Stuff YOU Should Know
Boeing Grounds Faulty Planes
You may remember the two major fatal airline crashes that occurred in the last couple of years: one into the Java Sea in October 2018, and the other in Ethiopia in March 2019. Together, these two crashes took 346 lives. Both planes were the same type: the Boeing 737 Max jetliner. According to Boeing, both of the crashes were caused by software failures. As a result, following the March crash, Boeing grounded all of its 737s, although it kept on building them in the meantime. But last week, the company has announced that it will now go a step further, and stop producing the plane model–at least for now.
Since the March crash, Boeing says it has fixed its software issues. But the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) won’t be able to sign off on these fixes until at least February. So in the meantime, rather than producing new planes, Boeing will work on delivering the ones it has been building since March (roughly 400 new planes are currently in storage). The company promises that no jobs will be lost as a result of this decision and that the people who are currently employed to work on the 737 will be temporarily reassigned to other jobs. But there will still be major fallout from this decision. About 900 companies around the world who supply the 737 Max will be affected. And because the 737 is the country’s biggest exported manufactured project, there is likely to be a pretty big economic impact nationwide.
Dig Deeper Use Internet resources to determine how many plane crashes happened in 2019. Was that number significantly higher or lower than in previous years? What are the reasons for this trend?
California’s Light Bulb Battle
Once again, California is butting heads with the Trump administration over environmental regulations. The issue this time? Light bulbs.
Here’s the story: Under the Obama administration, the federal government passed a plan to phase out all “traditional” light bulbs and replace them with energy-efficient LED bulbs (LED lights use 75 to 80 percent less energy than traditional ones). The new requirement was set to take effect this month. But last September, President Trump withdrew the new standards. In November, sixteen states responded by suing the federal government, with California pledging to go ahead with the Obama-era plan in January anyway. Two lighting companies then petitioned the courts to put a temporary restraining order on the California Energy Commission to prevent the Obama-era standards from taking effect. But last week, a federal judge denied the restraining order. This allows California to begin enforcing the new standards immediately.
Light bulbs may not seem like a pressing environmental issue. But the move to improve energy-efficient lighting has received widespread bipartisan support; in fact, the Obama-era plan actually began with the Bush administration. Rolling back these energy efficiency requirements and sticking with the old bulbs will mean higher energy bills and more pollution. In fact, experts estimate that sticking with traditional bulbs will cost consumers billions of dollars over time, as well as releasing millions of tons of carbon emissions into the environment.
Dig Deeper Using Internet resources, estimate how much money your family would save over a year’s time if you replaced five traditional bulbs in your home with energy-efficient LED bulbs.
Israeli Prime Minister Seeks Immunity Against Legal Charges
Right now, American headlines are full of updates about Trump’s impeachment trial. But meanwhile, a similar situation is unfolding in Israel. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been accused of corruption in his own quid pro quo situation: giving favors to leaders of the press in exchange for them publishing positive things about him and giving him expensive gifts. Though there are many examples of this, the most serious is that he allegedly pushed for legislation that would help a telecom company, in exchange for them publishing favorable things about him on their news site. Netanyahu even had input over the hiring and firing of the news site’s editors and reporters. In other instances, he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of cigars, jewelry, and other expensive gifts in exchange for supporting certain pieces of legislation.
Originally, Netanyahu said that the charges against him were false and would never actually hold up. Now, however, Netanyahu has changed his tune, saying that he is planning to seek immunity from the charges. Last Wednesday, he gave a speech stating that the country’s immunity laws exist in order to protect elected officials from false attacks and made-up charges.
Israeli elections are scheduled for March 2, with Netanyahu facing off against Benny Gantz. The immunity issue could become a major factor; according to Gantz, Netanyahu’s attempt to seek immunity is an example of him trying to put himself above the law. Polls show that most Israelis oppose immunity in this case.
What Do You Think? In your opinion, should elected officials be immune from legal charges made against them while they’re in office? Why or why not?
Tobacco 21?
Over the past year, several steps have been taken to curb the youth vaping epidemic, including pulling all “fun” flavors (such as fruit and mint) from shelves. But now, the federal government is going a step further, and raising the national age of tobacco use from 18 to 21. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia (along with hundreds of cities) have already adopted a “Tobacco 21” policy, but this would put the new age limit into effect nationwide. The goal is to make it more difficult for teenagers to access tobacco and e-cigarettes.
That’s a step in the right direction, right? Maybe. While some public health experts believe that the new rule will make a positive difference, others aren’t so sure. Those who are against it are skeptical that raising the legal age will actually make any real impact. These critics say that a better move would be to remove all e-cigarette flavors that don’t taste like tobacco. The White House and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) originally supported the removal of all non-tobacco flavors, but under pressure from vape-shop owners and other conservative groups, Trump backed down. Those experts who are suspicious of the new legislation (raising the purchasing age) point to the fact that several Big Tobacco groups support it, because they would rather take this step than eliminating non-tobacco e-cigarette flavors. Other public health experts say that the only true way to curb youth tobacco use is by improving education.