experienced not only by the elderly but also by young people. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine found that teens lost an average of 2 hours and 42 minutes of sleep on weeknights after the time change in 2015.

“We need morning light to wake up, set our body clocks, improve our mood, use light boxes in the morning to treat seasonal affective disorder, and sleep better at night.” Light promotes sleep at night, but light at night disturbs sleep,” Murrow explains.

Don’t worry, there are ways to combat the lost time. Here are some simple strategies:

1. Adjust your bedtime earlier for a few days before changing your clock.

If it’s too late this time, keep this in mind for the future. Sleep experts recommend going to bed 15 to 20 minutes earlier each night during the week leading up to daylight saving time.

Temporary insomnia symptoms affect about 30 to 35 percent of adults and can be caused by sudden changes in sleep schedules, such as the transition to daylight saving time, according to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.

Gradually adapting to the time change will help you adjust and even get extra sleep during the transition, says Murrow.

If you’re feeling drowsy, it may be helpful to go to bed a bit earlier tonight.

2. Get exposure to bright light in the morning

DST aims to provide an extra hour of sunlight in the evening for socializing after work, but it can disrupt your natural sleep-wake cycle or circadian rhythm.

To wake up in the morning and improve your sleep at night, exposing yourself to bright light is key. Natural light is preferred, especially in the summer when the sun rises earlier, according to Murrow.

“Exposure to bright morning light helps regulate your body clock, making it easier to sleep at night,” she explains.

3. Skip long naps and late-day caffeine, opt for exercise instead

If you enjoy naps, this may be disappointing news. But if you want to improve your sleep, avoid napping and caffeine.

Naps and caffeine can diminish your sleep drive, says Murrow. She suggests exercising instead.

Just remember, don’t exercise right before bed. Exercise can disrupt sleep as it raises your core body temperature and releases endorphins.

Research recommends waiting at least 90 minutes between exercising and going to bed to improve sleep quality, according to the European Journal of Sports Science.

4. Avoid using your phone before bedtime

It’s a well-known fact that using your phone before bed isn’t ideal, particularly when the clock shifts forward an hour.

Bright light in the morning helps wake you up, whereas bright light at night can hinder sleep. LED screens emit blue light, making them especially problematic at night.

Blue light disrupts the natural release of melatonin in the brain, says Murrow. Melatonin acts as a sleep switch by signaling the brain to rest when levels rise.

It may be time to eliminate daylight saving time

Despite strategies to mitigate the impact of clock changes, many experts advocate for eliminating this outdated system altogether.

Is it time for standard time to become the new norm?

alice gregory a professor of psychology and director of the Goldsmiths Sleep Institute, believes that living on a permanent standard time schedule offers health benefits. “Most people are tired of literally going back and forth,” Murrow agrees.

About our experts:

Dr. Beth Murrow is a board-certified neurologist and sleep medicine specialist, an associate professor of clinical research, and the director of Vanderbilt’s Sleep Division. She conducts research on the relationship between medical diseases and sleep, as well as genetics and circadian biology.

alice gregory is a psychology professor at Goldsmiths University and has contributed to various research areas including the link between sleep and psychopathology, behavioral genetics, and sleep disorders. She is also known for her public engagement in science and has published popular science books.

read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com