Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

ANCONA - «Non ci piacciono questi tentennamenti. Per noi lo spostamento dei traghetti alle banchine 19, 20 e 21 rimane la prima soluzione, è imprescindibile». Il sindaco Daniele Silvetti affida al Corriere Adriatico l’amarezza per le parole del presidente (ormai emerito) dell’Autorità portuale Vincenzo Garofalo, che nell’intervista di fine mandato, ieri, sulle nostre pagine ha chiarito di star portando avanti l’iter dello spostamento ma di nutrire forti dubbi circa la sua efficacia nel liberare Ancona dall’inquinamento delle navi. I nodi Del resto, alla 19, 20 e 21 ci sarebbe «spazio per una sola nave al giorno», mentre quelle extra-Schengen da spostare sono due. E poi, quelle tre banchine sono molto vicine a quelle attuali, «con il vento sposteremmo di poco il problema, i fumi tornerebbero verso la città». A gennaio, comunque, sarebbe dovuto uscire il bando per l’affidamento in concessione degli spazi, propedeutico all’avvio dei lavori necessari ad ospitare i traghetti alla 19, 20 e 21. Garofalo ha chiarito che lo sforamento è dovuto alla necessità di disegnare con chiarezza il layout della banchina. Per Silvetti, però, la misura è colma. «Io direi che il tempo è scaduto, siamo fuori tempo massimo anzi» protesta. Lui che aveva ottenuto l’assicurazione che i traghetti sarebbero già stati spostati quest’estate, promessa ora rimandata al 2027. «Ribadisco la volontà di spingere il porto - continua il primo cittadino - verso il mantenimento di un impegno che lo stesso Garofalo aveva assunto un anno fa». Non gradisce, insomma, «tutti questi tentennamenti e distinguo». Poi annuncia il suo grido di battaglia: «Ancona non arretra di un metro». Semmai, ad arretrare dovranno essere i traghetti. «Sono tre anni che lo chiedo, e mi pare che fosse una richiesta anche della precedente amministrazione» motiva il suo spazientimento il sindaco. Tronca: «Abbiamo bisogno di dichiarazioni che ci diano certezze». La sferzata Non manca una controsferzata al presidente emerito dell’Autorità portuale: «Se continuiamo a cincischiare mentre perdiamo milioni di euro (i 100 milioni sospesi dal Mef perché i cantieri non erano partiti in tempo), alle opere che non sono state realizzate e alla mancanza del bando per lo spostamento...». Il sindaco ha ribadito questo orientamento sui social. «Ancona non si piega». E sui 100 milioni: «Li recupereremo noi». Rivolgendosi però agli anconetani. «Ad oggi (ieri per chi legge, ndr) io non so nemmeno chi sia il mio interlocutore» fa notare Silvetti. Effettivamente, il mandato da presidente di Vincenzo Garofalo è scaduto il 28 aprile, l’altro ieri. Del nuovo presidente non c’è traccia, e molto probabilmente non ce ne sarà per mesi. Dal Ministero delle Infrastrutture, perciò, era arrivata la decisione di affidare l’Authority ad un commissario, un traghettatore incaricato di tenere le redini per 60 giorni. O almeno, fino a che non verrà nominato il nuovo presidente. Il nome di Garofalo è in pole per l’incarico temporaneo. La firma, però, non è arrivata. Il perché lo spiegano fonti di palazzo. Garofalo risulterebbe ufficialmente in pensione dalla fine dell’anno scorso, e pertanto non potrebbe ricoprire l’incarico di commissario se non rifiutando al suo compenso (come stabilisce la legge). E questo avrebbe complicato le cose, con il presidente uscente che si sarebbe riservato di non firmare. La soluzione? Un compromesso: niente stipendio per 60 giorni, ma dei rimborsi spese. E soprattutto, la possibilità di mantenere un viaggio istituzionale già prenotato dall’Ap in Cina - con al seguito anche l’assessore al Porto Bugaro e l’ad del Sanzio Giorgio Buffa - per Garofalo, che se non fosse stato più presidente non avrebbe potuto fare. Pechino val bene una messa.

Washington state startup Panthalassa is building self-propelled floating platforms that generate electricity from ocean waves and use it to power AI data centers at sea. The platform, dubbed Ocean-3, has devices that have no anchor, need no fuel, and have no cables connecting them to shore. Each platform rises and falls with the waves, forcing water through an internal turbine to generate electricity. The generated power then runs onboard computing hardware that processes AI tasks on the spot, with results sent back via satellite. "The ocean is really unlimited in terms of how much energy is available," said Garth Sheldon-Coulson, CEO and co-founder of Panthalassa. "It will really be the cheapest energy on the planet." The Ocean-3 works more like a floating hydroelectric dam. As waves lift the platform, water inside a tube is forced upward into a ballast tank. This water then flows into a spinning turbine, which generates electricity. The system is self-propelled, moving like a large Roomba rather than being tethered to the ocean floor. Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed! Multiple units deployed together can function as a single floatingdata center, with no carbon emissions and no strain on local power grids. "When you deploy many of our systems, they work together basically as a data center," Sheldon-Coulson said. "So, we think of it as a really good alternative to data centers on land." Due to high electricity consumption, which drives up carbon emissions and household utility bills, the industry has been looking for an alternative to land-based AI data centers. There have been discussions aboutunderwater data centersas well asdata centers in space, but none of these seem to be short-term plans. As the demand for compute grows and traditional power grids collapse, Panthalassa offers an alternative that bypasses land acquisition and fossil fuel dependence. Construction of the Ocean-3 units is already underway, and Sheldon-Coulson expects them to be operating offshore by August of this year. The company eventually hopes to deploy thousands of these platforms far out at sea. Panthalassa has all of the private funding it needs because AI companies are eager for quicker, cleaner ways to get power than building data centers on land. "It is really exciting that we're working on something that is coming along right at the right time," Sheldon-Coulson said, "in a way that's much cleaner, much more sustainable, and quite scalable." Although the concept is elegant, there is one uncertainty: the ocean. It has a way of breaking things that work perfectly in testing. Saltwater corrosion, biofouling, and storm damage are not hypothetical problems for marine equipment; they are daily realities. The Ocean-3 platforms will need to survive hurricanes, salt spray, and years of continuous motion without mechanical failure. Satellite links also introduce latency that may not suit all AI workloads, and the cost of repairing a broken generator in the middle of the ocean will be huge. Panthalassa has proven that wave energy can power a floating platform, but proving it can do so reliably for years is a much harder challenge. Still, for an industry desperate for power and willing to try almost anything, the ocean offers something that no data center on land can match: unlimited space and a power source that never stops moving. ViaCBS News Follow TechRadar on Google Newsandadd us as a preferred sourceto get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Efosa has been writing about technology for over 7 years, initially driven by curiosity but now fueled by a strong passion for the field. He holds both a Master's and a PhD in sciences, which provided him with a solid foundation in analytical thinking. You must confirm your public display name before commenting Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.

Sign up forInside the Trump Presidency, a newsletter featuring coverage of the second Trump term. Cannons fired.Fifes and drums played “Yankee Doodle.” A quartet of F-35s flew overhead, and dozens of military service members held American and British flags. It was about as much pomp as the United States can muster. This 250th anniversary of America, for the Brits, can be … a bit awkward. It’s like celebrating a divorce with your ex, decades after the breakup. But here was King Charles III, ready to toast the land that his great-grandfather five times over allowed to get away. And here, too, was President Trump—who has long admired, complimented, and envied the Royal Family—doing little to tamp down suspicions that he strives to become a monarch in his own right. Charles’s visit to Washington was part of the celebrations for an anniversary Trump is eager to mark, and the president was keen to impress the King who’d come across the Atlantic. As Trump took the stage yesterday on a dreary morning filled with spitting rain (“What a beautiful British day this is!” he said), he also reveled in the unlikeliness of the onetime subjects welcoming the monarch. “In the shadows of monuments to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, honoring the British king might seem an ironic beginning to our celebration of 250 years of American independence,” Trump said. “But in fact, no tribute could be more appropriate.” He spoke of how far America had come since a ragtag crew of rebels threw off control by their imperial masters. All around him, however, was evidence of his desire to make the nation’s capital a little more, well, regal. Gilded flourishes now predominate at the White House. Outside the gates, Lafayette Park remains a construction site. The Reflecting Pool on the National Mall is closed off as Trump has it painted a bright blue. During the welcoming ceremony, cranes swung back and forth above the site where Trump last year tore down the East Wing—and now hopes a monumental ballroom will rise. Throughout the day it was clear how much Trump admired, and wanted to emulate, Charles. In Britain, when one monarch dies, they quickly update the currency with an image of the new king or queen. In America, a gold coin with Trump’s image is in the works, as are National Park passes and passports that will bear his likeness. In Britain, there are elaborate shrines marking the history of an empire. In America, Trump plans a giant triumphal arch outside Arlington National Cemetery that’s been dubbed the Arc de Trump. Over the past year, Democrats and other Trump opponents have staged “No Kings” rallies throughout the country. On this day, Trump, however tongue in cheek, formally declared himself one. As Charles was giving a speech at the Capitol, delivering a none-too-subtle paean to the importance of checks and balances in constitutional government, the official White House social-media account blasted out a photo of the two men. “TWO KINGS,” it read, with an emoji of a crown. In mid-September,I arrived with President Trump for a two-day festival in the United Kingdom. A few days before arriving, other members of the press corps and I were invited to a special tour of Windsor Castle, the setting for a state banquet in Trump’s honor. A small group of us were shuttled to the property. Television cameras from around the world were broadcasting from outside the walls. As our van drove through the lush grounds, the Red Arrows, the Royal Air Force display team, flew overhead with red, white, and blue streamers behind. It’s impossible to overstate how elaborate it all was, how meticulous the planning for it was, how grand—and, yes, over-the-top—it all appeared. Inside, each table setting featured five glasses. All told, 1,452 pieces of cutlery were spread around the table where more than 100 staff would be serving. The table itself took a week to lay together and assemble. We were instructed not to take photos, but people sneaked them anyway. Read: What we learn about Trump in his rare moments of self-reflection The dinner was held in St. George’s Hall, with wooden arches and crests, pikes and shields. At one end of the room was an armored figure on horseback known as “The King’s Champion.” It references a historical figure who would ride into a banquet, throw his gauntlet down, and then challenge anyone to deny the authority of the new sovereign. At the time, it seemed a fitting metaphor for how Trump viewed himself, and his presidency. He was stretching the bounds of what it could do, and he was largely unrestrained. The president was clearly giddy about the whole experience. “This is truly one of the highest honors of my life,” he said. “Such respect for you and such respect for your country.” Trump has alwayshad a soft spot for the Royal Family. He wrote to then-Prince Charles in 1994, offering him an honorary membership to Mar-a-Lago. He also received a letter from Princess Diana in 1997, just weeks before her death, in which she thanked him for sending flowers on her birthday. His mother was Scottish and, by his account, sat for an entire day in front of the television watching Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation, in 1953. “She was just enthralled by the pomp and circumstance, the whole idea of royalty and glamour,” he wrote in his bookThe Art of the Deal. His dad, he wrote, was less enthralled, pacing and telling her, “Enough is enough, turn it off. They’re all a bunch of con artists.” Looking out onto the South Lawn yesterday, he recalled his mother’s affection for the royals generally, and for Charles specifically. “She really did love the family, but I also remember her saying, very clearly, ‘Charles—look, young Charles. He’s so cute,’” he said. “My mother had a crush on Charles. Can you believe it?” This visit came at a dicey moment, with the Epstein files lingering, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s job in peril, and a war that the United States launched without British help or consultation still upending the global economy. British officials have said they hoped their king, who has tried to cozy up to Trump, would help shore up a “special relationship” that has seen better days. In his most high-profile remarks of the visit, the King was invited to address a joint session of Congress. The event had the feel of a State of the Union, with Charles walking down the center aisle and greeting politicians, the vice president and the House speaker sitting behind him as he spoke. At moments it seemed like a stand-up routine. He joked that he was there to celebrate what transpired 250 years ago, then paused a beat. “Or, as we say in the United Kingdom, ‘just the other day.’” He quoted from Oscar Wilde (“We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language”), and he mentioned a “tale of two Georges” (“the first president, George Washington, and my five-times great-grandfather, King George III”). In what wasn’t meant as a joke but could be interpreted as one, he also called Congress, which has been mired in unusually severe bouts of dysfunction, a “renowned chamber of debate and deliberation.” He also said some things that, coming from anyone else, Trump might have interpreted as unforgivable slights. He talked about military cooperation in the world wars and in Afghanistan, adding that “that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine”—a pointed reminder that Trump has been anything but steadfast in his support for Kyiv. He spoke of environmentalism and the need to “safeguard nature, our most precious and irreplaceable asset,” at a moment when the Trump administration has been busy undoing one environmental protection after another. One of his most rousing lines came as he referenced the Magna Carta and the legal framework that both countries share, including “the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.” Democrats were particularly enthusiastic, but Republicans also rose from their seats. Read: Is the end of NATO near? Rather than be offended, Trump appeared charmed, and more than a little envious. At a dinner that evening—ornate by White House standards, but nothing compared with the one in Windsor Castle last fall—Trump repeatedly complimented the King on his speech (“I was very jealous!” he said as he welcomed him outside). He marveled at how Charles was able to get the Democrats to stand and applaud him (“I couldn’t believe it!”). As much as Trump craves the partisan combat that has been such a feature of his presidency, it was hard not to think that he’d be just fine with the near-universal adoration of a monarch.

Beginning with his first job in the Reagan Justice Department, the chief justice has been hell-bent on dismantling the Voting Rights Act. US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts at Donald Trump’s 2025 address to both chambers of Congress. On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court essentially eviscerated the Voting Rights Act (VRA) inCallais v. Louisiana.The 6–3 party-line decision effectively ends any protection against racial gerrymandering and vote dilution, and opens the doors to redistricting across the South that will likely decimate Black and Latino representation in Congress, as well as state legislatures and municipal governments. The central question in this case has a long history—and it begins with John Roberts’s very first days in Washington, DC, as a young aide in Ronald Reagan’s Department of Justice. When Roberts first arrived at the DOJ in 1981, fresh off a clerkship for William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court, he was assigned two important portfolios: prepping Sandra Day O’Connor for her confirmation hearings before Congress, and drastically curbing voting rights. O’Connor sailed through the Senate. The VRA would be more contentious: A 1980 Supreme Court decision inMobile v. Alabamahad required plaintiffs pursuing a Section 2 claim to prove that lawmakers had racial intent. That’s difficult to demonstrate, and brought nearly all Section 2 litigation to a halt. Civil rights groups, Democrats, and moderate Republicans wanted to use the VRA reauthorization to clarify that Section 2 of the VRA prohibited election laws and procedures that had a racially discriminatory effect, not just those passed with clear racially discriminatory intent. Congress intended to remedy all racially discriminatoryeffects. John Roberts had a different idea. The Reagan administration was divided. Moderate Reaganites did not want to battle over something popular and historic. But ideological conservatives within the DOJ were spoiling for the fight. They were content to extend the act, just so long as it was impossible to use. Roberts led the way. Roberts’s papers from this era,housed at the National Archives, show his determination and dedication. They include memos and talking points, draft op-eds, scripted answers for bosses to deliver in meetings and before Congress, and presentations for senators and Hill staff. His files show how Roberts devised the messaging strategies that made it possible for the administration to claim that it supported reauthorization, while actually helping neuter the VRA—a skill he would go on to master as chief justice. Before Congress two decades later, however, Roberts obscured this role. When Roberts was asked in his confirmation hearings by Democratic Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin why he then “want[ed] to make Section 2 cases so difficult to prove,” he distorted the 1982 political debate, rewrote its history, and downplayed his own leadership. One could even make the case that he misled Congress under oath. “Senator,” Roberts replied, “you keep referring to what I supported and what I wanted to do. I was a 26-year-old staff lawyer. It was my first job as a lawyer after my clerkships. I was not shaping administration policy. The administration policy was shaped by the attorney general on whose staff I served. It was the policy of President Reagan. It was to extend the Voting Rights Act without change for the longest period in history at that point, and it was my job to promote the attorney general’s view and the president’s view on that issue. And that’s what I was doing.” But it was not the policy of President Reagan. It was not the president’s view. And as Roberts’s own papers would show, he was doing far more than that. US Attorney General William French Smith might have been the figurehead. But as Michael Carvin, who worked alongside Roberts as part of a group of ideological warriors in the DOJ known as the “band of brothers,” told me: “Voting—that was John’s fight. Always John’s fight.… I do think our strong feelings about all this comes from the fact that we were dealing with these arguments in 1982 and 1983.” Roberts started at the DOJ as a special assistant in the civil rights division on August 14, 1981. Voting rights became his focus. The DOJ was the hub of opposition to the effects test in section 2 of the VRA. Bruce Fein, a Roberts DOJ colleague, remembers Roberts as the architect. “He was intimately involved in that. Definitely, intimately involved,” he says. “John, more than anyone, was very familiar with the voting rights stuff.” Roberts started from a difficult position. Before he arrived, the pragmatic White House aides who wanted to avoid the messiness of a voting rights fight appeared to hold the winning hand. A lopsided House vote embraced the effects test. And during the summer of 1981, Reagan moved toward that position. That August, the president toldThe Washington Starthat he would back a 10-year reauthorization. Roberts drove reconsideration of this policy at the highest level. That fall, when Reagan seemed convinced on the effects test, the DOJ pushed back, hard. After the White House released a November statement that Reagan would support whatever compromise Congress reached, Roberts and his boss, Attorney General Smith, fumed. Smith demanded a meeting with Reagan. Roberts armed him with talking points. Reagan embraced two of Smith’s proposals: maintaining the intent standard, and making it easier for Southern localities to escape preclearance–the provision under the VRA mandating that districts with a history of racial discrimination submit planned maps to the DOJ for certification. Reagan now declared the effects standard “new and untested”—a position that hewed almost word for word to Roberts’s talking points. In his end-of-the-year news conference, Reagan channeled Roberts again. “The effect rule could lead to the type of thing in which effect could be judged if there was some disproportion in the number of officials who were elected at any governmental level,” Reagan said. “You could come down to where all of society had to have an actual quota system.” This is almost exactly what Roberts wrote in his December 1981 memo, “Why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act Should Remain Unchanged.” “Incorporations of an effects test in Section 2,” he argued, “would establish essentially a quota system for electoral politics.” Then he wrote the line that could be seen as defining decades of future jurisprudence: “Violations of Section 2 should not be made too easy to prove, since they provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.” Roberts orchestrated Reagan’s shift. He scripted the president’s statements. He placed the administration into an intent-vs.-effects fight that Reagan’s political counselors thought unnecessary. The next battle would be before the US Senate. Roberts would script that too—as his memos and communications at the National Archives clearly show. The Roberts files amount to hundreds of pages. They reveal the deep roots of his quarrels with the VRA as well as the outsize role he played in 1982, despite his disingenuous avowals before Feingold and other congressional Democrats in his 2005 confirmation hearings. They provide a portrait of a young ideologue who has spent decades hiding his ideology. And in the John Roberts who battled to immobilize the VRA in 1982 can be heard an eerie echo of the chief justice who would have the final word. When Roberts opened his newspaper on November 16, 1981, he discovered a column by Vernon Jordan, head of the National Urban League, titled “Diluting Voting Rights.” Roberts could not have liked what he read. Jordan opened his argument sounding much like pragmatic Reagan aides. Reagan’s endorsement of the intent standard “was not only a political mistake,” Jordan wrote, but a “disservice” to conservatism. Then the civil rights leader lowered the boom. Intent to discriminate, he wrote, is impossible to prove. “Local officials don’t wallpaper their offices with memos about how to restrict minority-group members’ access to the polling booth,” Jordan wrote. “Discriminatory effects are clear to all.” Proving intent, he argued, shifted and required the burden of proof and required evidence that “would be virtually impossible to assemble.” “The President’s endorsement of the Voting Rights Act,” he concluded, “is a sham.” Jordan’s op-ed sent the Department of Justice into a tizzy. The following morning, Roberts drafted a response and circulated it to DOJ higher-ups. His pugnacious response insisted that the intent test would make a “radical change” to the Voting Rights Act and slammed the congressional version that included the effects test as an “untested piece of legislation” and a “radical experiment.” Roberts conceded that local officials might not wallpaper racist memos in their offices, but insisted that “circumstantial evidence” would still suffice, “as Mr. Jordan presumably knows.” Roberts reached for an old saw in his conclusion: “As the old saying goes, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” It’s hard to believe that this argument even convinced its author. As Roberts presumably knew, in blithely asserting that intent was readily provable, he ignored how the lawyers seeking to preserve the VRA’s standards in a key test case in Mobile, Alabama, had presented decades of historical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and firsthand testimonials of widespread and devastating racist rigging of the city’s civic and political life, all of which lower federal courts found convincing. The Supreme Court, and Roberts’ anti–voting rights mentor William Rehnquist, brushed it all aside. “The only ones who could be disappointed by the President’s actions,” Roberts held, “are not those truly concerned about the right to vote but rather those who, for whatever reason, were simply spoiling for a fight.” Thus did a 26-year-old Justice official who launched his career in conditions of segregated privilege dismiss Jordan’s long-established integrity as an advocate for racial justice. Roberts would pen almost two dozen additional memos urging the DOJ to stand firm behind Mobile’s intent standard. Meanwhile, while the future chief justice simmered, his legislative foes were quietly reconstituting a majority in the US Senate. Decades later, when Roberts used his influence as chief justice to unravel much of Section 2 and freeze Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, he only needed to command a majority of five. The Senate had a higher magic number: 60, the amount necessary to stave off a filibuster to block the VRA’s reauthorization in 1982. Strom Thurmond chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. Opponents of the VRA’s effects provision felt confident that they could engineer a host of obstructionist feints and amendments to block its passage. So it meant something when Senators Ted Kennedy and Charles Mathias, the bipartisan cosponsors of reauthorization in the Senate, filed their bill—including the effects test—with 61 cosponsors. If the coalition of 40 Democrats and 21 Republicans held, not only would the reauthorization pass easily; it would also overcome any filibuster. Thurmond, the old South Carolina segregationist, sputtered in disbelief when informed that 61 senators introduced the reauthorization together. “They must not have read the bill!” An equally stunned Roberts prepared to fight on. “Do not be fooled by the House vote or the 61 Senate sponsors of the House bill into believing that the President cannot win on this issue,” Roberts wrote in a January 1982 memo to the attorney general. Roberts’s allies were segregationists, his math was bad, and his political instincts worse—but he urged his troops onward, confident in his own assessment of Congress. “Many members of the House did not know they were doing more than simply extending the Act, and several of the 61 Senators have already indicated that they only intended to support simple extension,” he wrote. “Once the senators are educated on the differences between the President’s position and the House bill, and the serious dangers in the House bill,” Roberts insisted, “solid support will emerge for the President’s position.” That education was to begin with the Senate Judiciary Committee, The day before it began holding hearings, the administration abruptly asked to delay the attorney general’s testimony. Roberts remained focused. On January 21, 1982, he sent Smith six pages of draft questions and answers to help guide his remarks. In his behind-the-scenes brief to his boss, it’s clear that there was simply no improvement to the VRA that Roberts was willing to countenance. When he detailed his objections to the effects test, Roberts supplied a tendentious account of supposed open-minded inquiry that pointedly ignored the testimony of experts and misrepresented the words of civil rights leaders. He counseled Smith to tell Congress, “In reviewing the Voting Rights Act last summer in the course of preparing recommendations to the President, I met personally with scores of civil rights leaders.” Roberts wrote, “The one theme from these discussions was clear: the Act has been the most successful civil rights legislation ever enacted and it should be extended unchanged. As the old saying goes, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” Here Roberts was merely parroting an earlier talking point he’d circulated during the House debate; it had nothing to do with the actual views of civil rights leaders who, in fact, were determined at all costs to repair the defective 1980Mobiledecision. His memos encouraged Smith to double down on loose talk of racial quotas before Thurmond’s committee, contending without any empirical backing that the effects test “would establish aquota systemfor electoral politics”—here he underlined “quota system”—which “we believe is fundamentally inconsistent with democratic principles.” Five days later, on January 26, Roberts again urged Smith to stiffen his resolve on the effects question as the attorney general prepared to begin his testimony the next day. The same day, Roberts also attended a crucial meeting at the White House where DOJ officials sought to shore up Reagan’s opposition to the effects test—“once and for all,” a seemingly frustrated Roberts wrote. Elie Mystal Jeet Heer Column/Sasha Abramsky Gregg Gonsalves In this final prehearing memo, the young aide exhorted his boss as follows: “I recommend taking a very positive and aggressive stance.” Roberts followed the same counsel in the White House meeting; he had clearly grown weary of all the bureaucratic skirmishing with Reagan’s political team, and demanded that the White House “actively work” to enact the DOJ’s policy. He insisted that his position could be sold politically. “The President’s opinion is a very positive one,” Roberts wrote, repeating his pet mantra. “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” In the meeting and his memos, Roberts maintained that the effects test would “throw into litigation existing electoral systems at every level of government nationwide when there is no evidence of voting abuses nationwide supporting the need for such a change.” Roberts also again sought to tie opposition to the effects test to the administration’s overall stance on race and affirmative action. “Just as we oppose quotas in employment and education, so too we oppose them in elections.” “It is very important that the fight be won, and the President is fully committed to this effort,” Roberts concluded, imperiously. “His staff should be as well.” No one could question Roberts’s commitment. That day he sent Smith yet another memo, a two-page response to an editorial inThe Washington Postthat endorsed the effects test. Then, in an early February 1982 memo to his immediate DOJ boss, Brad Reynolds, Roberts offered extensive handwritten edits on a draft op-ed that he thought needed to strike a more aggressive tone. “I do not agree with the Attorney General that it is necessary to ‘talk down’ to the audience,” Roberts proclaimed. “The frequent writings in this area by our adversaries have gone unanswered for too long.” Roberts remained hopeful that his position would prevail in the Senate, either by putting the filibuster back in play, enabling a presidential veto, or slowing things down and hoping to gain a negotiating cudgel as the VRA neared expiration. Whatever obstructionist vision beguiled him most, Roberts worked the Senate hard. He assembled clip packages of anti–results test op-eds. He sent friendly offices his “Why Section Two of the Voting Rights Should Be Retained Unchanged” essay. He ran this offensive by Ken Starr, then a counselor to the attorney general before investigating President Clinton as the nation’s leading sex cop (alongside future justice Brett Kavanaugh), with a handwritten note on the attorney general’s letterhead: “Ken, possibilities to distribute to senators. John.” Recalcitrant senators hit the brakes. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who chaired the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, reversed course after six weeks of hearings focused almost entirely on intent versus effects—and restored the original language on intent. The bill then moved to Thurmond’s kingdom, the Judiciary Committee. By then, Kansas GOP Senator Bob Dole had seen enough. Dole was determined that the GOP be the party of Lincoln, not Thurmond. He quietly forged a compromise. Section 2 would carry a results standard. The language of the accompanying Senate report could not have been clearer. Racial effects would be enough. Dole informed Reagan that the DOJ could continue the fight—but it was fated to lose. He had 80 votes. Back at Justice, Roberts’s band of brothers didn’t seethe so much as they threw up their hands in resignation. “The Reagan administration took the principled view over the politically advantageous,” says Michael Carvin, who worked alongside Roberts at the DOJ and would become a prominent conservative Supreme Court litigator, “and then they eventually caved.” The lesson was simple: If you want to change the law, change the judges. When Roberts and and his fellow George W. Bush appointee Samuel Alito arrived at the Supreme Court, the same arguments would carry the day—not because things had actually changed in the South, but because the theater of battle had now shifted to the judiciary. You didn’t need 60 senators or 218 representatives. Five like-minded conservatives would be enough—and now they would have six. Feingold, who posed the question that Roberts answered in such a misleading manner, now looks back in disbelief. “I don’t think any of us felt that he was really going to try and undermine the Voting Rights Act,” he told me, “which is of course one of the worst things he could have possibly done. Then he did.” John Roberts lost in 1982. He never stopped trying to turn back the clock. On Wednesday he succeeded. You might say that was the plan all along. From illegal war on Iran to an inhumane fuel blockade of Cuba, from AI weapons to crypto corruption, this is a time of staggering chaos, cruelty, and violence. Unlike other publications that parrot the views of authoritarians, billionaires, and corporations,The Nationpublishes stories that hold the powerful to account and center the communities too often denied a voice in the national media—stories like the one you’ve just read. Each day, our journalism cuts through lies and distortions, contextualizes the developments reshaping politics around the globe, and advances progressive ideas that oxygenate our movements and instigate change in the halls of power. This independent journalism is only possible with the support of our readers. If you want to see more urgent coverage like this, please donate toThe Nationtoday. David Daley is the author of a national bestseller on partisan gerrymandering,Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't CountandUnrigged: How Americans Are Battling Back to Save Democracy.

El astillero moañés Aister ha sido adjudicataria de la construcción del Jeune France II, un avanzado catamarán de pasajeros que será fabricado íntegramente en aluminio y está valorado en cerca de cuatro millones de euros. Su entrega está prevista para septiembre del 2027, cuando comenzará a operar para la Colectividad Territorial de Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, sustituyendo al actual Jeune France en la ruta que conecta el puerto de Saint-Pierre con la isla de Langlade, célebre por sus acantilados abruptos y conocida popularmente como el Pequeño Miquelon. El nuevo buque destaca por un diseño adaptado a las necesidades del archipiélago, especialmente por la ausencia de infraestructuras portuarias en Langlade. Con 22,5 metros de eslora, 7,5 metros de manga y capacidad para 100 pasajeros, el Jeune France II está pensado para realizar varadas directas en playa gracias a un asiento estructural reforzado que permite apoyar la proa sobre el lecho marino con total seguridad. Además, incorpora una rampa hidráulica de proa que facilita el desembarco de pasajeros y la carga de vehículos de hasta 3,5 toneladas, convirtiéndose en una solución logística esencial para la movilidad local. En materia de sostenibilidad, Aister apuesta por un sistema de propulsión híbrida paralela que combina dos motores diésel de última generación —368 kW cada uno y certificados bajo la normativa IMO Tier III— con un sistema de propulsión eléctrica destinado a maniobras y navegación a baja velocidad. Esta configuración permitirá operar de forma silenciosa y sin emisiones en determinados tramos, manteniendo una velocidad de servicio de 12 nudos y reduciendo la huella ambiental del buque. La construcción y armamento del Jeune France II se llevará a cabo íntegramente en las instalaciones de la empresa en la ría de Vigo, reforzando el papel del astillero gallego como referente internacional en la fabricación de barcos de aluminio. Este material, cada vez más demandado en la náutica profesional, ofrece ventajas clave como mayor ligereza, durabilidad y eficiencia energética frente al acero tradicional.

Sarà operativo fino a fine anno – precisamente fino al 31 dicembre 2026 – il nuovo quadro temporaneo per gli aiuti di Stato adottato oggi dalla Commissione Europea con lo scopo di sostenere i settori colpiti dalla crisi in Medio Oriente (Middle East Crisis Temporary State Aid Framework). Tra i settori trattati dal Metsaf, spiega la stessa Commissione, ci sono anche quelli dei trasporti stradali, ferroviari, per vie d’acqua interne e di short sea su tratte intraeuropee, al fianco di quelli di agricoltura e pesca, i quali potranno ricevere sostegni a coprire fino il 70% degli extracosti dovuti per il carburante e per i fertilizzanti. In generale, l’aumento di prezzo sarà determinato da ciascuno Stato membro esaminando la differenza tra il prezzo di mercato pertinente e un prezzo di riferimento storico applicabile. Per questi settori, un’opzione semplificata renderà più facile per i beneficiari essere ammissibili all’aiuto, consentendo agli Stati membri di calibrare gli importi dei singoli sostegni su elementi quali le dimensioni e il tipo di attività dei beneficiari, una stima generale del consumo di combustibile nel settore o altri parametri pertinenti, consentendo a ciascun beneficiario di ricevere un contributo fino a 50mila euro. Per quel che riguarda nello specifico i trasporti marittimi, il framework appena varato include i collegamenti short sea intraeuropei, spiegando che questi potranno beneficiare della misura dato che “un sostegno temporaneo potrebbe attenuare le conseguenze di aumenti eccezionalmente marcati del prezzo del combustibile causati dalla crisi”. Per essere ammissibili – chiarisce il documento – tali aiuti dovranno essere concessi in forma di “sovvenzioni dirette, agevolazioni fiscali e di pagamento o in altre forme, quali garanzie, prestiti e capitale proprio”, a condizione che il loro valore nominale totale non superi l’intensità di aiuto e i massimali di aiuto applicabili”. I valori utilizzati dovranno essere “al lordo di qualsiasi imposta o altri oneri” e potranno coprire “fino al 70 % dei costi supplementari per il combustibile causati dalla crisi in Medio Oriente”. Il periodo ammissibile, prosegue il testo, decorrerà “dal 1° marzo 2026 al 31 dicembre 2026 al più tardi”. Da rilevare che il documento chiarisce esplicitamente che gli aiuti “non coprono direttamente i costi dell’Ets, né usano i prezzi Ets come parametri per determinare la compensazione, mantenendo quindi gli obblighi e gli incentivi dell’Ets”. Tra le condizioni poste, c’è quella secondo cui i sostegni non possono essere concessi a imprese che si trovavano già in difficoltà, con l’eccezione delle piccole e microimprese che già lo erano prima del 28 febbraio 2026, e purché non soggette a procedure concorsuali per insolvenza e non abbiano ricevuto aiuti per il salvataggio o la ristrutturazione. “Conseguire un’economia pulita – ha chiosato Teresa Ribera, Vicepresidente esecutiva per una Transizione pulita, giusta e competitiva – è ciò che ci proteggerà dalle crisi energetiche del futuro. La transizione energetica rimane la strategia più efficace per l’autonomia, la crescita e la resilienza dell’Europa. Tuttavia le recenti impennate dei prezzi dell’energia richiedono una risposta immediata. Il quadro temporaneo introduce soluzioni facilmente applicabili che attenueranno gli effetti della crisi e sosterranno così il continuo sviluppo di settori fondamentali dell’Ue quali l’agricoltura, la pesca e i trasporti”. ISCRIVITI ALLA NEWSLETTER QUOTIDIANA GRATUITA DI SHIPPING ITALY SHIPPING ITALY E’ ANCHE SU WHATSAPP: BASTA CLICCARE QUI PER ISCRIVERSI AL CANALE ED ESSERE SEMPRE AGGIORNATI