A Ron turn: DeSantis’s disastrous announcement

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a.

Very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited.

To be clear, that's half price, not half the service.

Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price.

So that means a half day.

Yeah, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow 135 gigabytes of network busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com. Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. I'm your host, Ore Ogumbi. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. Flying is terrible for the environment, and with more passengers comes even more emissions. It appears that airlines want to decarbonize, but aircraft manufacturers aren't giving them very many options. And TV and film writers in Hollywood are on strike. The impact of their actions is being felt in many other parts of the world too, but not in the ways you might expect. First up though, Last night, Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis formally entered America's presidential race.

In Florida, we proved that it can be done. We chose facts over fear, education over indoctrination, law and order over rioting and disorder. We held the line.

There was, of course, the super slick campaign video.

I'm Ron DeSantis and I'm running for president to lead our great American comeback.

And then there was a much anticipated announcement which he chose to make with Elon Musk on Twitter Spaces. But unfortunately for Mr. DeSantis, Twitter's tech couldn't quite handle it.

All right, sorry about that. We've got so many people here that I think we are kind of melting the servers, which is a good sign.

When the livestream finally returned after repeated crashes, only around half the initial 600,000 person audience stuck around to hear what he had to say.

There is no substitute for victory. We must end the culture of losing that has infected the Republican Party in recent years. We must look forward backwards. We need the courage to lead and we must have the strength to win.

DeSantis is seen as the most viable challenger to Donald Trump for the Republican Party nomination. But after waning support in the polls and last night's shaky campaign launch, he now faces an uphill battle.

Ron DeSantis decided to go on Twitter to have a conversation with Elon Musk to declare his presidency for the United States, and the result was nothing short of disastrous.

Idris Calhoun writes about U.S. politics for the Economist and is the co host of our sister podcast, Checks and balance.

It took 25 minutes for the announcement to actually start. There was a lot of backtalk that you could hear. The audio was fuzzy. DeSantis, in what should have been the biggest political speech of his life, ended up being sort of a panelist throughout the whole thing. It was not a good start for the governor as he tries an uphill battle to try to become the Republican nominee over Donald Trump.

And so tell us, what is Mr. DeSantis pitch to the voters? How is he trying to persuade people to get on board?

So Ron DeSantis pitch is that he will be Donald Trump without all of the drama. He sought the president's endorsement in order to become governor and he embraces a lot of the same principles, particularly around immigration, his disdain for institutions and norms. What has distinguished him most while governor has been his willingness to get into the culture war. And in his announcement he talked quite a lot about the problems of wokeness and the necessity of ending it. Now the problem is that he's so far unwilling to take on the former president directly. Even in his announcement, he didn't mention the president at all. And the fact that he seemingly embraces most of the President's policies without attacking him means that the pitch to voters is a little bit harder to get across as well.

And so how is that showing up in the polls?

The early polling suggests that he's a strong second. He is maybe getting a quarter of Republicans who say that they would vote for him in the primary. But that's still far behind Donald Trump, who a near majority of Republicans say that they would vote for in the upcoming primaries, which will begin at the start of next year. So he's in a much stronger position than the other Republicans. And there are many more who might enter as well.

But.

But he's far behind where he needs to be. The problem for him is that a lot of those third tier candidates, let's call them, are going to be spending their time attacking Ron DeSantis instead of attacking Donald Trump. They know that Trump and his ideas are popular within the party and they don't want to be seen as anti Trump. That's a death sentence in the modern Republican Party. And so they already are attacking the governor. They're going to try to come in second and displace him that way. So he's going to have a difficult challenge ahead. He has a policy record that will appeal to a lot of Republican voters. He can demonstrate what he's done in Florida. He's turned the state a lot redder than it was before. He's enacted a lot of the policies that many of them would like. In many ways, he's been more effective than when Donald Trump was president in terms of abortion laws, gun laws, these sorts of things. In recent months, he's had a few struggles. He got into another fight with Disney, the local big corporation. And he also made the mistake of calling the war in Ukraine a territorial dispute, which did not endear him to many donors. The delicate task of taking Trump voters away is one that is going to be difficult.

And Donald Trump, his chief rival for the nomination, has also been on the trail. Tell us how his campaign's going.

So, initially, it wasn't going well. It started back in November of 2022 in order to make America great and glorious again. I am tonight announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. And that was maybe the weakest point he was at. But he's since managed to right the ship. He has a much more professional operation this time than he did in the previous campaigns. And his campaign has spent many months attacking Ron DeSantis over his record in Florida. They've been, interestingly attacking him from the left about votes he took about Medicare and Social Security when he was a congressman. And perhaps surprisingly, Trump, who was indicted for litany of financial crimes in New York and recently was found liable for sexual assault in a separate trial, seems to have gathered strength from those decisions. For many primary voters, this cemented the idea that the former president is victim of the deep state. And he's running in this interesting way in which he's both got the institutional record of having been president, of having changed the party establishment in many ways, but also in some ways feels like the insurgent, given all of the issues that he's had in the courts. And the two together, I think, are a fairly lethal combination.

It sounds like Mr. DeSantis is in for an uphill battle. Does he have enough backing to change that?

He starts in a good position. Obviously, it's one that others in the race are going to be envious of. The biggest advantage for him is going to be that he has high name recognition, not as high as Trump, but certainly pretty close. He still has high favorability. He isn't unlike previous antagonists to Donald Trump, such as Liz Cheney, who are basically excommunicado the party. And the biggest advantage that he's going to have is the support of big donors who are disproportionately soured on Donald Trump and are willing to support anyone who they think has the best chance of overtaking him. So we already got an early preview of that with the $200 million that he took in for his gubernatorial run last year. There's a super pac, which is a campaign organization that can take unlimited donations, which is already set up, is probably going to have a haul nearly as big as that. And that will allow him to probably outspend Donald Trump in the early phase of the primary. Now, I don't think it's going to be fatal to Trump because Trump has a lot of support from small donors and they can support his operation for many months. But that will be, I think, the chief advantage that Ron DeSantis brings into the primary.

Okay, so if Mr. DeSantis is stumbling, what other candidates could possibly be options at this point?

Well, everyone hopes it's going to be their turn. Senator Tim Scott, who is Republican from South Carolina, entered the race just this week as well.

Our nation is not a nation in decline, but under Joe Biden, we have become a nation in retreat, retreating from our heritage.

He's calling for old style, less confrontational brand of politics, the sort of Reagan esque city on the Hill message that I think doesn't have as much appetite in the Republican Party as it once did. And then there are others as well. Nikki Haley, who was the governor from South Carolina, served in Donald Trump's Cabinet, has also declared she is also studiously avoiding a conflict with the president and is, I think, if you had to characterize her, bit more willing to embrace America on the national stage. She's less isolationist and thinks that America ought to still support Ukraine. And then there are others who are dithering at the moment. Mike Pence, the former vice president, is rumored to be launching a bid fairly soon. The Virginia governor, Glenn Youngkin, who had previously seemed to rule out a bid, might apparently think about sticking his toes in, particularly if Ron DeSantis doesn't do very well.

Idris, in your view, how likely is a Trump nomination at this point?

I think it's certainly his to lose. There are a lot of indicators that are pointing his direction. The first is that he at the moment commands 55% of Republican primary voters, according to polls. Obviously, there's a long way to go, but in general, candidates who have a lead at large tend not to squander it. He has a sophisticated campaign operation which is led by professionals. He'll have no trouble raising money. He has universal name recognition. And most importantly, everyone in the Republican Party says that they're an adherent to Trumpism, and they're really reluctant to attack him, and that's a tough combination to try to chip at. Ron DeSantis has had a few stumbles in the past few months, but he's a clever and very driven man. So I imagine that he'll try to right the ship and try to stick a glancing blow on the president in the first debate, which is supposed to be held in August. But at that point, Donald Trump might be so far ahead that he doesn't even bother to show up.

Idris, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you so much. Man's attempts to fly like the birds are a matter of record of hundreds and hundreds of years of Britain history.

But the elusive talents of his fine.

Feathered friends somehow seem to escape his avid clutches.

Down through the ages.

Boarding a plane for business or pleasure has become such a common thing that it's easy to forget how long it took to achieve powered flight. But just over a century later, some 4 billion passengers now travel by air each year. The trouble is, efforts to curb emissions from planes have so far failed to take off. Although the pandemic hit the aviation sector hard, cutting its emissions dramatically, passenger levels have bounced back since and are expected to exceed 2019 numbers by next year.

In the rich world, flying has become part of almost everyone's life, whether it's going overseas or indeed for business trips. Affordable flying has opened up the world to an inordinate number of people. It's brought incredible freedom to experience different parts of the world and different cultures.

Simon Wright is the Economist's industry editor.

Having said all that, 80% of the world has probably never set foot on a plane. There are expected to be 4 billion trips by plane next year, and that will grow to 10 billion by 2050, according to some forecasts.

Wow. Okay, that sounds pretty bad for the environment.

One of the problems with air travel is indeed its impact on the environment. For a long while, this has been sort of brushed under the carpet. But even before the pandemic, the concept of flight shaming from Sweden was beginning to enter the lexicon. Admittedly, currently, passenger jets only account for around 2% of total annual carbon dioxide emissions. But that's going to increase over time, not decrease, because aviation is incredibly hard to decarbonise. We're going to get this enormous growth in air travel, but at the same time, other industries that are easier to decarbonize will do so. So that proportion is going to grow.

Okay, but we're seeing other kinds of transport trying to become Cleaner. I mean, cars are going electric, for example. Isn't there a way that we can make planes more efficient and even electric as well?

The industry is tremendously proud of its achievements. So far. Carbon emissions per km traveled by the average passenger have fallen by more than 80% over the past 50 years. And each new generation of aircraft generally consumes 50 to 20% less fuel than the previous one, largely thanks to improved engine technology. And that sort of works into the whole economics of the industry. Fuel is at least 30% of cost for most airlines. So airlines are incredibly keen to upgrade to more fuel efficient planes just because it saves money.

And tell us, what more should they be doing?

Well, there are several things. First of all, according to some estimates, the historic pace of improvement would actually have to double in order to get to NET 0 by 2050, which is what the industry has committed to in line with the Paris agreement. And that's much harder because every time you make an improvement, the next improvement becomes harder still. There are other ways of doing that. Battery electrification is one. There are several companies. Hart Aerospace, for example, are working on battery power prototypes. Hart already has orders from Air Canada and United Airlines for 30 seater planes that could fly 200 kilometers on batteries alone or double that with hybrid power using sustainable aviation fuel. But these small planes won't be in the air till 2028 at the earliest. And some say that the battery planes could cover routes of up to 1500 kilometers at some point in the future. Using liquid hydrogen has been floated. Airbus is looking at this very seriously, but this would take an awfully long time to get there. They're saying 2035, perhaps to get some sort of short haul plane in the air. But even those trips only account for around 20% of today's emissions from passenger jets. So there's a lot more work to do.

And you said that this will only cover the short haul flights. Are there any other options for the longer routes? I mean, I would personally quite like a cleaner way to fly back to Nigeria.

Well, listen, the only other possibility is using what are called sustainable aviation fuels, or SAFs. Such fuels are already being used in small proportions mixed with traditional kerosene, and they're currently produced from old cooking fat and as I say, blended. There are several problems with SAFs. First of all, they're not fully carbon free, but according to arta, an airline industry body, we need a gigantic increase in the amount of safs between now and 2050.

Okay, Simon, you're painting a pretty gloomy picture here. Is there no commercial incentive for the aviation industry to go green.

Well, look, certainly there's pressure from airlines. They want to appear green. They've been wrapped over the knuckles by advertising authorities for promoting green credentials that aren't really there. But the problem is also made worse by the planemaker duopoly between Boeing and Airbus. What's required is a next generation of planes to make this sort of technological savings that I talked about before, and there's no sign of that happening at the moment. A new plane programme could cost up to 30 billion, would take 10 years from launch to commercialization. The problem is Boeing is still dealing with the fallout from the 737 Max and the two fatal crashes that put it out of action and out of service for 18 months. Airbus is working on hydrogen. It has healthier finances in many ways, but it requires that commercial pressure for it to launch a new plane. It's not going to do anything if Boeing's not going to do anything.

And how about governments? Is there anything that they can do to really put the pressure on?

Air France was bailed out during the pandemic, and the French government, as part of that deal, introduced the proviso that it wouldn't compete with trains on routes of less than two and a half hours. And in the Netherlands recently, the Dutch government tried to restrict the number of flights at Schiphol Airport, largely to cut noise pollution, although carbon dioxide was part of what they were looking at. It wanted to cut them by 8% a year to 460,000 flights, but it was defeated in the courts. So I think the conclusion is that the aviation industry is going to decarbonize. The industry wants to get there, but it's just not going to get there in the time scale I think it's set for itself.

Simon, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Thank you, Ari.

We're always trying to improve our podcasts and we'd like your help. Whether you're a loyal fan or a new listener, we want to hear from you. Please do us a favor and tell us what you think by filling out our listener survey. It'll only take you a few minutes. Just head to economist.com intelligencesurvey. Britain is one of the world's largest centers of film and TV production.

Why are you chasing the thing that.

Drove your father crazy? Indiana Jones latest adventure, the Dial of Destiny, was partly shot at Pinewood Studios, just west of London. Hi, Barbie.

Hi, Barbie.

Hi, Barbie.

Hi, Barbie.

Hi, Barbie.

Hi, Ken.

And the upcoming Barbie film from Greta Gerwig, with its bright pink sheen found a home at a soundstage in Watford. Since Hollywood's writers went on strike earlier this month, some of those big productions are slowing down. But the disruption might not be all bad news for British made films and TV shows.

The writers strike in Hollywood puts Britain in a difficult position, really, because a lot of American TV actually is filmed over here in the uk, so already work is starting to dry up, even though there's no strike here in Britain.

Tom Wainwright is the Economist's media editor.

But at the same time, there could be opportunities for British production companies because if the strike goes on a long time, then there's eventually going to be a lack of new content in Hollywood. And so I think those big American studios are going to be looking to other countries to fill the scheduling gaps.

Okay, so Tom, fill us in. What's the current state of negotiations in the writers strike? Do you think the dispute is nearing any kind of settlement?

I don't think it is, no. I mean, it's still very much going on. And we saw just the other day the chief executive of Warner Brothers, David Zaslav, was giving a talk at a university and he was drowned out by students shouting, pay your effing writers. I think it's, you know, still very, very much underway and I don't think they're going to be able to fix it anytime soon. And it's hard to exactly how long it's going to go on. But the last of these strikes that happened back in 2007-2008 lasted for 100 days. So we could be looking at another long one.

What kind of knock on effects does that have for the British film industry?

Well, it's complicated. I mean, there isn't a strike here in the uk, so British writers are not on strike as yet. But American made shows being filmed in Britain are in trouble because they can really only continue if their scripts are already completely locked down. And that's actually a harder condition than it might sound because big production tend to have writers on hand all the time just to tweak the script as they're shooting. So that's very difficult at the moment. Shows that are made by British companies and that have been commissioned by American companies can go ahead as long as the contracts have already been signed and as long as the whole thing is governed by British law. But any new deals are off limits and anybody who breaks the strike, any British writer who works for an American company risks being blacklisted in future by the American Writers Guild, which would mean in practice they wouldn't be able to work again in Hollywood. So it's a difficult situation. Even British writers here who are not on strike find that in practice there's a lot of work that they can no longer do.

Okay, but it's not all gloom. Right. You mentioned that there are some possible opportunities for some of the entirely British productions. Tell us a bit more about those.

Well, yeah, I mean, I think overall Britain's not going to benefit from this because it is a big producer of American content. But there are a couple of areas where opportunities might present themselves for some people. So one area is that the cost of producing TV in the UK in recent years, and film as well, has gone up enormously. Because we've seen this trend in which a lot of American studios have come over here looking for spare production capacity and they brought their enormous budgets. You know, we're talking about companies like Apple and like Amazon. And so the price of everything from soundstage rental to costumes and makeup and hairdressing and prop construction, all this stuff, the price has just gone through the roof. And that's been great for the people who do those jobs. But for production companies over here in the uk, it's made life very difficult because suddenly they're paying much, much higher costs than they used to for these things. If American companies have to put a pause on their production for a while because of this strike, we're going to see those prices go down. So again, bad news for the people doing those jobs, but good news perhaps for the local companies producing shows. So that could be the BBC, it could be itv. They're going to find that if this strike goes on, they will be paying less for those services than they did in the past. And I think the other thing that they're likely to find is that as those costs go down, at the same time, they're going to find that the price internationally that their shows can command is likely to go up.

How so? Why might British made content now be worth more internationally?

Well, really, if the strike goes on, all the American studios are going to find that eventually they're just running out of content and they need to keep the content coming. They run these streaming services and they found over the last few years that really, to keep subscribers subscribing, they've got to keep feeding them new stuff. And if they find that week after week, month after month, they're not able to make new stuff in the us, they're going to have to look elsewhere. And so the market for foreign shows, including shows made in the uk, is going to heat up. These studios are going to be getting more and more desperate for new stuff and so UK production companies may find that they're able to charge higher prices to these studios to sell them their British made shows.

Tom, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Thank you.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show by getting in touch@podcastseconomist.com and if you're not a subscriber to the Economist, what are you waiting for? Dive in. Get a free 30 day digital subscription by going to economist.com intelligenceoffer the link is in the Show Notes. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

Sam.