vox--2020-11-17--Amazon starts selling prescription drugs, with two-day delivery for Prime members

When Amazon spent $ 750 million to acquire the online pharmacy PillPack in 2018 , it was clear the tech giant had interest in the prescription drug market .
Now we know how serious it was .
Amazon will start selling prescription medications on its main Amazon website and app on Tuesday , and will offer two-day delivery of these medications to Prime members for no extra fee .
Prime members without prescription drug coverage , or with coverage that isn ’ t great , can also save up to 80 percent on generic and 40 percent on brand name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance .
Prices with , and without insurance , can be compared at checkout .
“ Our goal is to make accessing prescription medications as simple as any other purchase : saving customers time , giving them more control over their purchases , and helping them stay healthy , ” Amazon spokesperson Jacqui Miller said in an email .
Prescription drugs are a $ 500 billion market in the US , with patients spending $ 67 billion out of pocket at US retail pharmacies in 2019 , according to IQVIA , a health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retail competitors like Walmart , Target , and Costco all have significant pharmacy presences across their chains of stores , and Amazon wants a piece of that , too .
When Amazon executives talk about the desire to sell every genuine product in the world through Amazon.com , it ’ s now clear that medications aren ’ t excluded .
Amazon ’ s acquisition of PillPack in 2018 gave the company entry into the growing online segment of the pharmacy industry , with a focus on Americans who have chronic illnesses and take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medications for its customers , before shipping them to their door .
An Amazon spokesperson said customers with those prescription medication needs should still order directly through PillPack , which operates five pharmacies in the US and is licensed nationwide , but does not ship to Hawaii .
By offering the option to purchase prescription drugs through the main Amazon website , the tech giant is attempting to appeal to a broader base of consumers who don ’ t take multiple medications daily , but might need a prescription drug in the house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epipen for a food allergy , or prescription pills for anxiety .
However , Amazon ’ s online pharmacy offering isn ’ t a fit — at least not yet — for customers who need a prescription filled the same day for an illness that needs immediate treatment .
Patients who want to use Amazon to purchase medications can instruct their doctor to send prescriptions to Amazon Pharmacy just like any other retail pharmacy .
The company said it accepts “ most ” insurance plans .
The discounts Prime customers get when paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a separate company called Inside Rx .
Inside Rx has relationships with more than 50,000 pharmacy locations , meaning Prime members can also use these discounts at pharmacy competitors like Walmart , Costco , CVS and Walgreens , with the latter two offering free home delivery of prescription medication .
Over its 25-year history , Amazon has convinced online shoppers to trust buying an ever-expanding assortment of product types from the company : from books and DVDs in its early days , to clothing , jewelry and packaged foods , to vitamins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But perhaps no new product launch will test the trust that people have in Amazon more than whether they trust the company with prescription medication .
After all , Amazon does have some counterfeit issues , and last year notified customers that a merchant had sold knockoff supplements through Amazon.com .
Launching the new service in the midst of the pandemic , however , may help the adoption curve , with the potential that more people will want to avoid waiting in line at brick-and-mortar pharmacies as Covid-19 infections soar nationwide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its online grocery business during the pandemic .

When Amazon spent $750 million to acquire the online pharmacy PillPack in 2018, it was clear the tech giant had interest in the prescription drug market. Now we know how serious it was.
Amazon will start selling prescription medications on its main Amazon website and app on Tuesday, and will offer two-day delivery of these medications to Prime members for no extra fee. Prime members without prescription drug coverage, or with coverage that isn’t great, can also save up to 80 percent on generic and 40 percent on brand-name drugs when paying out of pocket without insurance. Prices with and without insurance can be compared at checkout.
“Our goal is to make accessing prescription medications as simple as any other purchase: saving customers time, giving them more control over their purchases, and helping them stay healthy,” Amazon spokesperson Jacqui Miller said in an email.
Prescription drugs are a $500 billion market in the US, with patients spending $67 billion out of pocket at US retail pharmacies in 2019, according to IQVIA, a health data provider. Amazon’s brick-and-mortar retail competitors like Walmart, Target, and Costco all have significant pharmacy presences across their chains of stores, and Amazon wants a piece of that, too. When Amazon executives talk about the desire to sell every genuine product in the world through Amazon.com, it’s now clear that medications aren’t excluded.
Amazon’s acquisition of PillPack in 2018 gave the company entry into the growing online segment of the pharmacy industry, with a focus on Americans who have chronic illnesses and take multiple medications every day. PillPack presorts medications for its customers, before shipping them to their door. An Amazon spokesperson said customers with those prescription medication needs should still order directly through PillPack, which operates five pharmacies in the US and is licensed nationwide, but does not ship to Hawaii.
By offering the option to purchase prescription drugs through the main Amazon website, the tech giant is attempting to appeal to a broader base of consumers who don’t take multiple medications daily but might need a prescription drug in the house — perhaps blood pressure medication, an Epipen for a food allergy, or prescription pills for anxiety. However, Amazon’s online pharmacy offering isn’t a fit — at least not yet — for customers who need a prescription filled the same day for an illness that needs immediate treatment.
Patients who want to use Amazon to purchase medications can instruct their doctor to send prescriptions to Amazon Pharmacy just like any other retail pharmacy. The company said it accepts “most” insurance plans.
The discounts Prime customers get when paying for medication without insurance are administered by a separate company called Inside Rx. Inside Rx has relationships with more than 50,000 pharmacy locations, meaning Prime members can also use these discounts at pharmacy competitors like Walmart, Costco, CVS, and Walgreens, with the latter two offering free home delivery of prescription medication.
Over its 25-year history, Amazon has convinced online shoppers to trust buying an ever-expanding assortment of product types from the company: from books and DVDs in its early days, to clothing, jewelry and packaged foods, to vitamins, supplements, and fresh groceries more recently. But perhaps no new product launch will test the trust that people have in Amazon more than whether they trust the company with prescription medication. After all, Amazon does have some counterfeit issues, and last year notified customers that a merchant had sold knockoff supplements through Amazon.com.
Launching the new service in the midst of the pandemic, however, may help the adoption curve, with the potential that more people will want to avoid waiting in line at brick-and-mortar pharmacies as Covid-19 infections soar nationwide. Amazon has already seen an enormous increase in its online grocery business during the pandemic.


vox--2020-11-17--Why Trump and McConnell are trying — and failing — to push through Fed pick Judy Shelton

Back in 2017 , Judy Shelton said she would “ love ” to be chair of the Federal Reserve but recognized it was unlikely given she was “ sort of tagged with this gold bug idea.
” Three years later , that gold bug idea is stymying her nomination not to the chairmanship but to the Fed ’ s seven-member board of governors .
On Tuesday , the Senate voted to block Shelton ’ s nomination by a 47-50 margin .
It could be brought to the floor again , though it ’ s unclear whether that will happen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his former campaign adviser would be a good fit for the central bank , it turns out at least three Republicans had reservations about Shelton .
That , plus a Covid-19 scare that put two more GOP senators in quarantine this week , doomed the hastily scheduled vote .
Trump has nominated Shelton , who advised his 2016 campaign and most recently served as United States director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development , to one of two open spots on the Fed ’ s governing board .
The Senate Banking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a narrow margin , alongside that of Christopher Waller , from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis .
While Waller is a pretty traditional pick , Shelton is not — in fact , until recently , she was basically considered a no-go to get through a full Senate vote .
Shelton has a long history as a proponent of some pretty unorthodox views , including returning the US to the gold standard , a theory out of step with mainstream economics .
During the Obama years , she was a fierce critic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low , but under Trump , she has changed her tune to align with the president .
In 2019 , she made a habit of giving interviews from the Trump International Hotel in Washington , DC — not exactly a sign of independence .
“ Her views seem to have turned on a dime , either to get a nomination from Trump or because she was nominated by Trump , but it ’ s a little hard to know , ” said Sarah Binder , a senior fellow of governance studies at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Washington University .
“ The issue is which Judy Shelton would show up at the Fed ?
” To be sure , Shelton would be just one of seven members of the Fed ’ s board of governors and one of 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee ( FOMC ) , which is in charge of interest rate setting .
And unless she can convince her colleagues to get on board with her , it ’ s unclear how much power she would actually have .
There was speculation Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chair if he won a second term , but he lost .
Still , many experts , economists , and politicians say her presence is concerning , even if she ’ s not running the show .
“ We clearly need diverse voices at the Fed , ” said Natasha Sarin , an assistant professor of law and finance at the University of Pennsylvania .
“ [ But ] this kind of diversity is just diversity of bad and poorly informed economic thought that is not going to be valuable in any real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous , mostly dangerous to the legitimacy of the Fed.
” What ’ s up with Judy Shelton and the gold standard Shelton , 66 , has been a fixture in conservative politics and economics for quite some time , which means that a lot of things she ’ s written , said , and done are now being scrutinized .
That ’ s been part of the issue with her nomination .
Many of Shelton ’ s critics have focused on her years-long advocacy for the US to return to the gold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy would mean that the value of the dollar would be linked to a set physical amount of gold , silver , or some other marker instead of being a “ floating currency , ” meaning its value fluctuates according to foreign exchange markets , as it does now .
The US abided by the gold standard in the late 19th century but began to abandon it during the Great Depression — for good reason .
Most mainstream economic thinking today rejects returning to the gold standard , which many experts say actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because people hoarded gold after the 1929 stock market crash .
“ The gold standard is a bad means to a bad end , ” wrote former Fed Vice Chair Alan Blinder in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2019 .
President Richard Nixon officially closed the door on the gold standard in 1971 .
Shelton , however , has said , “ let ’ s go back.
” “ Under a gold standard , if people think the paper money printed by government is losing value , they have to switch to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2009 WSJ op-ed .
The same year , Shelton wrote Money Meltdown , which advocated for a unified international monetary regime to return to the gold standard to combat inflation .
In 2012 , she joined TheGoldStandardNow.org , a website dedicated to the issue .
In her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee in February , Shelton was circumspect on her position , saying that she does not advocate “ going back to a prior historical monetary arrangement ” and insisting instead she had simply looked at “ historical systems ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy now .
During the hearing , Shelton also sought to distance herself from past suggestions that the FDIC , which insures bank deposits , encourages risky behavior from banks , and from times she had questioned whether the Fed should act independently from the White House and Congress .
It ’ s highly unlikely the US would go back to the gold standard or that Shelton would be able to change thinking on it at the Fed , but the situation is emblematic of many of the concerns about her nomination in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not really clear which version of Shelton , the pre-Trump one or the post-Trump one , is up for a vote .
Which Shelton would be headed to the Fed ?
While Shelton ’ s unconventional positioning on gold and some other issues make her a bit of an awkward fit at the Fed , even more awkward is how she seems to have contorted her opinions post-Trump compared to pre-Trump .
When Barack Obama was president , she , like Trump , was critical of the Fed for keeping interests rate low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy .
Now that Trump is in the White House , she ’ s had a change of heart .
In 2019 , she told the Washington Post she would “ lower rates as fast , as efficiently , as expeditiously as possible.
” To be clear , this was well before Covid-19 hit , inducing a recession .
It was a position in line with Trump ’ s , who around the same time suggested he might try to get rid of Fed Chair Jerome Powell and often complained that Powell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Post interview , like an interview Shelton did with the Financial Times weeks earlier , took place at the president ’ s DC hotel .
During the interview , she also suggested she ’ d like to host a conference on the gold standard at Trump ’ s Mar-a-Lago .
In other words , she is quite cozy with the president .
If Shelton does wind up on the Fed ’ s board of governors , one big question is what she would advocate for and what she actually believes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ read here is that Shelton believes what she has for most of her career — that the gold standard is good , the Fed is often not , and higher interest rates are often better .
Is it possible she ’ s gotten religion on interest rates and a more accommodative approach from the central bank ?
Sure .
Or she ’ s just gotten religion on Trump .
“ It ’ s up to her which Judy Shelton shows up to the Fed and how she uses her position , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Is it a soapbox for her old position , or is she a true believer in low rates to [ stimulate ] an economy when an economy is under stress ?
” Shelton did not return a request for comment for this story .
The White House declined to comment on the record .
Trump backing Shelton makes sense .
Senate Republicans , not so much .
President Trump has had a rough go with some of his attempted Fed picks , namely , the ones who have been a little off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who most economists and experts agree has done a good job in his post , even though Trump complains about him a lot .
But Trump also attempted to get Herman Cain , the now-deceased former businessman and Tea Partier , and right-wing economist Stephen Moore on the Fed ’ s board of governors in the past .
As Matt Yglesias explained for Vox , those two didn ’ t make it through confirmation : If Shelton is confirmed and , eventually , the more conventional Waller , Trump will have filled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed ’ s board of governors , leaving none left for President-elect Joe Biden to fill himself .
Lael Brainard would remain the only governor appointed by a Democrat , though she is considered a frontrunner to be the next treasury secretary , which would open up her seat .
Before the election , there was speculation that Trump , if reelected , would seek to oust Powell as Fed chair and put Shelton in his place , the idea being she was probably pretty likely to bend to the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , her power within the Fed would likely be quite diminished .
She ’ d only be one voice — and vote — of many .
What ’ s a little murky is why so many Senate Republicans were on board with this .
They could easily confirm Trump ’ s more conventional nominee , Waller , and give the president time to nominate someone else who doesn ’ t hold such extreme views .
Republican Sens .
Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah said they planned to vote against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska last week said she ’ ll support her , which seemingly precipitated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s announcement that he would set a vote on the Senate floor .
But even with Murkowski ’ s yes , it wasn ’ t enough to get Shelton over the top , at least not yet .
On Monday , Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) decided he wouldn ’ t support Shelton after all .
“ I am not convinced that she supports the independence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I believe the Board of Governors should .
I don ’ t want to turn over management of the money supply to a Congress and a president who can ’ t balance the federal budget , ” he said in a statement .
Sens .
Rick Scott ( R-FL ) and Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) are quarantining because of Covid-19 exposure , taking two more Republican votes out of the mix , and Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) , the vice president-elect , traveled to Washington to vote .
McConnell could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor again , but the GOP doesn ’ t have a ton of time to push this one through .
In early December , Democrat Mark Kelly will take over Republican Sen. Martha McSally ’ s seat in Arizona after winning a special election .
“ Coronavirus is resurging , the economy is suffering , and rather than putting out the fire Republicans are fanning the flames with their nominee , ” said Sen. Sherrod Brown ( D-OH ) , ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee , in a statement .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this election they voted for a stable , and competent economic policy , not fringe theories , and a return to the gold standard .
Judy Shelton is not fit for the Federal Reserve ’ s Board of Governors and her nomination must be rejected immediately.
” Judy Shelton is slated to be a governor , not the queen If Trump were sailing to reelection , Shelton ’ s nomination could be quite worrisome .
The Fed is supposed to be independent from political whims , and Shelton appears anything but .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the only president to try to lean on the Fed , though he ’ s done so much more publicly than his predecessors . )
With Biden in office , her position may not be ideal , but it ’ s not the end-all , be-all , either .
“ Shelton ’ s impact on Fed policy-making almost surely won ’ t match the attention her nomination has received .
She can make speeches and give media interviews that will produce headlines and occasionally rankle Fed colleagues , ” wrote Ian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a recent note .
“ But as one vote among what would be seven Fed governors , Shelton ’ s influence will be limited .
Even if she gains a cult following outside the Fed — something we wouldn ’ t rule out — it won ’ t move the other Fed governors.
” “ Absent allies , there ’ s a limit to the impact of any given governor , ” Binder said .
The term Shelton is meant to take over expires in early 2024 , meaning her term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
Still , critics continue to express deep concerns over Shelton .
In January , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) sent Shelton a six-page letter asking her to explain her “ radical ” views and her “ history of forming views on policy based on political loyalties.
” “ One of the very important elements is that where the Fed derives a lot of both respect and importance as an agent of monetary policy has to do with the fact that it is fundamentally independent of political considerations , ” Sarin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ You need smart , qualified people who understand how the financial system works in the real world and are going to be thoughtful about the kinds of interventions that are going to be valuable to help the economy , and I don ’ t need to know anything more about her to understand that she is not that person.
” It ’ s easy to question why Shelton , who in the past has questioned whether a central bank is needed , even really wants the post in the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TheStreet in 2017 about the president ’ s considerations for choosing the next chair of the Federal Reserve , and some of the questions she saw around the issue then are the same ones at issue with her nomination as a governor now .
She talked about her reputation as a “ gold bug ” as well as the Fed ’ s independence and concerns about the president picking someone too close to him .
“ There are always issues if the Fed chairman is seen to be someone who works for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if that ’ s generally a good thing , so that might be a reservation , ” Shelton said .
She also said that she would like to see “ someone who is not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom ” at the Fed .
Now , it looks like that person might be her .

Back in 2017, Judy Shelton said she would “love” to be chair of the Federal Reserve but recognized it was unlikely given she was “sort of tagged with this gold bug idea.” Three years later, that gold bug idea is stymying her nomination not to the chairmanship but to the Fed’s seven-member board of governors.
On Tuesday, the Senate voted to block Shelton’s nomination by a 47-50 margin. It could be brought to the floor again, though it’s unclear whether that will happen. While President Donald Trump may have thought his former campaign adviser would be a good fit for the central bank, it turns out at least three Republicans had reservations about Shelton. That, plus a Covid-19 scare that put two more GOP senators in quarantine this week, doomed the hastily scheduled vote.
Trump has nominated Shelton, who advised his 2016 campaign and most recently served as United States director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, to one of two open spots on the Fed’s governing board. The Senate Banking Committee approved her nomination in July by a narrow margin, alongside that of Christopher Waller, from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. While Waller is a pretty traditional pick, Shelton is not — in fact, until recently, she was basically considered a no-go to get through a full Senate vote.
Shelton has a long history as a proponent of some pretty unorthodox views, including returning the US to the gold standard, a theory out of step with mainstream economics. During the Obama years, she was a fierce critic of the Fed for keeping interest rates low, but under Trump, she has changed her tune to align with the president. In 2019, she made a habit of giving interviews from the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC — not exactly a sign of independence.
“Her views seem to have turned on a dime, either to get a nomination from Trump or because she was nominated by Trump, but it’s a little hard to know,” said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow of governance studies at the Brookings Institution and political science professor at George Washington University. “The issue is which Judy Shelton would show up at the Fed?”
To be sure, Shelton would be just one of seven members of the Fed’s board of governors and one of 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which is in charge of interest rate setting. And unless she can convince her colleagues to get on board with her, it’s unclear how much power she would actually have. There was speculation Trump might try to appoint her as Fed chair if he won a second term, but he lost.
Still, many experts, economists, and politicians say her presence is concerning, even if she’s not running the show.
“We clearly need diverse voices at the Fed,” said Natasha Sarin, an assistant professor of law and finance at the University of Pennsylvania. “[But] this kind of diversity is just diversity of bad and poorly informed economic thought that is not going to be valuable in any real or meaningful way and is honestly just dangerous, mostly dangerous to the legitimacy of the Fed.”
What’s up with Judy Shelton and the gold standard
Shelton, 66, has been a fixture in conservative politics and economics for quite some time, which means that a lot of things she’s written, said, and done are now being scrutinized. That’s been part of the issue with her nomination.
Many of Shelton’s critics have focused on her years-long advocacy for the US to return to the gold standard or something like it. That policy would mean that the value of the dollar would be linked to a set physical amount of gold, silver, or some other marker instead of being a “floating currency,” meaning its value fluctuates according to foreign exchange markets, as it does now. The US abided by the gold standard in the late 19th century but began to abandon it during the Great Depression — for good reason.
Most mainstream economic thinking today rejects returning to the gold standard, which many experts say actually did harm during the Great Depression, because people hoarded gold after the 1929 stock market crash. “The gold standard is a bad means to a bad end,” wrote former Fed Vice Chair Alan Blinder in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2019.
President Richard Nixon officially closed the door on the gold standard in 1971. Shelton, however, has said, “let’s go back.”
“Under a gold standard, if people think the paper money printed by government is losing value, they have to switch to gold,” she wrote in a 2009 WSJ op-ed. The same year, Shelton wrote Money Meltdown, which advocated for a unified international monetary regime to return to the gold standard to combat inflation. In 2012, she joined TheGoldStandardNow.org, a website dedicated to the issue.
In her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee in February, Shelton was circumspect on her position, saying that she does not advocate “going back to a prior historical monetary arrangement” and insisting instead she had simply looked at “historical systems” to gain “valuable insights” to inform policy now.
During the hearing, Shelton also sought to distance herself from past suggestions that the FDIC, which insures bank deposits, encourages risky behavior from banks, and from times she had questioned whether the Fed should act independently from the White House and Congress.
It’s highly unlikely the US would go back to the gold standard or that Shelton would be able to change thinking on it at the Fed, but the situation is emblematic of many of the concerns about her nomination in the first place: It’s not really clear which version of Shelton, the pre-Trump one or the post-Trump one, is up for a vote.
Which Shelton would be headed to the Fed?
While Shelton’s unconventional positioning on gold and some other issues make her a bit of an awkward fit at the Fed, even more awkward is how she seems to have contorted her opinions post-Trump compared to pre-Trump. When Barack Obama was president, she, like Trump, was critical of the Fed for keeping interests rate low and doing too much to help the economy. Now that Trump is in the White House, she’s had a change of heart. In 2019, she told the Washington Post she would “lower rates as fast, as efficiently, as expeditiously as possible.” To be clear, this was well before Covid-19 hit, inducing a recession.
It was a position in line with Trump’s, who around the same time suggested he might try to get rid of Fed Chair Jerome Powell and often complained that Powell’s decisions were not to his liking.
The Post interview, like an interview Shelton did with the Financial Times weeks earlier, took place at the president’s DC hotel. During the interview, she also suggested she’d like to host a conference on the gold standard at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago. In other words, she is quite cozy with the president.
If Shelton does wind up on the Fed’s board of governors, one big question is what she would advocate for and what she actually believes. The cynical (and perhaps likeliest) read here is that Shelton believes what she has for most of her career — that the gold standard is good, the Fed is often not, and higher interest rates are often better. Is it possible she’s gotten religion on interest rates and a more accommodative approach from the central bank? Sure. Or she’s just gotten religion on Trump.
“It’s up to her which Judy Shelton shows up to the Fed and how she uses her position,” said Binder, of the Brookings Institution. “Is it a soapbox for her old position, or is she a true believer in low rates to [stimulate] an economy when an economy is under stress?”
Shelton did not return a request for comment for this story. The White House declined to comment on the record.
Trump backing Shelton makes sense. Senate Republicans, not so much.
President Trump has had a rough go with some of his attempted Fed picks, namely, the ones who have been a little off the beaten path. He appointed Powell, who most economists and experts agree has done a good job in his post, even though Trump complains about him a lot.
But Trump also attempted to get Herman Cain, the now-deceased former businessman and Tea Partier, and right-wing economist Stephen Moore on the Fed’s board of governors in the past. As Matt Yglesias explained for Vox, those two didn’t make it through confirmation:
Cain was a plainly unqualified pick with little relevant experience and a scandal-plagued past. He took himself out of the running a couple of weeks after the story of his potential nomination broke, citing the idea that he could earn more money — and skip the “cumbersome” vetting process — by avoiding government service. That left Moore, whose nomination collapsed after the revelation of a long series of misogynistic writings offered a plausible pretext for Senate Republicans to spike him.
If Shelton is confirmed and, eventually, the more conventional Waller, Trump will have filled all of the open seats on the Fed’s board of governors, leaving none left for President-elect Joe Biden to fill himself. Lael Brainard would remain the only governor appointed by a Democrat, though she is considered a frontrunner to be the next treasury secretary, which would open up her seat.
Before the election, there was speculation that Trump, if reelected, would seek to oust Powell as Fed chair and put Shelton in his place, the idea being she was probably pretty likely to bend to the president’s wishes. Now that Trump has lost, her power within the Fed would likely be quite diminished. She’d only be one voice — and vote — of many.
What’s a little murky is why so many Senate Republicans were on board with this. They could easily confirm Trump’s more conventional nominee, Waller, and give the president time to nominate someone else who doesn’t hold such extreme views. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah said they planned to vote against Shelton’s nomination over the summer, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska last week said she’ll support her, which seemingly precipitated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s announcement that he would set a vote on the Senate floor.
But even with Murkowski’s yes, it wasn’t enough to get Shelton over the top, at least not yet.
On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) decided he wouldn’t support Shelton after all. “I am not convinced that she supports the independence of the Federal Reserve Board as much as I believe the Board of Governors should. I don’t want to turn over management of the money supply to a Congress and a president who can’t balance the federal budget,” he said in a statement.
Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are quarantining because of Covid-19 exposure, taking two more Republican votes out of the mix, and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), the vice president-elect, traveled to Washington to vote.
McConnell could bring a vote on Shelton to the floor again, but the GOP doesn’t have a ton of time to push this one through. In early December, Democrat Mark Kelly will take over Republican Sen. Martha McSally’s seat in Arizona after winning a special election.
“Coronavirus is resurging, the economy is suffering, and rather than putting out the fire Republicans are fanning the flames with their nominee,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, in a statement. “The American people sent a clear message with this election they voted for a stable, and competent economic policy, not fringe theories, and a return to the gold standard. Judy Shelton is not fit for the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and her nomination must be rejected immediately.”
Judy Shelton is slated to be a governor, not the queen
If Trump were sailing to reelection, Shelton’s nomination could be quite worrisome. The Fed is supposed to be independent from political whims, and Shelton appears anything but. (To be fair, Trump isn’t the only president to try to lean on the Fed, though he’s done so much more publicly than his predecessors.) With Biden in office, her position may not be ideal, but it’s not the end-all, be-all, either.
“Shelton’s impact on Fed policy-making almost surely won’t match the attention her nomination has received. She can make speeches and give media interviews that will produce headlines and occasionally rankle Fed colleagues,” wrote Ian Katz, director at Capital Alpha Partners, in a recent note. “But as one vote among what would be seven Fed governors, Shelton’s influence will be limited. Even if she gains a cult following outside the Fed — something we wouldn’t rule out — it won’t move the other Fed governors.”
“Absent allies, there’s a limit to the impact of any given governor,” Binder said.
The term Shelton is meant to take over expires in early 2024, meaning her term would be up before the next presidential election.
Still, critics continue to express deep concerns over Shelton. In January, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) sent Shelton a six-page letter asking her to explain her “radical” views and her “history of forming views on policy based on political loyalties.”
“One of the very important elements is that where the Fed derives a lot of both respect and importance as an agent of monetary policy has to do with the fact that it is fundamentally independent of political considerations,” Sarin, the law and finance professor, said. “You need smart, qualified people who understand how the financial system works in the real world and are going to be thoughtful about the kinds of interventions that are going to be valuable to help the economy, and I don’t need to know anything more about her to understand that she is not that person.”
It’s easy to question why Shelton, who in the past has questioned whether a central bank is needed, even really wants the post in the first place.
I spoke with Shelton for TheStreet in 2017 about the president’s considerations for choosing the next chair of the Federal Reserve, and some of the questions she saw around the issue then are the same ones at issue with her nomination as a governor now.
She talked about her reputation as a “gold bug” as well as the Fed’s independence and concerns about the president picking someone too close to him. “There are always issues if the Fed chairman is seen to be someone who works for the president, I don’t know if that’s generally a good thing, so that might be a reservation,” Shelton said.
She also said that she would like to see “someone who is not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom” at the Fed. Now, it looks like that person might be her.


vox--2020-11-17--Trump’s just-announced troop drawdown from Afghanistan and Iraq, explained

President Donald Trump is planning to withdraw more US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq , bringing a few thousand more service members home but still falling short of his promise to end America ’ s “ forever wars.
” With just two months left in office , the Trump administration is rushing to wind down the decades-long fights he ’ s continually derided .
Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller on Tuesday confirmed in a briefing multiple reports that the US will drop to 2,500 troops in Afghanistan , down from about 4,500 currently , and dwindle to 2,500 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3,000 .
The administration also aims to pull out all 700 service members currently fighting in Somalia .
Miller said the Pentagon is following Trump ’ s orders and that the drawdown “ is consistent with our established plans and strategic objectives , supported by the American people , and does not equate to a change in US policy or objectives .
Moreover , this decision by the president is based on continuous engagement with his national security Cabinet over the past several months.
” The acting Pentagon chief left the briefing room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the withdrawals to happen by January 15 — just five days before President-elect Joe Biden enters the Oval Office .
A senior Afghan official , not authorized to speak publicly , told me “ we haven ’ t yet been informed officially ” about a drawdown .
Mere minutes after Miller ’ s comments , which were echoed by National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien , multiple rockets hit near the US Embassy in Baghdad .
That won ’ t make the announcement any easier to hear for the plan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell , usually an ally of the president , said Monday that “ The consequences of a premature American exit ” from Afghanistan “ would likely be even worse than President Obama ’ s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 , which fueled the rise of ISIS and a new round of global terrorism.
” And on Tuesday , NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that “ the price for leaving too soon or in an uncoordinated way could be very high.
” But it appears the withdrawals are moving forward regardless .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , made more complicated by the rushed , slapdash nature of the drawdown .
“ It ’ s hard to imagine a less responsible way to withdraw , ” said Jason Dempsey , a former Army infantry officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq .
What the Afghanistan and Iraq withdrawals would mean Let ’ s start with Iraq : Experts I spoke to said the removal of around 500 US troops from Iraq , which will leave 2,500 still in the country , won ’ t change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ train , assist , and share intelligence with Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS and some Iranian-backed militias .
While a smaller force makes the job harder , analysts said those who remain could still do those jobs .
After all , the US military is now skilled at conducting operations with an ever-dwindling number of service members in that country .
“ This process of downgrading the US military footprint has been ongoing for some time , ” said Randa Slim , an Iraq expert at the Middle East Institute in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Afghanistan , on the other hand , could have more impact .
US forces are in Afghanistan for two purposes .
The first is to “ train , advise , and assist ” Afghan security forces , alongside NATO allies , to fend off the Taliban .
The second is to counter terrorist threats emanating from the country from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda .
At 2,500 troops , the US will basically have to abandon the training mission and focus solely on the counterterrorism one , said Jonathan Schroden , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Afghanistan at the CNA think tank in Washington , DC .
He said that number is “ basically the floor ” of what ’ s needed to fight terrorists in the country , meaning there wouldn ’ t be many service members left over to help the Afghans with their battle .
However , the US military has provided Afghan troops and police forces with remote support over the past few months due to the coronavirus , Schroden said .
It ’ s therefore possible the departing Americans could still provide similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or somewhere else , such as the Middle East or Europe .
There ’ s another complication : What to do with all the weapons and equipment the US military has in Afghanistan ?
Schroden told me much of the weaponry and vehicles can be shipped out on planes and trucks by mid-January .
But the stuff the US won ’ t have enough time to remove — which could include items like sensitive computer systems , refrigerators , generators , and even entire military bases — will have to be destroyed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into enemy hands .
Finally , there ’ s a larger political question : What does leaving mean for America ’ s diplomatic pact with the Taliban ?
The deal both parties signed earlier this year said all US troops had to leave by May 2021 , assuming conditions in the country are relatively peaceful and the Taliban has upheld its end of the deal , which includes engaging in peace talks with the Afghan government and not attacking international forces .
Those peace talks began in September but are not going very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have increased their attacks on Afghan security forces and civilians across the country in recent months .
Dempsey , the former infantry officer who ’ s now at the Center for a New American Security think tank , said pulling more US troops out of the country as those negotiations proceed could hurt Kabul ’ s negotiating position and encourage even more Taliban attacks .
“ Giving away any leverage you have as you leave is a pretty stupid way to go about it , ” he told me .
The question now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces Trump plans to leave him with .
The president-elect has said he wants to keep at least some troops in Afghanistan to serve as a counterterrorism force , so it ’ s possible he may not change anything when he takes office .
“ In some ways Trump is handing him the force posture that Biden has long advocated for , ” Schroden said .
But the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan could quickly shift later on in Biden ’ s presidency .
For instance , the Taliban could once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government , as they did in 1996 .
Or Iranian-backed militias in Iraq could launch a particularly deadly attack on US forces in that country .
In such scenarios , Biden could decide to send more troops back into those countries to deal with the issues at hand .
Barring such events , though , it ’ s likely a President Biden would keep the troop totals as he found them , at least in the near future .

President Donald Trump is planning to withdraw more US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing a few thousand more service members home but still falling short of his promise to end America’s “forever wars.”
With just two months left in office, the Trump administration is rushing to wind down the decades-long fights he’s continually derided. Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller on Tuesday confirmed in a briefing multiple reports that the US will drop to 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, down from about 4,500 currently, and dwindle to 2,500 in Iraq from the current level of over 3,000. The administration also aims to pull out all 700 service members currently fighting in Somalia.
Miller said the Pentagon is following Trump’s orders and that the drawdown “is consistent with our established plans and strategic objectives, supported by the American people, and does not equate to a change in US policy or objectives. Moreover, this decision by the president is based on continuous engagement with his national security Cabinet over the past several months.” The acting Pentagon chief left the briefing room without taking questions.
The plan is for the withdrawals to happen by January 15 — just five days before President-elect Joe Biden enters the Oval Office. A senior Afghan official, not authorized to speak publicly, told me “we haven’t yet been informed officially” about a drawdown.
Mere minutes after Miller’s comments, which were echoed by National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, multiple rockets hit near the US Embassy in Baghdad.
That won’t make the announcement any easier to hear for the plan’s critics.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, usually an ally of the president, said Monday that “The consequences of a premature American exit” from Afghanistan “would likely be even worse than President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which fueled the rise of ISIS and a new round of global terrorism.” And on Tuesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that “the price for leaving too soon or in an uncoordinated way could be very high.”
But it appears the withdrawals are moving forward regardless. They’ll have serious implications for the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, made more complicated by the rushed, slapdash nature of the drawdown.
“It’s hard to imagine a less responsible way to withdraw,” said Jason Dempsey, a former Army infantry officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What the Afghanistan and Iraq withdrawals would mean
Let’s start with Iraq: Experts I spoke to said the removal of around 500 US troops from Iraq, which will leave 2,500 still in the country, won’t change much. The US is there to train, assist, and share intelligence with Iraqi forces in their fight against ISIS and some Iranian-backed militias. While a smaller force makes the job harder, analysts said those who remain could still do those jobs.
After all, the US military is now skilled at conducting operations with an ever-dwindling number of service members in that country. “This process of downgrading the US military footprint has been ongoing for some time,” said Randa Slim, an Iraq expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.
The troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, on the other hand, could have more impact.
US forces are in Afghanistan for two purposes. The first is to “train, advise, and assist” Afghan security forces, alongside NATO allies, to fend off the Taliban. The second is to counter terrorist threats emanating from the country from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
At 2,500 troops, the US will basically have to abandon the training mission and focus solely on the counterterrorism one, said Jonathan Schroden, an expert on America’s military efforts in Afghanistan at the CNA think tank in Washington, DC. He said that number is “basically the floor” of what’s needed to fight terrorists in the country, meaning there wouldn’t be many service members left over to help the Afghans with their battle.
However, the US military has provided Afghan troops and police forces with remote support over the past few months due to the coronavirus, Schroden said. It’s therefore possible the departing Americans could still provide similar assistance while stationed back in the US or somewhere else, such as the Middle East or Europe.
There’s another complication: What to do with all the weapons and equipment the US military has in Afghanistan? Schroden told me much of the weaponry and vehicles can be shipped out on planes and trucks by mid-January. But the stuff the US won’t have enough time to remove — which could include items like sensitive computer systems, refrigerators, generators, and even entire military bases — will have to be destroyed in order to keep it from potentially falling into enemy hands.
Finally, there’s a larger political question: What does leaving mean for America’s diplomatic pact with the Taliban? The deal both parties signed earlier this year said all US troops had to leave by May 2021, assuming conditions in the country are relatively peaceful and the Taliban has upheld its end of the deal, which includes engaging in peace talks with the Afghan government and not attacking international forces.
Those peace talks began in September but are not going very well — not least because Taliban fighters have increased their attacks on Afghan security forces and civilians across the country in recent months.
Dempsey, the former infantry officer who’s now at the Center for a New American Security think tank, said pulling more US troops out of the country as those negotiations proceed could hurt Kabul’s negotiating position and encourage even more Taliban attacks. “Giving away any leverage you have as you leave is a pretty stupid way to go about it,” he told me.
The question now is what Biden would do with the forces Trump plans to leave him with. The president-elect has said he wants to keep at least some troops in Afghanistan to serve as a counterterrorism force, so it’s possible he may not change anything when he takes office. “In some ways Trump is handing him the force posture that Biden has long advocated for,” Schroden said.
But the situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan could quickly shift later on in Biden’s presidency. For instance, the Taliban could once again attempt a forcible takeover of the Afghan government, as they did in 1996. Or Iranian-backed militias in Iraq could launch a particularly deadly attack on US forces in that country. In such scenarios, Biden could decide to send more troops back into those countries to deal with the issues at hand.
Barring such events, though, it’s likely a President Biden would keep the troop totals as he found them, at least in the near future.


vox--2020-11-17--The Nest is a taut thriller about the perils of envy

Movies about grand old houses ( or small creaky ones ) that turn against their inhabitants are bread and butter for the horror genre .
There ’ s something so terrifying about the space you most intimately inhabit suddenly becoming your enemy .
And frequently , the houses in these kinds of films are a metaphor for the mind of their inhabitants — a house possessed of ghosts or malevolent spirits taps into a deeper fear of being personally possessed .
The Nest isn ’ t a haunted house movie , per se , but it draws on some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It frequently feels as if something sinister is lurking around every corner .
But the most sinister element in The Nest — and the most terrifying — is the havoc that blind ambition wreaks when it ’ s tied to a feeling of wounded entitlement .
That ’ s the gargoyle that hovers around Rory ( Jude Law ) , a wildly successful entrepreneur who moves his American family back to his native England for a job he ’ s eager to take .
His wife Allison ( Carrie Coon ) , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US , but she goes along with it .
And his stepdaughter Samantha ( Oona Roche ) and son Ben ( Charlie Shotwell ) adjust to their new lives well enough .
They ’ ve moved around a lot .
They know the drill .
The family moves into a gargantuan old house on a handsome Surrey estate , where they settle into a patrician sort of life .
Allison gets a new horse .
Samantha and Ben enroll at new schools ; Ben ’ s is so exclusive that Rory has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rory and Allison attend fancy dinners at the fancy houses of their friends and work colleagues .
Rory revels in the happiness of his boss , who was once his mentor and now is delighted to be working with him again .
All seems well .
But it ’ s not , of course .
The Nest is at its core a story of a seemingly solid family whose cracks slowly become exposed .
For Rory , success is an image you project and an ideal you chase .
He ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allison , trying to roll with the punches and be a supportive wife and mother is outwardly possible , but inwardly tumultuous .
Reminiscent of films like The Ice Storm , and set in the capitalistic excesses of the 1980s , The Nest is a thriller that doesn ’ t need the possibility of the supernatural to feel tense .
Director Sean Durkin ’ s 2011 film Martha Marcy May Marlene was a tale of domestic life , as well — the story of a woman who leaves an abusive cult , returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delusions and paranoia so severe that her family isn ’ t sure how to react .
The Nest is similar , in some key ways .
It explores the way our mental furniture is arranged by our past experiences and , more importantly , by how we process those experiences .
Rory ’ s drive isn ’ t a product of simple ambition ; it comes from his reaction to past trauma .
And that response could lead to dire consequences for the people he loves most .
But what really makes The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From the first shot , it ’ s evident that something is about to go down , but that shot is just two cars sitting in front of a house for what seems to be an eerily long time .
Later , gorgeously composed wide shots of rooms leave plenty of space for the imagination to run wild , and the light flickering on Allison ’ s face speaks volumes more than any dialogue could .
It ’ s pure pleasure to watch a film like The Nest , which is scary for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeling unsettled at the end .
A house is just a home , unless it ’ s an externalization of what ’ s going on in someone ’ s head .
And when it comes to messy families , there are no easy solutions .
After a brief run in limited theaters , The Nest is available on a number of digital services ; check the film ’ s website for details .

Movies about grand old houses (or small creaky ones) that turn against their inhabitants are bread and butter for the horror genre. There’s something so terrifying about the space you most intimately inhabit suddenly becoming your enemy. And frequently, the houses in these kinds of films are a metaphor for the mind of their inhabitants — a house possessed of ghosts or malevolent spirits taps into a deeper fear of being personally possessed.
The Nest isn’t a haunted house movie, per se, but it draws on some of the visual tropes of the genre. It frequently feels as if something sinister is lurking around every corner.
Rating: 4.5 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
But the most sinister element in The Nest — and the most terrifying — is the havoc that blind ambition wreaks when it’s tied to a feeling of wounded entitlement. That’s the gargoyle that hovers around Rory (Jude Law), a wildly successful entrepreneur who moves his American family back to his native England for a job he’s eager to take. His wife Allison (Carrie Coon), a horse trainer, is reticent to leave the US, but she goes along with it. And his stepdaughter Samantha (Oona Roche) and son Ben (Charlie Shotwell) adjust to their new lives well enough. They’ve moved around a lot. They know the drill.
The family moves into a gargantuan old house on a handsome Surrey estate, where they settle into a patrician sort of life. Allison gets a new horse. Samantha and Ben enroll at new schools; Ben’s is so exclusive that Rory has to wrangle a spot for him. Rory and Allison attend fancy dinners at the fancy houses of their friends and work colleagues. Rory revels in the happiness of his boss, who was once his mentor and now is delighted to be working with him again. All seems well.
But it’s not, of course. The Nest is at its core a story of a seemingly solid family whose cracks slowly become exposed. For Rory, success is an image you project and an ideal you chase. He’s a man with something to prove. For Allison, trying to roll with the punches and be a supportive wife and mother is outwardly possible, but inwardly tumultuous.
Reminiscent of films like The Ice Storm, and set in the capitalistic excesses of the 1980s, The Nest is a thriller that doesn’t need the possibility of the supernatural to feel tense. Director Sean Durkin’s 2011 film Martha Marcy May Marlene was a tale of domestic life, as well — the story of a woman who leaves an abusive cult, returns home to her family, and experiences delusions and paranoia so severe that her family isn’t sure how to react.
The Nest is similar, in some key ways. It explores the way our mental furniture is arranged by our past experiences and, more importantly, by how we process those experiences. Rory’s drive isn’t a product of simple ambition; it comes from his reaction to past trauma. And that response could lead to dire consequences for the people he loves most.
But what really makes The Nest compelling is its visual style. From the first shot, it’s evident that something is about to go down, but that shot is just two cars sitting in front of a house for what seems to be an eerily long time. Later, gorgeously composed wide shots of rooms leave plenty of space for the imagination to run wild, and the light flickering on Allison’s face speaks volumes more than any dialogue could.
It’s pure pleasure to watch a film like The Nest, which is scary for all the right reasons and leaves you feeling unsettled at the end. A house is just a home, unless it’s an externalization of what’s going on in someone’s head. And when it comes to messy families, there are no easy solutions.
After a brief run in limited theaters, The Nest is available on a number of digital services; check the film’s website for details.


vox--2020-11-17--How shifting from meat-heavy to plant-based diets can help allay the climate crisis

Many of the massive wildfires that have scorched the Amazon this summer and in recent years can be linked to dinner plates in China and other countries around the world .
Cattle ranchers have been using illegal burning to tame the rainforest into pastureland to meet rising global beef demand , a strategy that spells disaster for climate change and biodiversity .
These fires are but the latest distress signal from a deeply unsustainable global food system .
Emissions are embedded in every part of the food supply chain , from deforestation to grow crops or raise cattle , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nitrous oxide — to rice fields and cow burps , which emit methane , another potent greenhouse gas .
A new study published in Science reveals just how important tackling food-related emissions is to mitigating the swiftly accelerating climate crisis .
For the first time , the researchers isolated food system emissions and showed that these emissions alone will most likely put the Paris agreement climate targets out of reach .
Even if all non-food greenhouse gas emissions were cut off today , the researchers project that food systems emissions would cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degrees Celsius temperature rise around the middle of the century .
That is under their business-as-usual scenario in which food system trends from the past 50 years extend forward .
The food system is responsible for about 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions currently , and these emissions are expected to rise rapidly as people around the world become more affluent and consume more meat and dairy products .
Given that dire trend , immediate changes to the way we produce and eat food are essential to stay within the Paris agreement targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Oxford University who co-authored the study .
“ The best time would have been 20 years ago , but the second-best time to start talking about food is now , ” he said .
The study models five interventions to rapidly cut food emissions .
The most effective , according to the authors , is the global adoption of a plant-rich diet .
Yet relying on individuals to make a massive behavior change , especially in wealthy countries like the US where per capita meat consumption is far above the global average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the urgency of the climate crisis .
Which means policymakers need to get more creative , and ambitious , to help consumers eat less meat and dairy .
So far , governments have been slow to embrace dietary change as a climate solution , but they can draw from public health policies that have successfully changed diets to start taking action .
The global food system alone could use up all the remaining carbon budget According to the Science study , food system emissions alone will nearly eat up the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise , we have only 1,500 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent left to emit by the end of the century .
Under the business-as-usual scenario , food emissions would take up 1,356 gigatons , leaving almost no room for other sectors .
Of course , the food system will need to share that budget with the biggest source of emissions : the energy sector .
So the researchers modeled a scenario showing how both the non-food and food sectors would need to decarbonize to stay within the Paris agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they assume that emissions from fossil fuel combustion ( in both food and non-food sectors ) decline to net zero by 2050 .
Against this backdrop , we can see how significantly the food system will have to change to prevent crossing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold .
In the chart below , the researchers show the effect of five key emissions reduction measures in the food system .
On the consumption side , they model the effect of a plant-rich diet ( with moderate dairy , eggs , and meat ) and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 2,100 calories ) .
On the production side , they show how improved crop yields and more efficient agricultural production , including decreased fertilizer use , could make a difference .
The fifth strategy , reducing waste , would take combined effort from food consumers and producers .
As the chart shows , if everyone ate a plant-rich diet ( based on the EAT-Lancet recommendations ) , that would be the single most effective emissions reduction strategy .
“ That diet doesn ’ t have to look the same for everyone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can be adapted based on cultural and personal preferences .
And geographically , implementing this diet will look different .
Western countries will consume less meat than they do currently , and other countries will consume more , Clark explained .
But plant-rich eating alone would likely not be sufficient to stay within 1.5 degrees .
Instead , the food system will need to be changed using a combination of strategies : the bar to the right on the chart shows that if all five strategies were implemented at a 50 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degrees .
Dietary change is fraught , but public health policies can provide guidance Reducing the consumption of animal products is critical because they have an outsize carbon footprint .
Meat , dairy , eggs , and aquaculture account for around 56 percent of food-related greenhouse gases while only providing 37 percent of protein and 18 percent of calories , according to a 2018 study in Science .
Plant-based “ burgers ” may be trending , but so far they haven ’ t made a dent in consumption patterns in the US .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the US has hovered around 5 to 6 percent from 1999 to 2018 .
And per capita meat consumption has been rising in the US , although researchers project that it could go down this year due to the impact of Covid-19 on the meat industry .
So for people to start eating more plant protein in line with climate targets , strong policies are needed .
Unfortunately , governments have taken very little action to date .
“ It is not easy to change what we eat , ” said Mario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agriculture and Food at CSIRO , Australia ’ s national science research agency , who was not involved in the Science study .
“ There are very few proven policies that will actually change consumption patterns.
” A review of policies related to sustainable food consumption , published in Sustainability in July , found that almost no policies targeted animal products .
“ Governments seem to be reluctant to address meat and dairy consumption , ” the authors wrote , suggesting that the political influence of these industries may be a factor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The strongest examples of government action to popularize plant-based diets are dietary guidelines in the UK , Ireland , and the Netherlands , which propose limiting meat consumption .
But of course these are just guidelines , and most people in Western countries do not eat a diet aligned with their country ’ s guidelines , according to the review .
Looking at global climate targets , dietary policies and targets are also conspicuously absent .
An analysis by the World Wildlife Fund published in August found that agricultural measures in plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on food production rather than food waste and diets .
The good news is that countries have public health policies to draw experience from .
The Sustainability review highlights some existing food policies that have been effective and could be adapted to help drive a shift toward plant-based diets .
These policies range from mandatory “ hard ” policies to “ soft ” educational policies and behavioral nudges .
One of the most well-established policies is taxing consumption to change diets .
Taxes on alcohol and soft drinks for public health purposes have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the review .
Taking a cue , leading health organizations in the UK are now calling for a carbon price on meat and other foods with a large environmental footprint .
But an issue with these consumption taxes is that they affect low-income consumers more than high-income consumers who can stomach extra costs .
The review authors suggest that conjoining taxes on unsustainable and unhealthy foods with subsidies for healthy foods could even out the costs for low-income consumers .
Along with taxes , there is also good evidence that providing healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and government cafeterias can drive healthier eating habits .
“ Starting with the younger generations and creating good habits is really important , ” said Herrero .
Softer policies like food labeling and dietary guidelines are less effective , but may be helpful in increasing people ’ s awareness of the impact of their food choices .
Beyond meat : Food production needs to change too The widespread adoption of a plant-rich diet has the highest potential impact , according to the Science study , but other changes to the food system will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is critical , but it has been a formidable challenge across the world on both ends of the supply chain , according to Herrero .
“ It ’ s criminal sometimes how much we waste in households , ” he said , pointing to the US in particular .
Unfortunately , he said that not much progress has been made on waste in recent decades .
Luckily , on the food production side there is still room for improvement on other fronts in many countries .
“ We do know that a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential to increase yields while reducing sort of harmful nutrients and other types of inputs , ” said Kimberly Carlson , a land systems scientist at New York University who was not involved in the study .
China , for instance , uses way more nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizer than is needed , she said .
A study published in Nature in 2018 showed how farms in China could become more efficient .
Researchers used crop models to optimize planting and fertilizer use across small farms in China .
These improved farm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers through the study , leading to a reduction in fertilizer use and increased yields .
These changes reduced the greenhouse gas emissions from these farms by almost 8 percent on average .
Reducing fertilizer use and improving yields will make farms more efficient , which in turn helps conserve land .
The World Wildlife Fund also recommends that countries actively work to prevent more natural habitat from being converted into farmland so that these natural ecosystems can continue to serve as carbon sinks and biodiversity hot spots .
For now , global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissions are nowhere close to the scale needed , according to Clark .
Food system emissions could rise as much as 80 percent from 2010 to 2050 .
Clark hopes the new study will help sound the alarm .
“ Everybody has a role to play , and everybody has some responsibility in terms of changing how we behave , how we interact with food , to make this more climate-friendly food system .
”

Many of the massive wildfires that have scorched the Amazon this summer and in recent years can be linked to dinner plates in China and other countries around the world. Cattle ranchers have been using illegal burning to tame the rainforest into pastureland to meet rising global beef demand, a strategy that spells disaster for climate change and biodiversity.
These fires are but the latest distress signal from a deeply unsustainable global food system. Emissions are embedded in every part of the food supply chain, from deforestation to grow crops or raise cattle, as in Brazil — which releases carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide — to rice fields and cow burps, which emit methane, another potent greenhouse gas.
A new study published in Science reveals just how important tackling food-related emissions is to mitigating the swiftly accelerating climate crisis. For the first time, the researchers isolated food system emissions and showed that these emissions alone will most likely put the Paris agreement climate targets out of reach.
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
Even if all non-food greenhouse gas emissions were cut off today, the researchers project that food systems emissions would cause us to cross the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature rise around the middle of the century. That is under their business-as-usual scenario in which food system trends from the past 50 years extend forward.
The food system is responsible for about 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions currently, and these emissions are expected to rise rapidly as people around the world become more affluent and consume more meat and dairy products.
Given that dire trend, immediate changes to the way we produce and eat food are essential to stay within the Paris agreement targets, said Michael Clark, a researcher at Oxford University who co-authored the study. “The best time would have been 20 years ago, but the second-best time to start talking about food is now,” he said.
The study models five interventions to rapidly cut food emissions. The most effective, according to the authors, is the global adoption of a plant-rich diet. Yet relying on individuals to make a massive behavior change, especially in wealthy countries like the US where per capita meat consumption is far above the global average, is difficult and risky, given the urgency of the climate crisis.
Which means policymakers need to get more creative, and ambitious, to help consumers eat less meat and dairy. So far, governments have been slow to embrace dietary change as a climate solution, but they can draw from public health policies that have successfully changed diets to start taking action.
The global food system alone could use up all the remaining carbon budget
According to the Science study, food system emissions alone will nearly eat up the world’s remaining carbon budget. To stay below 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise, we have only 1,500 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent left to emit by the end of the century. Under the business-as-usual scenario, food emissions would take up 1,356 gigatons, leaving almost no room for other sectors.
Of course, the food system will need to share that budget with the biggest source of emissions: the energy sector. So the researchers modeled a scenario showing how both the non-food and food sectors would need to decarbonize to stay within the Paris agreement climate targets. In this scenario, they assume that emissions from fossil fuel combustion (in both food and non-food sectors) decline to net zero by 2050.
Against this backdrop, we can see how significantly the food system will have to change to prevent crossing the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold.
In the chart below, the researchers show the effect of five key emissions reduction measures in the food system. On the consumption side, they model the effect of a plant-rich diet (with moderate dairy, eggs, and meat) and a healthy calorie diet (limited to around 2,100 calories). On the production side, they show how improved crop yields and more efficient agricultural production, including decreased fertilizer use, could make a difference. The fifth strategy, reducing waste, would take combined effort from food consumers and producers.
As the chart shows, if everyone ate a plant-rich diet (based on the EAT-Lancet recommendations), that would be the single most effective emissions reduction strategy. “That diet doesn’t have to look the same for everyone,” said Oxford’s Clark; it can be adapted based on cultural and personal preferences. And geographically, implementing this diet will look different. Western countries will consume less meat than they do currently, and other countries will consume more, Clark explained.
But plant-rich eating alone would likely not be sufficient to stay within 1.5 degrees. Instead, the food system will need to be changed using a combination of strategies: the bar to the right on the chart shows that if all five strategies were implemented at a 50 percent level, we could stay below 1.5 degrees.
Dietary change is fraught, but public health policies can provide guidance
Reducing the consumption of animal products is critical because they have an outsize carbon footprint. Meat, dairy, eggs, and aquaculture account for around 56 percent of food-related greenhouse gases while only providing 37 percent of protein and 18 percent of calories, according to a 2018 study in Science.
Plant-based “burgers” may be trending, but so far they haven’t made a dent in consumption patterns in the US. Gallup polling shows the rate of vegetarianism in the US has hovered around 5 to 6 percent from 1999 to 2018. And per capita meat consumption has been rising in the US, although researchers project that it could go down this year due to the impact of Covid-19 on the meat industry.
So for people to start eating more plant protein in line with climate targets, strong policies are needed. Unfortunately, governments have taken very little action to date.
“It is not easy to change what we eat,” said Mario Herrero, the chief research scientist of Agriculture and Food at CSIRO, Australia’s national science research agency, who was not involved in the Science study. “There are very few proven policies that will actually change consumption patterns.”
A review of policies related to sustainable food consumption, published in Sustainability in July, found that almost no policies targeted animal products.
“Governments seem to be reluctant to address meat and dairy consumption,” the authors wrote, suggesting that the political influence of these industries may be a factor, along with a lack of popular support.
The strongest examples of government action to popularize plant-based diets are dietary guidelines in the UK, Ireland, and the Netherlands, which propose limiting meat consumption. But of course these are just guidelines, and most people in Western countries do not eat a diet aligned with their country’s guidelines, according to the review.
Looking at global climate targets, dietary policies and targets are also conspicuously absent. An analysis by the World Wildlife Fund published in August found that agricultural measures in plans countries filed under the Paris agreement focused on food production rather than food waste and diets.
The good news is that countries have public health policies to draw experience from. The Sustainability review highlights some existing food policies that have been effective and could be adapted to help drive a shift toward plant-based diets. These policies range from mandatory “hard” policies to “soft” educational policies and behavioral nudges.
One of the most well-established policies is taxing consumption to change diets. Taxes on alcohol and soft drinks for public health purposes have been shown to decrease consumption, according to the review. Taking a cue, leading health organizations in the UK are now calling for a carbon price on meat and other foods with a large environmental footprint.
But an issue with these consumption taxes is that they affect low-income consumers more than high-income consumers who can stomach extra costs. The review authors suggest that conjoining taxes on unsustainable and unhealthy foods with subsidies for healthy foods could even out the costs for low-income consumers.
Along with taxes, there is also good evidence that providing healthy food in public settings such as schools and government cafeterias can drive healthier eating habits. “Starting with the younger generations and creating good habits is really important,” said Herrero.
Softer policies like food labeling and dietary guidelines are less effective, but may be helpful in increasing people’s awareness of the impact of their food choices.
Beyond meat: Food production needs to change too
The widespread adoption of a plant-rich diet has the highest potential impact, according to the Science study, but other changes to the food system will also be essential.
Food waste reduction is critical, but it has been a formidable challenge across the world on both ends of the supply chain, according to Herrero. “It’s criminal sometimes how much we waste in households,” he said, pointing to the US in particular. Unfortunately, he said that not much progress has been made on waste in recent decades.
Luckily, on the food production side there is still room for improvement on other fronts in many countries.
“We do know that a lot of agriculture in the world has the potential to increase yields while reducing sort of harmful nutrients and other types of inputs,” said Kimberly Carlson, a land systems scientist at New York University who was not involved in the study. China, for instance, uses way more nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizer than is needed, she said.
A study published in Nature in 2018 showed how farms in China could become more efficient. Researchers used crop models to optimize planting and fertilizer use across small farms in China. These improved farm management practices were adopted by 20.5 million farmers through the study, leading to a reduction in fertilizer use and increased yields. These changes reduced the greenhouse gas emissions from these farms by almost 8 percent on average.
Reducing fertilizer use and improving yields will make farms more efficient, which in turn helps conserve land. The World Wildlife Fund also recommends that countries actively work to prevent more natural habitat from being converted into farmland so that these natural ecosystems can continue to serve as carbon sinks and biodiversity hot spots.
For now, global policies and actions to reduce food system emissions are nowhere close to the scale needed, according to Clark. Food system emissions could rise as much as 80 percent from 2010 to 2050.
Clark hopes the new study will help sound the alarm. “Everybody has a role to play, and everybody has some responsibility in terms of changing how we behave, how we interact with food, to make this more climate-friendly food system.”