Is Fed disunity coming at just the wrong time? Bloomberg Opinion's Jonathan Levin talks about the Fed dissent and how it could affect inflation in the US. Opinion's Lisa Jarvis says the recent ruling on mifepristone is a threat not only to women's health, but also pharmaceutical innovation. Bloomberg Opinion editor Sarah Green Carmichael critiques complicated hiring practices, and columnist Lara Williams offers a warning: flights are about to get a lot more expensive. Amy Morris hosts.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we look at the impact of a judicial review of MiFi presstone the abortion pill. Can that ruling have an influence on the future of pharmaceutical research and development and what would it mean for medications currently on the market. Plus, we'll look at the softening labor market. You might think it'd be easier to hire more workers, but some companies will continue to have trouble until they start to consider how that hiring process is conducted. And as summer approaches, we'll look at the cost of a quickie getaway Dirt Cheap airfares are pretty much gone, especially in the UK and the EU. We're going to find out why. But first we begin with the FED. As we are seeing hints of disagreement bubbling up at the Federal Reserve of Late, policymakers are being pulled in different directions. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has noticed it, and we talked with him about it on Bloomberg TV.
I think we're still looking at a very hard to read economy. I don't see inflation as on a secure path down to the two percent target unless the economy turns turns over a bit. So I think the FED has very difficult choices ahead of it.
Let's find out more now, Bloomberg Opinion columnist Jonathan Levin. Jonathan has worked as a Bloomberg journalist in Latin America and the US, covering finance, markets and m and A, and most recently, he has served as the company's Miami bureau chief. And he joins me, now, now, Jonathan, you say in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal, if you think the debate seems firing, now just wait until the third quarter. What's happening in the third quarter.
Yeah, Well, a lot of people think that's when I'm potentially going to see the start of a recession in the United States. And what's particularly interesting about a lot of these calls is that a lot of people are saying it's going to be a quote unquote mild recession. So when you think about how monetary policy works and sort of rules of thumb of monetary policy. Everybody sort of knows what you're supposed to do when you have really hot inflation and a pretty strong economy.
And everybody sort.
Of knows what you're supposed to do when the economy is tanking and you're in a crisis. You just cut rates to the bottom, right, But what exactly are you supposed to do when inflation is still pretty sticky and you're in a quote unquote mild recession. And the way I sort of think about it is, you know, you're going to have some pain in the labor market, but perhaps the recession just isn't so deep as to extinguish that inflation that we're talking about. That, to me is a real recipe for policy squabbles over at the Federal Reserve.
Now, when did we first start seeing some of the descent within the Fed?
Yeah, I think it's been bubbling up more over the past few weeks. I think, you know, there there's no question it's not a coincidence that this coincide with with Austin Goulsby being a voter this year. You know, he came in for the Chicago Fed. He has a reputation as a Dove, and I think, you know, he also he feels he'sn't important and smart and influential economist, but he also seems to have this outsize influence because he's a very good public speaker. You know, he has this a lure to him. He's he's kind of funny, right, He tells dad jokes when he's out there talking about monetary policy, and I think that makes us listen to him a little bit more. And so in recent weeks, you know, we had a major speech from Austin, Austin Goulesby which sort of no surprise, came off as very very delviish. There was a big focus on the risks going forward, especially after the banking crisis that we've seen over the past month and change. And then you sort of hold that up against another speech, for instance, the one given by Governor Waller, where Governor Waller says, in no uncertain terms, look, there's still there's still some heat out there, and we've got a raise rates. He doesn't specifically say how much more, but his starting point is we've got a raise, and you could even go a little bit further. I didn't talk about Bullard in my column because of course he's not a voter this year, but he is at the far other side of the spectrum, and he's essentially talking about we probably need to go to something like five point seven five percent at the top end of the range. And Buller's rationale basically is he doesn't see the recession that everybody's talking about.
All right, So then would this be a manifestation of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. You mentioned that this has sort of started a few weeks ago, and that would coincide with that event.
I think a major reason why a lot of economists, including at the FED staff, started to write in a second half for session with a bit more certainty is because of what went down at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, right. And the thinking is that this is going to lead over the medium term to tighter credit conditions going forward, but it's going to take some time for it to really play out. So you know, when you think about the math of that, people think that that credit conditioning tightening actually substitutes for for FED hikes, right, And there's a great degree of discrepancy as to the extent of that effect.
Right.
Some people think it's negligible. Some people think it's twenty five basis points. Some people think it could be seventy five basis points. So to your point, Amy, that very much goes to the uncertainty around policy right now. You know, Bullard is saying we've got to go to five seventy five. But if you're the type of policy maker who thinks that what happened at Silicon Valley Bank just substituted for seventy five basis points of hikes, obviously you're going to be at the other end of that argument.
Now, Jonathan, what's the big deal if there's a disagreement within the Fed? Why is that an issue? Why would that be something to be watching for and be concerned about.
The big deal is that policy is essentially transmitted through rhetoric these days. Right ever since Bernanki came into the FED, you know, rhetoric and quote unquote transparency has been a big part of how the FED manages financial conditions, especially further out the curve. Right when we talk about the FED funds rate, that's really just policy makers controlling the short rate. But as we learned in the Great Financial Crisis, you can't wield a lot of influence unless you're also controlling those longer rates, especially like the ten year, which has a tremendous influence over what mortgage rates are, what auto loans are, what corporate borrowing costs are, and so forth. And so you need to convince the market that your policy is going to be a certain way two years from now, three years from now, five years from now. It's not enough just to convince the market of what your policy is going to be tomorrow or in three months. So when you have sort of all these different narratives spinning out there, you know, at on these financial television shows, or at these speeches that these FED governors love to give at universities and at their local economic clubs, it becomes problematic. It becomes dissonance. People lose the lose track of the narrative, and they no longer have a feeling of what the FED is thinking in terms of where we're going to be three years down the room.
Is there a risk of too much transparency? Is that even such a thing?
I think that there is a risk of too much cacophony, you know, you know, like we think about even how democracy works in our congress, right there are lots of different voices, but you want the parties to have a coordinated strategy. And I think it's essentially the same at the Fedsparency in and of itself is certainly a virtue and a democratic society, I think in the long in the long run, monetary policy has definitely benefited from this. You want accountability in an organization as powerful as the FED, but you also want coherence because transparency and messaging is not just about accountability. It is about it is about financial conditions at the end of the day as well.
And having dissension within the FED or watching these disagreements bubble to the surface. Have we seen that before historically? Is this unusual?
Well, I think the circumstances are unusual in the era of the modern transparent FED, because it's it's important to remember that this is such a new, such a new phenomenon in the United States. Right, Alan Greenspan famously said, uh, you know, since I've become central banker, I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. Right in the olden days, opacity was kind of part of the model, and it wasn't really until we saw Bernanke come in in two thousand and six that he really brought the values of transparency to the FED, and of course he used messaging and transparency as a major tool during the Great Financial Crisis. But we haven't lived through an environment quite like this with almost nineteen seventies like inflation in this modern transparency era.
All right, Jonathan, thank you so much for taking the time with us. This was a really great discussion. I appreciate you taking the time.
Thank you very much, Jamie.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Jonathan Levin, And coming up, we're all take a look at concerns within the medical research sector after a judicial ruling on mifiprestone. Could judicial review have a chilling effect on pharmaceutical research and development? You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Hi, Amy Morris, and you're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. A judge in Texas ruled Miffa prestone should be removed from the market and while the Supreme Court briefly preserved the broad availability of the abortion pill, there are other issues to consider. Let's talk about it with Lisa Jarvis. Lisa is a Bloomberg opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry. And Lisa, you have a column on the Bloomberg terminal and it looks at the different impacts of the Texas Court decision, not just the impact on a woman who may be looking for this pill.
That's right, I think.
While obviously a lot of people are concerned about the impact on abortion and on mif ofpristone access because that now represents up to fifty percent of abortions in the US right now, there could be much broader implications for the pharmaceutical industry. Inventing a new drug is a very expensive and timely process, and companies want certainty. And the way that the judge ruled in the Smith of pristone case, it essentially undermines the FDA's authority. The judge essentially said, I have gone through the data myself, and I have decided that your ruling was your decision on the drug was incorrect, and I'm going to remove it from the market. That's unprecedented and it's making the drug industry very nervous.
So we're not just talking about the impact of not having the drug or the impact of the drug being on the market as far as women are concerned, but also the effect on the innovation within the pharmacy sector. Let's talk about that specifically. How much does it cost and how long does it take? Typically? I know every drug is going to be different, but typically to bring just a new drug to market.
Typically it costs about one to two billion dollars on average to bring a new drug to market, and it takes ten years. That's just the clinical component. You know, that's not even counting the discovery stage when you're looking for the new drug. So you know, companies are looking for certainty in that process that when they get to the end, to the finish line, that the FDA approves the drug and they can sell it everywhere in the US.
So companies that make that investment, we're talking billions of dollars, and when they make that investment, they assume that their drug will then be available because they're going to want to return on that investment.
Right exactly, right, So right now you get a drug approved and that's you know, national approval. And we've seen in the past in one example of a state that tried to challenge a drug approval in a state that was in Massachusetts, and they tried to challenge the approval of an opioid drug that they didn't want to sell in their state, and the courts pushed back on that because they said, you know, the FDA's authority preempts your state authority. And so seeing you know that the FDA has generally had a lot of leeway in terms of their you know, decision making and the authority given to them around their decisions.
So could this have a chilling effect then on the development of new drugs? I mean, is that where this could be going.
I think that's really a concern, a valid concern, you know. I think the first more immediate thing to worry about is drugs that are already approved, because the way that this ruling was worded, it could be sort of a roadmap for how to take other drugs off of the market. We see a lot of areas of science right now politicized HPV vaccines prep, which is the medicine that you take to prevent HIV covid, vaccines, birth control. There's sort of a short list you can imagine, and then when you sort of extend that out to innovation, you think about, well, a company is only going to invest the money to invent a new drug if they think they can sell it, So you can imagine that immediately these areas that already are kind of being politicized might be places they wouldn't want to put their R and D dollars. And then if this roadmap is very broad, you know, there could be anyone who decides to challenge anything. I think people aren't assuming that everything is up for grabs and there's no reason. But at the same time, I do think there's plenty of areas that could legitimately, legitimately be you know, harmed.
Well, I want to talk about that too, the stifling of innovation, judicial review, and questioning of other drugs that already exist. You mentioned yourself how science is already becoming a polarizing, politicized thing. Science and certain drugs. Clearly, we all lived through covid and should we vexxed should we not? We've all seen that already be politicized. Can you politicize just about any drug out there.
I mean, it seems possible.
You know, I think we heard from HHS Secretary, you know, Javier Basara mentioned a few drugs that he thought could be at risk.
One of those was Alzheimer's drugs.
Because they were their approval was controversial, and they're very expensive. So you know, one could pull any number of, you know, reasons to challenge the approval of a drug if you're the right person and you pick the right judge. I think that's the key here, is that you know, you would have to pick the right judge who has decided that they can undermine the FDA's authority.
Okay, well, let's talk about that for a minute. The undermining of the authority of the FDA. Was this an undermining of their authority? Is their reputation somehow damaged by this?
Well, I would say that the reputation is not necessarily damaged unless you're someone who probably walked in not respecting the FDA's authority.
I already had that leaning.
Exactly, But I do think that it undermines their authority significantly if it stands, Because you know, we typically considered the agency to have a lot of discretion and their authority over the safety and efficacy of our drugs. There's a good reason for that. You know, there was a time where we didn't have an FDA. You know, we weren't assured as consumers that their drugs were taking were safe and that they worked. You know, we look to the agency for that. I'm happy that when I, you know, take a prescription, I know that someone has made sure that I'm not going to die from it or have side effects, and that it's.
Going to help me.
And so I think, you know, the broadness of this decision and this idea that the FDA had reviewed the data, and that a judge could look at just components of the data, not even the full data set, and say, well, I know better, that's alarming.
I think that would put a chilling effect not just on the innovation that we talked about, but also on what the FDA decides to do. Like it might I don't want to say paralyze them, but it might definitely slow down the process, which is not a fast process to begin with. Do you follow me?
No?
No.
In fact, one of the things that's been pointed out that we haven't talked about is the FDA does have authority to withdraw a drug from the market, and that's a very slow process. It's been criticized for how slow it is, but there are you know, really avenues in place to take a drug off the market if it truly is not safe or effective. And this judge has sort of come in to say like, well, I've decided this. You know, we're not going to go through this process that FDA would normally go through, where it's very public, transparent, people have an opportunity to weigh in on the importance of the drug in the market place. Patients can win instead, you know, this is what's happening. So I do feel like it has a chilling effect, and it does, you know sort of as a consumer, I worry about what that means, you know, for people's attitudes about the safety of their drugs.
I would think as a consumer, as a stockholder, uh, members of you know, people who work in big pharma, independent medical research, all of those would be impacted by a judge stepping up and going.
No, oh, definitely, And we are finally starting to see pharma come off the sidelines.
I mean it's taken a while. Obviously.
When Roe was overturned last summer, you know, there were concerns from the outset about some of these lawsuits that could emerge to challenge the status of mifipristone, and they did finally file a group of companies and Bio, which is one of the industry you know, sort of lobbying organizations, filed an amicus brief last week pointing out all of these things that this is really undermining the authority and you know, expertise, signed typic expertise that we all rely on as consumers, as investors, as inventors.
Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry. And now stay with us. Coming up, we're going to take a look at the softening labor market. Will that make it easier for you to hire new employees? It turns out there are more complications you'll have to consider. And don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast Countess Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I Maymy Morris. Executives have been looking forward to a softening labor market when labor terry Gina Raimondo delivered the news.
This is an excellent jobs report. You're seeing record low black unemployment. You're seeing record low unemployment among people who have been left behind. And the best news for me is higher percentage of people working in the workforce.
And while executives have been waiting for some relief, they might be in for an unwelcome surprise. Now you might think it would be easier to hire people, but not necessarily. And a survey released April fourth by the Conference Board, fifty seven percent of chief executives said they were having problems attracting qualified workers. And while that number has declined from the final quarter of twenty twenty two, it still means that more than half of companies are finding it hard to hire. So why is this so hard? We turned to Bloomberg Opinion editor Sarah Green Carmichael for some insight. Now, Sarah, we usually see fingers of blame pointed at the economy or the workers themselves for creating a tight job market. What else is going on here?
Yes, I think that companies actually need to look a little bit at themselves in the mirror. Bad hiring practices are also contributing to the problem. Part of it is that companies are potentially doing too much outside hiring right now rather than promoting from within and compounding the problem. And really the heart of the problem is that job interviews, hiring processes, vetting processes just take too long and are too involved. So it's hard to hire because companies have made it hard to hire.
Yeah, you say in your piece that companies just simply don't hire. Well, is that what you mean? That they just take too long and they give you too many hoops of fire to jump through.
Yeah, I'll give you an example of something that I think companies get wrong, right at the start with the job description. It's natural if you're bringing someone on board to start out with a wish list of forty two different attributes of what you want in a candidate.
But that's not realistic to find in one person.
The less companies will often insist that no someone has to be able to hit the ground running and do the job on day one, and they really need all these qualifications, but they actually don't have the budget to pay for someone with all of those qualifications, so qualified candidates are turning them down or not applying for that job.
They're looking for other jobs. So right from the outset, companies have sort of hamstrung their effort to hire people, and then they make it worse by having people you know interview with dozens of internal you know people, not just HR or the hiring manager, but colleagues. It's sort of three sixty process that could drag on for months. Or they ask people to complete sample projects that not only are difficult for candidates to complete, but also take a huge amount of time for the hiring manager to review. So by sort of loading up the process at every phase of the way, they really are making it incredibly burdensome to apply for a job, but also for them to vet the people who've applied for the job.
But you do still want strict vetting, right, You do want the best person for the job. You don't just want to grab the first guy who walks through the door.
You don't want to grab the first person who walks through the door unless that person's really good, in which case you're done. But I think that sometimes companies get a little bit out over their ski tips with this phrase the best person for the job. Most companies are not actually rank ordering the millions of people on the planet and finding the one best person for the job. You know, they're looking through their networks. They're hoping someone will apply. They're hiring recruiters to help them. It's a bit random, and they're looking for someone who can do the job and do it well at the price they can afford to pay. The very best person for the job probably will have a better offer that pays more, so, you know, it's a little bit of a judgment call.
It's a little bit of.
A dance they have to do to say, you know, here's what we can afford, and here's the kind of person we'd like to hire. And I think that more companies should probably be a bit more realistic about what are the core skills this job really needs and what can we actually teach someone that they could learn in the first two three six months on the job that would actually then make them great once we onboard them properly.
Let's look at another angle that you mentioned in your column. Just full disclosure, I'm a gen Xer and I remember right out of college in the nineties we had the whole you're lucky to be here attitude. We got that a lot. It was really prevalent. Is that still the message that companies send? Have they gotten away from that?
I think that, you know, there are definitely times when companies have realized that that you're lucky to be here.
Is not a strong selling point.
I think the last couple of years companies really did take maybe a more we're lucky to have you approach when the labor worket was really tight. But I think companies have gotten a little fed up with that, and I do sense that this sort of you're lucky to work at our wonderful company is still very much the dominant attitude.
So I think that it's something where.
You know, I'm glad that I guess executives feel so good about their companies, like Morales high More, that's great, but it's a little bit I think maybe of a sense. I think there needs to be maybe a bit more realism that talented people always have options, and what you're really looking for is a match where like, yes, someone feels lucky to have that job, but also you should feel lucky to have them.
You really wanted to be felt on both sides.
So, Sarah, you also suggest that executives should look at the application process from the prospective employee's point of view. How would they do that?
Yeah, So there was a great example of this recently where the CEO and other top executives at Uber had decided that actually it was too difficult to bring on new drivers, so they actually started driving for Uber themselves to find out what some of the pain points were. Probably most CEOs cannot go through their own hiring process, but there are other ways to kind of get that information. So you might interview candidates who've dropped out of the process or withdrawn. You could keep some data, for example, on how many people start the process but don't finish, or how many offers you've made that have been declined, how long has the job been open.
You know, if you've had a job open for six months, you really might need to rethink it. So there are other ways short of going through the process yourself, that you could put yourself in candidates shoes and.
Can I just add as part of the application process, when you as a company decide to go a different direction and not hire someone who has jumped through all the hoops, do them the courtesy of letting them know. I happen to know that a lot of times they just ghost them. That's not cool.
One hundred percent agree with you.
One of the things that I found very frustrating over the last few months is I keep seeing headlines in different newspapers and websites about applicants who ghost the employer and don't show up for the job or don't show up for the interview. But the stories that I hear from people in mind my network are much more of the reverse. You know, someone who has taken the time to go through the application process, do a bunch of interviews, and.
Then they just don't hear back.
I mean that sens a terrible message about your company and what you value. And hopefully, if you don't hire someone, you still would want them potentially as a customer or a client or maybe a future hire. So it's really important to put your best foot forward.
Right to keep those relationships strong. So, Sarah, let me ask you, how are you going to turn this ship around? I'm not you specifically, but how does the ship turn around? Because you were talking about an enormous part of the economy, right, people who hire, I mean that's everybody, and you've got to sort of get the message to them that maybe they needed to look at their hiring practices.
How do you do that?
Yeah, I think one is keeping that data on how the process is going, how long it's taking, and also looking at what happens after you've hired someone. Was the herculean effort worth it? Did the person you hire do well in the job. So one is just paying attention to that data. I think another one is doing that gut check at the beginning of what does this job really entail?
Let's be realistic.
Another is maybe expecting to do some hiring when you hire some sorry, expecting to do some onboarding and training when you hire someone from outside. But I do think that one way companies could make this much easier on themselves is if they put more effort into hiring and promoting from within. One of the experts I talked to for this column, Peter Capelli, who's a professor at the Wharton School, said that, you know, decades ago, most companies were hiring five to ten percent of people from outside the organization, and that was mostly entry level jobs. So they got very good at saying, Okay, this is what we need in an entry level candidate. Now it's eighty percent, eighty percent of jobs are being filled from outside the organization. So it's a huge burden on HR departments, it's a huge burden on hiring managers, and you end up hiring people who do take a long time to settle into their new roles. You know, most us learn when we stay with a company and advance in that company. The transferable skills like they're transferable, but there's always a longer OnRamp period than you think when you switch companies. So I think hiring more people internally and then paying a little bit more attention to the process, and then having a whole process take less time. We'll just make companies suffer less as they try to hire people.
That's really great advice, Sarah. Thank you so much for taking the time with us.
Thank you so much for having me.
You're listening to Bloomberg opinion, I, Mammy Morris, Absurdly cheap short haul flights in Europe are coming to an end, and if you would hope to save some money on the cost of a last minute quick getaway, that's not happening. We'll look at this new reality for flights with Bloomberg opinion columnist Lara Williams. Lara also covers climate change for Bloomberg and she joins us now. Laura, first of all, thank you for taking the time with us. Tell us about how the cost of a quick getaway just got so much more expensive.
Flights this summer all over the world have become more so. From if you're looking at flights from the UK where I live, to Europe, where I often like to go, they're about a third higher than they were last summer. And that's due to a combination of I think high demands because everyone's going back to traveling after several years of pandemic, and also the rising across of aviation fuel.
How is climate change impacting this? That's part of your wheelhouse. You can find the connection between these two.
This is a long term trend. Unfortunately, specifically the ways that we're trying to mitigate climate change, which obviously really important, it's vital, it's going to mean that we're going to have higher flight prices going forward. That's because of two reasons. So the number one is that climate compliance rules are changing, so aviation in the EU, UK and Switzerland they're subject to emissions trading STEAM, so that means that airlines have to pay for every turn of carbon dioxide emitted on flights within the year Upean area. At the moment, half of those allowances are given for free, but as of twenty twenty six, airlines are going to be liable for one hundred percent of those emissions. So that means that carbon costs are going to double and then even beyond that. So by twenty fifty European airlines have pledged to try and reach net zero and so that's going to happen through research and development. They're going to switch to sustainable aviation fuel, they don't have to make some investments in improving operational efficiency things like that, And a new report has put the cost of that at eight hundred and twenty billion euros on top of what they'll already have to pay for, which is huge. So for those two reasons, aviation is going to adapt really expensive.
Now we're specifically talking about the European Union here. Is this happening anywhere else or do you anticipate ripple effects throughout the system.
For now, it's just airlines in the EU the UK that have sort of like raised the alarm, like waving the flag. But I'd expect similar pressures to be put on airlines all over the world because everyone's going to have to make the switch to you know, climate compliance and not polluting.
You had mentioned earlier in the interview about how so many people are looking to book airlines and to get those quick getaways booked in. But it seems like if so many more people are doing this and then then maybe the airlines could sort of absorb some of this cost because they have so many people who are looking to fly. But it's not working out that.
Way unfortunately, not so at the moment, the profit margins are really really low. It's a really competitive industry, so they've had to keep their ticket prices low. I think there's one analyst said if airlines to charge more for tickets, they would already be doing that. And when you look at the carbon the changes in the carbon market alone, that is going to reduce earnings by about seventy seven percent across Europe's six largest points point airlines, So you can imagine what that looks like for the whole for every airline. You know, it's going to reduce operate like profit margins by a lot, and then then you add in all the other extra investments that they're don't have some h and the only option is to raise ticket prices.
And perhaps fewer flights.
Yeah, exactly, So they might not even have a choice because any increase in ticket prices aren't a result in some demand de strutch. And you know people are already stretched kind of pay for food and heating their homes, so you know, when the holiday becomes that much more expensive, that's going to be like one of the first things to do. I think.
Laura Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She covers climate change and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by Eric Mallow, and you can find all of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us today's top stories and global business headlines coming up. I'm Amy Morris. This is Bloomberg