webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Janet Mills Gov

AG team blue? see other node

see retaliation drag

---

susan collins fixed in march?

April 2, 2025

off bs

(WASHINGTON, D.C., April 2, 2025) — Today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins fulfilled the promise of Title IX in pausing federal funds for certain Maine educational programs. Secretary Rollins sent a letter (PDF, 612 KB) to Maine Governor Janet Mills announcing the pause and an ongoing review of federal funding that the state of Maine receives from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This comes after Maine’s continual refusal to provide equal opportunity to women and girls in educational programs, in direct violation of Title IX.

“In order to continue to receive taxpayer dollars from USDA, the state of Maine must demonstrate compliance with Title IX which protects female student athletes from having to compete with or against or having to appear unclothed before males,” Secretary Rollins wrote in the letter.

“In addition, USDA has launched a full review of grants awarded by the Biden Administration to the Maine Department of Education. Many of these grants appear to be wasteful, redundant, or otherwise against the priorities of the Trump Administration. USDA will not stand for the Biden Administration’s bloated bureaucracy and will instead focus on a Department that is farmer-first and without a leftist social agenda,” Secretary Rollins continued.

The effort by USDA supports President Donald J. Trump’s leadership in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not spent on programs that violate federal law. USDA supports the recent actions of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in enforcing Title IX. USDA will pause and, where appropriate, terminate certain nonessential funding in Maine if these Title IX violations are not resolved to the satisfaction of the Federal Government. This pause does not impact federal feeding programs or direct assistance to citizens; if a child was fed today, they will be fed tomorrow.

Related:

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

---

judge orders USDA to restore Maine school meal funding

By Quinn D'Alessio on April 21, 2025

A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must return essential school meal funding to the state of Maine, after the agency froze the money on April 2 in response to Maine’s policy allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports. The decision, issued April 11 by U.S. District Court Judge John Woodcock, grants the state a temporary restraining order. That means federal funding will flow again to support school meal programs for thousands of children, as well as food assistance for low-income families, childcare centers and people with disabilities across the state.

The USDA had halted the funding earlier this month on April 2, citing alleged violations of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. The agency claimed Maine’s inclusive sports policy went against that law.

Judge Woodcock then ruled that the USDA didn’t follow proper procedures when it froze the funds: specifically that it gave no formal warning or chance for the state to respond. The judge however did not rule on whether Maine’s policy is legal under Title IX, only that the USDA couldn’t skip due process.

Funding may be temporarily safe, but at the core of this conflict is a battle over how Title IX applies to transgender students.

Under the Biden Administration, Title IX guidance was expanded to include gender identity as a protected category. But after the 2024 election, the USDA — now operating under the Trump Administration — has shifted back toward a narrower definition of sex as biological sex assigned at birth. Maine’s policy, which allows students to participate in school sports according to their gender identity, directly conflicts with this new stance.

The USDA’s decision to freeze funding was one of the first major actions taken under this rollback. Maine was given a clear message: change your policy or lose your funding.

In response, Attorney General Aaron Frey sued the federal government, saying the USDA’s actions were politically motivated and dangerously punitive. Governor Janet Mills has also stood firm, arguing that Maine’s policy reflects the state’s commitment to fairness and inclusion — and that it’s legally sound.

To better understand what this case means for students, The Maine Campus met with Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine. Brewer emphasized that this decision is an early one, and that the situation could change quickly.

“What happens after the temporary restraining order expires? That depends on what happens at the next administrative and/or judicial steps. There are so many different possible outcomes that it really is difficult to answer this question,” said Brewer.

Even though the court ordered the USDA to restore funding for now, Brewer said the broader legal battle over Title IX and transgender rights is just beginning.

“This is a very early step in what will almost certainly be a very long process to determine first the interpretation and eventually the enforcement of Title IX in terms of gender identity,” he said.

So far, Maine leaders have given no sign that they’ll back off their current policies. Brewer said that’s unlikely to change unless the U.S. Supreme Court forces the issue. He was then asked if Maine is likely to adjust any policies to avoid future conflict with the federal government.

“Likely not at this point,” said Brewer. “If the U.S. Supreme Court tells Maine it has to do so, this would be a different story.”

While the lawsuit plays out in the courts, public support could influence how state and federal leaders respond. If students are concerned about the potential loss of funding or want to support policies that protect LGBTQ+ rights, Brewer says speaking up is important.

“Students should contact their Members of Congress to advocate that funding be protected,” he said.

The funding freeze, even if temporary, raised serious concerns across Maine. Without that federal funding, school nutrition programs might have had to cut back or shut down, leaving many students and families without regular access to meals. Now that the funding is restored those fears have eased, at least temporarily.

“The one thing students can likely be sure of is continued conflict and uncertainty,” said Brewer.

Published in Campus & Community News, News, On Campus and Politics

More posts from Quinn D'Alessio

---

---

ihe

just weeks after a tense White House exchange between Maine’s Democratic governor and the nation’s Republican president, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Tuesday it would temporarily halt all spending on programs in the University of Maine system.

The funding freeze, announced in an email and confirmed by a department spokesperson, amounts to $100 million, USDA said. The University of Maine System has nearly $63 million in active grants from the agriculture department, and is expecting $35 million to be paid out for ongoing statewide education, research and extension activities, a system spokesperson said. *(This paragraph was corrected to reflect the amount of money that the system received from the USDA.)

The money withheld for grants and contracts will affect projects ranging from local 4-H programming to research initiatives, the USDA said.

Most Popular

Trump first threatened to withhold federal funding from Maine on Feb. 21 at a National Governors Association event. He was caught on camera in a dispute with Governor Janet Mills and argued that the state must comply with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools, and his recent executive order that bars trans women from competing in women’s sports.

“You better do it because you’re not going to get federal funding,” Trump said.

To which Mills replied, “We’re going to follow the law, sir. We’ll see you in court.” [he said i am the law?]

But now, the Pine Tree State is feeling the repercussions well before a case has even been filed.

According to the USDA order, “the pause will remain in effect until further notice” until all “actions related to prospective Title VI or Title IX violations” are evaluated.

The reference to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a shift from the USDA’s other public statements about its investigation into the University of Maine system, which focused on Title IX.

“We’re still assessing the total amount of active awards across the System impacted,” Warren added in a later email.

Dannel Malloy, chancellor of the system, said in an interview with the Press Herald that the notice from the USDA was “disappointing.”

“The letter that we got didn’t give a reason,” Malloy said. “‘We’re going to hurt kids because somebody didn’t like what somebody else said …’ Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

This is the second time in the past week that the Trump administration has pulled funding from a higher education institution for doing something that doesn’t align with the president’s priorities and policies. Columbia University, a Manhattan-based Ivy League institution, was the first to be hit, losing $400 million Friday as a result of “continued inaction” in response to claims of antisemitism on campus.

Editors' Picks

As was the case with Columbia, observers have been expecting some sort of punishment for Maine, though it was unclear how the penalty would be doled out or to what extent. The USDA launched a Title IX compliance review within 24 hours of the White House dispute, citing “indications” that the state was “disregarding” Trump’s order.

“President Trump has made it abundantly clear,” Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said in a statement, “taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars will not support institutions that discriminate against women.”

In a written response to the USDA on Feb. 26, the system said it confirmed its athletic programs were in compliance with relevant state and federal laws. The system did not receive any further communication from the USDA between filing that response and receiving notice of the $100 million funding cut.

That said, lawmakers, policy experts and Maine higher ed officials were frustrated but not surprised by the announcement.

In a Facebook post Tuesday, U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree, a Maine Democrat, called the USDA’s actions “vindictive” and said she was “appalled” by the informal email, which shared no findings to support the funding freeze and offered no opportunity for any recourse.

“Let’s be clear about what this latest funding freeze will do: It will hurt farmers and rural Mainers, it will halt critically needed research innovation, and it will slash educational opportunities for students throughout Maine,” Pingree said. “Once again, it appears as though this administration is targeting our state for retribution—all because our elected officials are standing up for the rule of law.”

Agricultural experts say that funding pulled by the agency could compromise research on biofuels, vegetables, animal health, renewable fuels and more.

“If all of their funding was removed from USDA, that would have a really big impact on farmers on the ground here,” Sarah Alexander, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, told Reuters.

To Mills, even before the USDA announced its cuts, the issue is more than just a policy debate about transgender rights or a funding issue that will impact local farming—it’s about the health of America’s democracy.

“In America, the president is neither a king nor a dictator, as much as this one tries to act like it,” the governor said in a written statement shortly after her initial exchange with Trump. “I imagine that the outcome of this politically directed investigation is all but predetermined,” she added, “but do not be misled: This is not just about who can compete on the athletic field, this is about whether a president can force compliance with his will, without regard for the rule of law that governs our nation. I believe he cannot.”

Next Story

GovernanceExecutive Leadership

Harvard Resists Trump’s Demands

University leaders said the administration's demands are an attack on its independence.

---

npr

3 25

Maine faces federal investigation after Gov. Janet Mills tells Trump, 'See you in court'

March 2, 2025

Heard on Weekend Edition Sunday

By

Kevin Miller

Transcript

After Maine Gov. Janet Mills told Pres. Trump "See you in court," her state is facing federal investigations.

AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:

Now to Maine and the response to its Democratic governor's standoff with President Trump. It started just over a week ago with a confrontation in the White House. It has some looking at Governor Janet Mills as a hero. Others worry she's put her state's finances at risk over the issue of transgender athletes. Maine Public Radio's Kevin Miller reports.

KEVIN MILLER, BYLINE: Trump had been speaking to the nation's governors for nearly an hour when he paused and asked if Maine Governor Janet Mills was in the room. Days earlier, he had signed an order threatening to cut funding to states unless they banned transgender athletes in women's sports, and a video of a transgender youth winning a track meet in Maine had gone viral on social media.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports.

JANET MILLS: I'll follow the law.

TRUMP: So you better comply because otherwise, you're not getting any federal funding.

MILLER: Mills was off-mic, so her curt response - see you in court - is barely audible. But Trump heard her.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

TRUMP: Good. I'll see you in court. I look forward to that.

MILLER: And those four words - see you in court - instantly struck a chord nationwide with Democratic activists and influencers. See you in court T-shirts are now for sale in Maine and online. And Maine's governor is being lobbied even harder to challenge Republican Senator Susan Collins next year.

JIM MELCHER: I think some Democrats feel like their leaders haven't shown a lot of courage, a lot of guts, and they've been looking for somebody to be a spokesperson.

MILLER: Jim Melcher teaches political science at the University of Maine in Farmington, a rural college town where Mills has lived for decades. Melcher describes Mills as a scrappy former prosecutor who doesn't back down in court or on a political stage.

MELCHER: I think the visual of her standing up to Donald Trump, saying she wouldn't be intimidated and see you in court, was a perfect way for her to end that. Give these people a slogan. Show somebody doing this.

MILLER: It's unclear whether Trump can legally withhold federal funding from states when it's been passed by Congress. But since the confrontation, the Trump administration has launched three investigations into Maine under Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in education based on sex. And this week, Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened officials in Maine, California and Minnesota with lawsuits, unless the states fall in line.

JAMI TAYLOR: I was surprised to see the fight start off on the sports issue, given where the public's attitudes are.

MILLER: Jami Taylor is a political science professor at the University of Toledo in Ohio and co-author of the 2018 book "The Remarkable Rise Of Transgender Rights." Taylor says public opinion appears more aligned with Trump than with Maine's policy, which prohibits discrimination in schools based on gender identity.

TAYLOR: I think the trans rights movement is going to take a loss on that issue.

MILLER: Republicans campaigned against transgender rights during the election and say the public agrees. Back in Maine, Republicans like State Senator Trey Stewart accuse Mills and Democratic lawmakers of risking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid over a policy affecting a tiny number of students.

TREY STEWART: It's incredibly unfortunate that Maine, which is already a poor state, already heavily reliant on federal funding, is now being jeopardized in our federal funding.

MILLER: Some members of Maine's trans community are alarmed by the policy changes by Washington. Bre Danvers-Kidman, the co-executive director of the Maine Transgender Network, says it feels like the current debate is more about, quote, "adults bullying children" than transgender athletes. But Danvers-Kidman is heartened to see the pushback against Trump from Mills and Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, who is preparing the state's legal defense.

BRE DANVERS-KIDMAN: When there's money involved, I think there's always sort of a question of, like, are people going to stand up for the right thing, or are they going to decide it's not worth it because it's too much money? Because we're not talking about a small amount of money here.

MILLER: Mills has been mostly quiet since her encounter with Trump, but in a written statement, she said the issue isn't about athletics. It's about whether a president can deny a state money over a political dispute. And with billions of dollars at stake in Maine and other states, governors will be watching when the two sides do see each other in court.

For NPR News, I'm Kevin Miller in Augusta, Maine.

---

univ target pending 3 25}:

an 3 25

The Trump administration on Tuesday appeared to step up its clash with Maine's Democratic-led government over the state's support for transgender women who play on women's sports teams, as the University of Maine announced $100 million in its federal funding had been halted.

The university system said the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding was being temporarily paused while the Trump administration investigates whether the University of Maine System (UMS) is violating Title VI or Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin and sex, respectively.

The USDA began a review of UMS compliance with the Civil Rights Act in February, a day after Gov. Janet Mills told President Donald Trump at a White House event that she was prepared to defend Maine's decision to continue allowing transgender students to play on girl's and women's sports teams.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) updated its policies to comply with Trump's executive order requiring the Department of Education to notify school districts that allowing transgender students to compete on women's teams violates Title IX.

"If all of their funding was removed from USDA, that would have a really big impact on farmers on the ground here."

But Mills told Trump that she will "comply with state and federal law." In 2021, Maine's state laws were updated to allow student athletes to compete on teams that correspond to their identity as long as there are no safety concerns.

Since the USDA opened its review of UMS policies, the university system has confirmed to the department that its athletic programs are in compliance with state and federal laws and that its schools that are part of the NCAA are following the association's recently updated policies.

UMS said in a statement Tuesday that after notifying the USDA of its compliance on February 26, it did not hear from the department until the notice of the funding pause was sent on March 10, with the USDA accusing the university of "blatant disregard" for Trump's executive order.

The agency said last month that UMS "receives over $100 million in USDA funding."

UMS said Tuesday that it has received funding from federal agencies including the USDA since its founding in 1865, with the USDA awarding $29.78 million in 2024 for research benefiting the largely rural state.

UMS has used its current USDA funding to invest in numerous projects, including but not limited to:

"If all of their funding was removed from USDA, that would have a really big impact on farmers on the ground here," Sarah Alexander, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, toldReuters last month after the agency launched its review of UMS.

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) denounced the USDA's "vindictive" funding pause, noting that the agency "shared no findings, and offered no opportunity for a hearing."

"It fails to provide any sort of timeline or opportunities for recourse," she said in a statement posted on social media. "Let's be clear about what this latest funding freeze will do: It will hurt farmers and rural Mainers, it will halt critically-needed research innovation, and it will slash educational opportunities for students throughout Maine. Once again, it appears as though this administration is targeting our state for retribution—all because our elected officials are standing up for the rule of law."

---

---

gmail cci

News & Analysis

November 26, 2024

Maine is suing major oil companies and their top trade association for lying about the dangers of fossil fuels and driving the climate crisis that is now battering the coastal state. The lawsuit marks the 9th state to take fossil fuel companies to court over their decades of climate deception.

Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey’s lawsuit accuses Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Sunoco, and the American Petroleum Institute for “failing to warn Mainers and concealing their knowledge about the devastating consequences of the increasing use of fossil fuels on Maine’s people, economy, and environment.”

“For over half a century, these companies chose to fuel profits instead of following their science to prevent what are now likely irreversible, catastrophic climate effects,” said Attorney General Frey, who joined 10 other attorneys general taking Big Oil to court. “In so doing, they burdened the State and our citizens with the consequences of their greed and deception.”

Maine Governor Janet Mills gave her support to the lawsuit, pointing to the toll that extreme weather is taking on the state’s residents and economy. “For decades, big oil companies have made record profits, taking billions out of the pockets of Maine people while deliberately deceiving them about the harmful impacts of fossil fuels – impacts that Maine people see and feel every day,” she said.

Maine is asking for a jury trial in state court. Its lawsuit seeks to make the Big Oil defendants pay for climate damages, stop engaging in deceptive practices, and give up the profits that they illegally obtained while lying to consumers about the dangers of their products.

“With Maine’s lawsuit, the demands that Big Oil faces accountability for decades of climate lies are growing louder and more powerful,” said CCI President Richard Wiles.

===

===

pity

heated 320

it  took Maine Governor Janet Mills 12 days since the first case of novel coronavirus hit to implement the type of restrictive social distancing policies scientists overwhelmingly recommend to halt disease spread, including the closure of nonessential businesses.

It took her only five days, however, to delay the state’s ban on single-use plastic bags, using a scientifically questionable theory that reusable bags pose an outsized risk of spreading COVID-19.

Since Mills’ March 17 order, reusable grocery bags in Maine have become taboo. City officials are now discouraging shopping from bringing them to the store, claiming they will threaten grocery story workers. “According to current research and understanding, COVID-19 can survive on various surfaces for hours and in some cases days,” Portland City Manager Jon Jennings said in a news release last week.

And though Mills was the first state governor in America to give credence to this theory, she hasn’t been the last. Over the weekend, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu outright prohibited shoppers from bringing reusable bags to stores. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker did the same on Wednesday. “From now on, reusable bags are prohibited and all regulations on plastic bag bans are lifted,” he said.

This, however, is likely just the beginning of the plastic industry’s war on reusable bags. Because as the pandemic has picked up steam in America, so too has the industry’s push for policy and culture shifts to encourage single-use plastics, and ban reusable alternatives. Their allies in the news media, oil and gas industry, and conservative think tank world are all quickly lining up behind them—and together, they’re putting pressure on the public and the federal government get on board.

Last week, the Plastics Industry Association asked the Department of Health and Human Services to make a national pronouncement supporting single-use plastics and advocating against reusable grocery bags, claiming they will worsen the pandemic. “Study after study after study have shown that reusable bags can carry viruses and bacteria, spread them throughout a grocery store, and live on surfaces for up to three days,” they claimed.

But those three studies don’t actually say what the industry claims. Taken together, they do not provide sufficient evidence that reusable grocery bags pose a greater threat to consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic than single-use plastic grocery bags.

Let’s go through them one by one.

1) The 10-year-old American Chemistry Council-funded study that looked at 84 reusable bags in two states and found no disease-causing bacteria

The first piece of research that the plastic industry says strongly suggests a correlation between reusable grocery bags and coronavirus spread was this 2010 study funded by the American Chemistry Council, an industry group which represents plastics interests. Conducted by researchers at the University of Arizona, it was published in the journal Food Protection Trends in 2011.

Analyzing just 84 reusable bags collected in California and Arizona, the studies authors concluded that “Large numbers of bacteria were found in almost all bags and coliform bacteria in half.” They did not, however, find any pathogenic bacteria or strains of E. Colithat actually make you sick. As Consumer Reports noted at the time, “They only found bacteria that don’t normally cause disease, but do cause disease in people with weakened immune systems.”

“A person eating an average bag of salad greens gets more exposure to these bacteria than if they had licked the insides of the dirtiest bag from this study,” Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, said in the article. “These bacteria can be found lots of places, so no need to go overboard.”

The reason there was bacteria on the bags was because people didn’t wash them. If people washed the bags, the study said, 99.9 percent of all bacteria was destroyed.

2) The study that looked at 30 reusable bags and said essentially the same thing

The second study, published in the international journalFood Controlin 2019, found microbes capable of causing food-borne illness on the bags. This time, half the bags tested had coliform bacteria on them and some even had E. coli.

This makes sense, again, because the bags had a bunch of food in them, and were not washed or sanitized. As Johns Hopkins University infectious disease specialist told Bustle at the time, “Reusable shopping bags, like anything, can accumulate micoorganisms from the environment. Unless the bag is visibly soiled, most of the risk is not worth worrying about.”

Of course, this means coronavirus could be on your bag, because coronavirus can live on plastic surfaces for up to 3 days. But neither of these studies indicate that it has any greater risk of being on your reusable bag than, say, your money, your phone, or your hands, which also get a lot of use at the grocery story. Nor do they indicate that reusable bags made of plastic have a greater risk of holding the virus than single-use plastic bags, which could be infected with pathogens during transportation, manufacturing, or handling.

Cameron Wolfe, an associate professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Duke University, told the Wall Street Journal something similar, when talking about how companies like Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts have stopped filling customers’ reusable cups out of fear of coronavirus. “It’s drawing a pretty long bow to believe this will be meaningfully impactful,” he said. “It’s an incredibly low likelihood that the cup would be the primary vehicle for transmission to occur.”

The article added: “Coronavirus can survive for a period outside the body and is transmitted through droplets like those generated by a cough or a sneeze. If a cup is infected, its owner probably is too, said Mr. Wolfe, making handing over cash and touching door handles potentially just as risky.

“You’d have a better impact if you told customers with active coughs not to come in, or to use hand sanitizer before approaching the coffee stand,” he said.”

3) The study that looked at one reusable bag that someone had literally vomited next to in a bathroom and then gave to a group of children.

Yeah, honestly, like I can’t even go there with this one. You can read about that study here.

Also, coronavirus is not a norovirus. It is literally not the same thing.

No evidence, no problem

There is certainly a chance that coronavirus could live on our reusable grocery bags if those bags come in contact with an infected person—particularly if those bags are made of plastic. A study published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the novel coronavirus ismoststable on plastic surfaces.

But that also includes single-use plastic surfaces, said Aaron Bernstein, the director of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Center for Climate, Health and the Global Environment. “This suggests that relying on plastic bags may be the best way to ensure the virus persists in the environment and facilitates spread of the disease.”

Clearly, there is still a debate to be had over the efficacy of plastic bag policies for coronavirus—especially since plastic bag bans in themselves are attempts to address climate change and ocean pollution, two other pressing global crises. It would be foolish to prematurely stop an attempt to address two global crises without a baseline sort of consensus that it would even remotely help the other.

The right and its allies, however, appear to have made up their minds.Energy in Depth, a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, wrote an article claiming coronavirus will spread without more single-use plastic bags. The New York Post and the Wall Street Journalhave written editorials in support of reversing bag bans. Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative anti-climate group, is taking out ads on Facebook claiming that plastic bag bans help spread the coronavirus infectio.

[graf twt]

it makes sense why so many right-leaning interest groups would come together on this issue. Before coronavirus, single-use plastic products were falling out of favor, as studies showed they were exacerbating climate change and destroying the ocean. Now, the industry is hoping COVID-19 will make everyone forget all that.

“As the coronavirus spreads across the country, single-use plastics will only become more vital,” Plastics Industry Association President Tony Radoszewski said in a statement last week. “We live longer, healthier, and better because of single-use plastics.”

Bernstein, however, is hoping that we remember something else. “In a crisis, we need science to guide us,” he said. “And that means science done by credible investigators who are supported by organizations without a vested financial interest in a specific outcome of their research.”

==

==

...

Wall Street Journal published an editorial on April 23 that derided electric vehicles in Germany as "dirty," based on a recent study that has been called into question by a number of experts and mainstream German news outlets. The Journal's editorial board, which has a history of climate denial, has attacked both German energy policy and electric vehicles (EVs) before.

The dubious study has also been hyped by climate deniers and right-wing outlets in the U.S., including Infowars and The Daily Caller.

:{...

}:

==

==

great: sometimes one election is all it takes

==

==

maine female gov mills bans 519 styrofoam

===

Maine is poised for a major change in direction on climate and clean-energy policy with the election of Democrat Janet Mills, who will replace term-limited Republican Gov. Paul LePage, an outspoken foe of wind energy who also has sought to reduce how much utilities pay to rooftop solar owners who sell power to the grid. Mills, the state attorney general, would seek to reverse LePage's actions on renewable energy, which could give new lift to Maine's stalled ambitions to develop offshore wind. She defeated Republican Shawn Moody, an auto-body business owner who had said he would carry on LePage's legacy.