Harv's Corner

​China sets new climate goal to cut emissions up to 10%

Announcement comes amid U.N, meeting to curb heat-trapping gases.
​
By SETH BORENSTEIN and MELINA WALLING • The Associated Press

TIBETAN SHEEP GRASE AT A SOLAR FARM IN HAINAN PREFECTURE OF CHINA'S QINGHIA PROVINCE. CHINA IS THE WORLDS LARGEST CARBON-POLLUTING NATION.

​China, the world's largest carbon-polluting nation, has announced a new climate fighting goal to cut emissions by 7% to 10% by 2035.

It came as more than 100 world leaders lined up Wednesday to talk of increased urgency and the need for stronger efforts to curb the spewing of heat-trapping gases.

With major international climate negotiations in Brazil 6 ½ weeks away, the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres convened a special leaders summit during the General Assembly to focus on climate change.

The idea is to get the countries to submit warming-fighting plans that are stronger, incorporate them throughout their economies and have them in line with an international temperature limit goal that is fast slipping away from reality.

" The science demands action. The law commands it. The economics compel it. And people are calling for it," Guterres said in opening the Wednesday afternoon marathon session with 121 leaders scheduled to speak.

"Warming appears to be accelerating," climate scientist Johan Rockstrom said in a science briefing that started the summit. "Here we must admit failure. Failure to protect peoples and nations from unmanageable impacts of humaninduced climate change."

"We're dangerously close to triggering fundamental and irreversible change," Rockstrom said.

Under the 2015 Paris climate accord, 195 nations are supposed to submit new more stringent five-year plans on how to curb carbon emissions from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Technically the deadline was in February and about 50 nations — responsible for one-quarter of the world's carbon emissions — have filed theirs, including Pakistan, Micronesia, Mongolia, Liberia and Vanuatu.

All of those nations submitted on Wednesday. U.N. officials said countries really need to get their plans in by the end of the month so the U.N. can calculate how much more warming Earth is on track for if nations do what they promise.

Before 2015, the world was on path for 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit of warming since preindustrial times, but now has trimmed that to 4.7 degrees, Guterres said.

However, the Paris accord set a goal of limiting warming to 2.7 degrees since the mid 19th century and the world has already warmed about 2.3 degrees since.

Kenyan President William Ruto said Wednesday that climate change was both the single greatest threat and development opportunity facing Africa, with the right action making the difference between survival and devastation.

Without urgent action on climate change the world is "walking blindfolded towards the abyss," Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said in a speech that opened the General Assembly on Tuesday.
​
"Bombs and nuclear weapons will not protect us from the climate crisis," said Lula, who will host the November climate negotiations in the Amazon city of Belem. He announced the launch of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), a billion-dollar program aimed at compensating countries for keeping forests standing.

Harv's Corner 

Let's learn a bit about
Eugenics

Eugenics is a discredited and dangerous ideology because it is rooted in pseudoscience and profound prejudice, leading to horrific human rights abuses like forced sterilization and genocide by targeting vulnerable populations deemed "unfit."

​To guard against its resurgence in an age of advancing genetic technology, we must learn from this dark history, actively challenge all forms of discrimination, and champion robust ethical frameworks that protect reproductive freedom and the inherent worth of every individual. By doing so, we ensure that scientific progress serves humanity by celebrating diversity rather than pursuing a discriminatory and dangerous quest for perfection.

​Eugenics:
​A Dark Chapter in Human History

Eugenics is a discredited and pseudoscientific set of beliefs and practices that advocates for improving the genetic quality of a human population through selective breeding. 

The term, derived from the Greek word eugenes meaning "well-born," was coined by the British polymath Sir Francis Galton in 1883. At its core, eugenics is predicated on the idea that human traits, from physical attributes to intelligence and moral character, are primarily determined by heredity and that society can and should intervene to encourage the reproduction of those deemed to have "desirable" traits while discouraging or preventing the reproduction of those with "undesirable" traits. The ideology of eugenics is broadly categorized into two main approaches:

Positive eugenics,
which aimed to increase the number of individuals with valued characteristics by encouraging "fit" people to have more children. This was often promoted through "fitter family" and "better baby" contests, public education campaigns, and incentives for educated and affluent couples to procreate.

Negative eugenics,
the far more common and insidious form, focused on eliminating "unfit" individuals from the gene pool. This was pursued through a range of coercive and often brutal methods, including marriage restriction, segregation, forced sterilization, and, in its most extreme manifestation, euthanasia and genocide.

The Rise of a Global Movement
The eugenics movement gained significant traction in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, fueled by a confluence of factors including the rise of Darwinian evolutionary theory, a growing interest in Mendelian genetics, and widespread social anxieties about immigration, poverty, and crime. It presented itself as a scientific solution to complex social problems, attracting a diverse array of supporters from across the political spectrum, including prominent scientists, politicians, and social reformers.

In the United States,
the eugenics movement was particularly influential. Beginning in the early 1900s, numerous states enacted laws based on eugenic principles. 


Indiana passed the world's first eugenics-based compulsory sterilization law in 1907. Ultimately, over 30 states would pass similar legislation, leading to the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 individuals, disproportionately targeting people with disabilities, the poor, and racial minorities. 

The movement also played a key role in the passage of the restrictive Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which was designed to limit the entry of people from Southern and Eastern Europe, who were deemed genetically inferior.

Nazi Germany 
This represents the most horrific culmination of eugenic ideology.

 Influenced by the American eugenics movement, the Nazi regime implemented a radical and ruthless program of "racial hygiene." The 1933 "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" led to the forced sterilization of an estimated 400,000 people. This was followed by the "euthanasia" program, in which tens of thousands of institutionalized individuals with disabilities were systematically murdered. 

Ultimately, the eugenic principles of racial purity and the elimination of the "unfit" provided a pseudoscientific justification for the Holocaust, the genocide of six million European Jews and millions of others. 

The reach of eugenics was global.

Canada,
In two provinces enacted sterilization laws, targeting individuals in mental institutions.

Scandinavia,
particularly Sweden, eugenics was embraced as part of the development of the modern welfare state, leading to the sterilization of tens of thousands, often on the grounds of social "unfitness." Eugenic ideas also found purchase in many other parts of the world, including Latin America and Asia.

The Scientific Fallacies and Ethical Condemnation
The scientific foundations of eugenics were deeply flawed and have been thoroughly debunked.

Eugenicists oversimplified the complex interplay of genetics and environment in determining human traits. They erroneously believed that complex social behaviors like poverty, criminality, and intelligence were determined by single genes that could be easily eliminated from a population.

Their methods were often biased and unscientific, relying on subjective and culturally prejudiced criteria to define "fitness" and "unfitness." The ethical arguments against eugenics are overwhelming.

At its core, eugenics is a profound violation of fundamental human rights, including bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, and the right to life. It is inherently discriminatory, targeting the most vulnerable members of society based on arbitrary and prejudiced standards.

The history of the eugenics movement serves as a stark warning of the dangers of applying flawed science to social policy and the catastrophic consequences of devaluing human life based on perceived genetic worth.

The Enduring Legacy and Modern Echoes
Following the horrific revelations of the Holocaust, the eugenics movement was widely discredited and condemned.

However, its legacy persists. The forced sterilizations and discriminatory immigration policies of the 20th century have had a lasting impact on individuals, families, and communities. The racist and ableist ideas that underpinned the movement continue to surface in various forms of social prejudice. Moreover, the rapid advancements in genetic technologies have given rise to new and complex ethical debates that echo the concerns of the eugenics era.

The development of prenatal screening, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and gene-editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9 raises profound questions about the potential for a "new eugenics" or "liberal eugenics."

While these technologies offer the promise of preventing and treating genetic diseases, they also open the door to the selection of embryos based on non-medical traits, potentially leading to a society where children are "designed" and where the lives of people with disabilities are further devalued. T

​he shadow of eugenics looms large over these contemporary discussions, reminding us of the critical need for robust ethical frameworks and a steadfast commitment to human rights and equality in the age of genetic medicine.

The central lesson from this dark chapter in history is the profound moral imperative to respect the inherent dignity and worth of every individual, regardless of their genetic makeup.

Harv's Corner

​U.S. to re-evaluate Europe security programs focused on Russia
Hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid could end up at stake.
By NOAH ROBERTSON The Washington Post

​The Trump administration intends to halt longtime security assistance programs for Europe, including an initiative to fortify the continent's eastern flank against a potential attack by Russia, as it endeavors to recast Washington's role within NATO, according to six people familiar with the matter.

The decision would impact hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military aid relied upon by some of the alliance's most vulnerable members. It has alarmed U.S. allies struggling to comprehend the administration's policy toward Europe and its chief adversary in the Kremlin after President Donald Trump, eager for a deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine, rescued its mercurial leader, Vladimir Putin, from diplomatic isolation. U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, are confused by the move.

"The Russians genuinely only care about American dollars, American troops and the American flag," said a European official worried what signal a cut in U.S. aid would send to Moscow. Like others, this person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

In a statement, the White House said its move to slash security assistance was "coordinated" with the Europeans and is consistent both with Trump's executive order to re-evaluate U.S. foreign aid and his "longstanding emphasis on ensuring Europe takes more responsibility for its own defense."

"Europe has been stepping up," the statement says. "We are pleased with European allies taking on more defense initiatives."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump has vacillated in his approach to Europe amid the long-running Ukraine conflict, exhibiting both frustration and warmth toward Putin while endorsing plans to support Kyiv through American weapons sales and security guarantees.

The Pentagon under Trump also has sent such mixed signals, multiple people familiar with the matter said. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in July met with the leaders of the three Baltic nations that border Russia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, during which he commended their push to raise military spending.

But behind the scenes, the Defense Department policy office has been aggressive in its efforts to end certain support programs.
​
In the Republican-led Congress, where bipartisan support for NATO and Ukraine remains strong, aides expressed confusion with the administration's plan. They said it is unclear precisely how much funding will be affected and whether any of the money being targeted is related to Ukraine. A Senate aide said that the Defense Department has not provided lawmakers with a briefing on the issue, despite requests to do so.

David Baker, the Pentagon's head of Europe and NATO policy, informed a group of European defense officials of the decision late last week, attributing the change to shifting priorities within the administration, people familiar with the matter said.

Baker is closely aligned with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby, who has long argued that the United States can't sustain its current level of support for Europe and double down on efforts to deter China in the Pacific, a pressing concern shared across Washington as Beijing leads a rapid military buildup. U.S. officials said the Trump administration's increased attention on border security and homeland defense, in addition to China, is a primary reason to end the European security funding.

The Defense Department's policy wing did not respond to a request for comment.

Among the programs to be suspended is the Baltic Security Initiative, an effort to reinforce those three nations with money for military infrastructure and training. Within NATO, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia spend among the most of their GDP on defense but they have relatively small economies, making U.S. funding highly important to them.

The program began in 2018 and has almost doubled in size each year since then, said Lauren Speranza, a former adviser to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and now a fellow with the Center for European Policy Analysis.

The money is a symbolic show of support for these countries' defense, she said, while also protecting against the possibility of a Russian attack.

"It's to prevent the U.S. from ever going there to fight to fulfill its NATO obligations," Speranza said.

Earlier this summer, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed $225 million for the Baltics initiative in its military spending bill, though the legislation has yet to come up for a vote before the full chamber.
While the issue of security assistance did not come up in detail during Hegseth's meeting with the Baltic defense ministers, they sought to make the case that the United States should maintain a presence of troops in their countries — seen as a far more important deterrent against Russia.

Colby also is leading a review of U.S. force posture around the globe, which European officials widely expect to end in a smaller American military presence on the continent.

It wasn't immediately clear what other programs face cuts or when the money previously authorized by Congress runs out. The funding left can be spent until October 2026.
​
The decision is likely to invite backlash from Congress, where lawmakers from both parties have grown increasingly concerned that the Trump administration is not spending money as they write into law, including a last-minute request not to send out about $5 billion in foreign aid previously approved by lawmakers.

Harv's Corner

It's crucial to pay attention to the massive student loan changes happening now because they will directly impact your financial future. New legislation is set to overhaul repayment plans, potentially increasing monthly payments and extending the time it takes to achieve forgiveness for many. Programs like the Grad PLUS loan are being eliminated, and new borrowing limits are being established, which could affect access to funding for higher education. By understanding these shifts today, you can strategically manage your existing loans, make informed decisions about future borrowing, and position yourself to take advantage of any remaining benefits before they disappear, ultimately saving you a significant amount of money and stress.

Student Loan Borrowers Must Act!

If you have outstanding Federal student loans, you must make some new repayment decisions in the coming months.  Millions of borrowers participated in plans that reduced monthly payments based on income -- sometimes to zero!  Now, all of those plans are going away as of July 1, 2026. 
 
There is still an opportunity to pay less on a monthly plan than the standard 10-year repayment terms require -- even if you have a good income.  But that requires action on your part.  And this is equally important for parents who have taken out Parent Plus loans.

If you have an outstanding Federal student loan -- or know someone who does -- please share this newsletter, and urge them to seek advice about their situation immediately. 

Millions are Impacted - 
Nearly 8 million borrowers were enrolled in the now-cancelled SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education) Plan. These borrowers had been placed in “administrative forbearance” — meaning payments were paused and no interest accrued — from July 1, 2024 until August 1, 2025, when interest started accruing again. An additional 2 million student loan borrowers had pending applications for income-driven (IDR) repayment plans. They were also in forbearance while awaiting processing of their applications. All of those borrowers will suddenly have to begin making monthly payments — and those payments will have a huge impact on the monthly budgets of nearly 10 million people.

Not making the new, higher payments will create a huge increase in the debt outstanding as interest piles up.  And the government is now going after borrowers who have defaulted. Borrowers must act immediately to select one of the still-allowed income-driven repayment plans. That means contacting your servicer or an attorney or advocate familiar with student loan law to determine your eligibility for the remaining plans.

The Only Remaining Plans Next Year
–Income-Based Repayment (IBR). This existing plan has just been modified so borrowers no longer need to prove financial hardship. Payments are based on a percentage of discretionary income, with forgiveness after a set period of time — usually 20 or 25 years. –Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR). These ICR plans will continue for existing borrowers, and existing applications are still being processed, but future enrollment will be restricted.

Choices After July 1, 2026
Your choices will be severely limited in the future if you don’t act now.

-Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP).
This is a new plan, replacing many of the older ones when most expire in July 2026. RAP has a $10 minimum monthly payment, regardless of income. It calculates payments based on a percentage of adjusted gross income, minus an allowance for dependents. Even if low payments are insufficient to cover interest, the principal is reduced by $50/month, and unpaid interest is waived. Loan forgiveness comes only after 30 years of payments. –

Standard 10-Year Repayment Plan.
This traditional plan requires much larger monthly payments but minimizes interest paid over the life of the loan. Borrowers who are currently in the PAYE plan, Graduated Payment Plan, Extended Graduated Plan, or Extended Fixed Plan must switch before July 1, 2026 — or their choices will be limited to these two plans! Also note that unless Congress acts to extend current law, student loan amounts that are forgiven will be considered taxable income starting in 2026. SAVE Plan borrowers working toward legal loan discharges through PSLF must switch to an alternative IDR repayment plan to start making qualifying payments. Ask your servicer to make sure your qualifying payments are transferred to any new plan.

What To Do
Existing participants in the plans that are being eliminated have to make some choices. I turned to student loan expert Rae Kaplan of Kaplan Law Firm (www.FinancialRelief.com) for her analysis and advice. She advises borrowers to act quickly. Moving into IBR or ICR now keeps you from being totally locked out of income-driven repayment plans in July, 2026. Kaplan reminds borrowers that there is no longer a need to prove financial hardship to enroll in an income-driven repayment plan.

She notes: “Under the new RAP plan, there is a $10 minimum monthly payment — even if your income is very low. But if you qualify for IBR before the July 1, 2026 deadline, you may still have a $0 payment depending on your income and family size.” Kaplan also strongly advises against requesting forbearance, if possible. General forbearance still exists for a maximum of 36 months (granted in 12-month intervals), but the drawback is that interest continues to accrue — increasing your total loan balance. “Instead,” says Kaplan, “if you qualify for a $0 or low payment under an income-driven repayment plan, take that instead of forbearance. At least you’ll be making progress toward forgiveness, and you will be “grandfathered in” under the old rules with more flexibility and lower payment options.”

If you have outstanding student loans, please don’t ignore this advice. The Department of Education has already signaled its intent to go after delinquent borrowers after a five-year hiatus. It has recently emailed more than 23 million borrowers — and collected nearly $282 million on defaulted federal student loans through voluntary payments and recapturing tax refunds. Next, they promise wage garnishments. Confusing, yes! But do not let the changes overwhelm you. Either discuss your situation with a qualified advisor like Kaplan, or use the “Loan Simulator” at StudentAid.gov to review your choices.

Parent Plus Loans Impacted, Too!
Parents with existing Plus loans face the same July 1, 2026 deadline facing student loan borrowers, says Kaplan.

These parent borrowers must immediately consolidate all their Federal Parent Plus loans – and enroll in an Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plan, such as the Income Contingent Repayment (ICR), before July 1, 2026.
After that date, those who are not already enrolled in an Income Driven Repayment plan will be locked out permanently. Then their only repayment option will be the Standard 10-Year Plan: which carries large monthly payments, often as high as a mortgage.

Yes, dealing with outstanding student loans has been confusing and often overwhelming -- but these are the basics:  Interest is already accruing, and your repayment plan is likely ending.
​
Don't wait until the crunch next Spring -- when everyone is trying to get into a new plan before the July 1, 2026 deadline.  Examine your alternatives at StudentAid.gov.  Then contact your servicer immediately to start the process.

Procrastinating is not a good option.  And that's The Savage Truth.

Harv's Corner

Limiting COVID-19 shots for young adults and prohibiting them for children under five is an ill-advised strategy that exposes both groups to preventable health risks. For young adults, vaccination is critical for preventing hospitalization and the debilitating effects of Long COVID. For young children, the vaccines are a safe and effective way to protect against severe illness and rare but serious complications like MIS-C. (multisystem inflammatory syndrome-children)  Denying this protection leaves younger populations needlessly vulnerable and undermines broader public health efforts to control the virus.

​FDA OKs updated COVID shots but limits access
Agency cuts one of two shots for young kids.
By MATTHEW PERRONE The Associated Press

​WASHINGTON – U.S. regulators approved updated COVID- 19 shots Wednesday but limited their use for many Americans — and removed one of the two vaccines available for young children.

The new shots from Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax are approved for all seniors. But the Food and Drug Administration narrowed their use for younger adults and children to those with at least one high-risk health condition, such as asthma or obesity.

That presents new barriers to access for millions of Americans who would have to prove their risk — and millions more who may want to get vaccinated and suddenly no longer qualify.

Additionally, Pfizer’s vaccine will no longer be available for any child under 5, because the FDA said it was revoking the shot’s emergency authorization for that age group.

Parents will still be able to seek out shots from rival drugmaker Moderna, the other maker of mRNA vaccines, which has full FDA approval for children as young as 6 months. But the company’s Spikevax vaccine is only approved for children with at least one serious health problem.

The revamped vaccines target a newer version of the continuously evolving virus and are set to begin shipping immediately.

But it could be days or weeks before many Americans know if they’ll be able to get one, with access dependent on decisions by federal health advisers,private health insurers, pharmacies and state authorities.

The new restrictions a re a break from the previous U.S. policy, which recommended an annual COVID-19 shot for all Americans 6 months and up.

The approach reflects heightened skepticism about the ongoing risks of COVID-19 and the need for yearly booster shots from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who were both outspoken critics of wide-scale vaccinations.

Novavax’s shot is only open to people 12 or older, not younger children — and under the same risk-based restrictions as are now in place for the Moderna and Pfizer options. It’s the nation’s only traditional, protein-based COVID-19 vaccine.

Some medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, have objected to the new limits, saying they may block vaccine access for families who want to protect their children.

Last week, the group offered its own recommendations for kids, saying annual shots are strongly recommended for children ages 6 months to 2 years and advised for older children.

That differs from the latest guidance under Kennedy, which doesn’t recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians.

Insurers typically base their vaccine coverage decisions on the recommendations of a panel of advisers to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but some say they will also look to medical professional groups, including the American Medical Association.

Earlier this year, Kennedy dissolved the CDC panel and replaced its members with a number of doctors and researchers who have repeatedly questioned the safety of commonly used vaccines and ingredients.

The panel is expected to meet in September, but no specific date has been set and no agenda released.