Crews upgrade East Baton Rouge traffic signals after malfunction
A system malfunction disrupted approximately 150 traffic signals across the city on Friday, Feb. 28, according to Director of Transportation and Drainage Fred Raiford.
The issue, which caused signals to enter flash mode, was addressed over the weekend. Crews have been working since Monday to upgrade the firmware on each affected signal.
Seven crews have been on-site every day this week, updating the signals to prevent further disruptions. This work is expected to continue through the remainder of the week and may extend into Monday.
NWS: Two tornadoes hit south Louisiana on Mardi Gras
Arrest warrant issued for Southern University campus shooting suspect
Republicans need to cut Medicaid to hit budget savings target, CBO finds
Eric Adams faces calls to resign from Democrats at fiery House hearing on immigration
Louisiana continues monitoring measles outbreaks in Texas, New Mexico
Crash near LSU sends victim to hospital for treatment
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
JD Vance's Odds of Beating Gavin Newsom, AOC and Pete Buttigieg in 2028
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Vice President JD Vance is among the leading candidates to win the 2028 presidential race and could face off against Democrats like California Governor Gavin Newsom or Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, according to betting markets. Newsweek reached out to their teams for comment via email. Why It Matters The 2028 presidential race is years away, but candidates are already making moves like traveling to early-voting South Carolina to build support among primary voters or fundraising for potential campaigns ahead of what is likely to be a competitive race. Betting markets like Polymarket accurately predicted President Donald Trump as the winner of the 2024 election over former Vice President Kamala Harris last November. Betting Odds for 2028 Election: What to Know Polymarket kicked off its betting odds in July for the 2028 presidential race, and traders have already bet nearly $4 million on various candidates. Currently, Vance, who serves as Trump's second-in-command, is the leading candidate in the betting odds with a 28 percent chance of winning the election. Three leading Democrats follow. Newsom has a 15 percent chance of winning, Ocasio-Cortez has a nine percent chance and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has an eight percent chance of becoming the next president. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Republican, follows at seven percent while Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, is next at a five percent chance of winning. Kamala Harris Betting Odds Stall After Announcement Harris' chances of winning the presidential race stalled following her announcement that she is not running for governor in California, which fueled speculation that she will run for president. Prior to that announcement, she had about a 2.3 percent chance of winning the presidency, and her announcement caused her chances of winning to rise to 3.7 percent on Wednesday. By Friday morning, however, her chances had dropped back down to 3.3 percent. That's roughly on par with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, both Democrats, as well as Trump, who is Constitutionally ineligible to run for a third term, and Elon Musk, who cannot run for president because he was not born in the United States. Her odds also slightly increased in the U.K. based bookmaker William Hill's market to 3.8 percent from 2 percent. Primary Election Odds in Kalshi Betting Market Rival betting market Kalshi also offered odds for the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries in 2028. On the Democratic side, Newsom is the frontrunner with 20 percent, followed by Ocasio-Cortez, a favorite among progressives, at 15 percent and Buttigieg at 10 percent. Maryland Governor Wes Moore follows at six percent. Harris, Shapiro, Beshear and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff each have a five percent chance. Traders view Vance as more of a favorite on the Republican side with a 54 percent chance. Rubio has a nine percent chance, and Trump has a six percent chance of winning the primary. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard each have a five percent chance of winning. Presidential Race 2028: What Polls Say About Primaries, General Election While Harris' odds remain low, she does remain a polling frontrunner to win the party's nomination if she ends up running. A McLaughlin poll released in early July showed that Harris had support from 25 percent of respondents. Newsom and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has not indicated she plans to run, each received 9 percent support, while Buttigieg received 8 percent. That poll surveyed 1,000 general election voters from July 9 to July 14. However, the latest AtlasIntel poll showed Buttigieg leading with 27 percent support. Ocasio-Cortez followed with 19 percent, while 16 percent backed Newsom. In that poll, only 14 percent of respondents picked Harris. It surveyed 1,935 adults from July 13 to July 18 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. Vice President JD Vance attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 15, 2024. Vice President JD Vance attends the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 15, the aisle, Republicans seem to be rallying early behind Vance. The McLaughlin showed Vance with 31 percent, followed by Donald Trump Jr. at 19 percent, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis at eight percent and Rubio at four percent. The AtlasIntel survey found Vance at 58 percent, DeSantis at 13 percent, Rubio at 10 percent and Trump Jr. at five percent. An Emerson College poll, conducted among 1,400 registered voters from July 21 to July 22, 2025, showed Vance with an early lead over leading Democratic candidates. He led Buttigieg by one point (44 percent to 43 percent), Newsom by three points (45 percent to 42 percent) and Ocasio-Cortez by three points (44 percent to 41 percent), according to the poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. What People Are Saying William Hill spokesperson Lee Phelps previously told Newsweek: "With Kamala Harris effectively ruling herself out of the running to become the next Governor of California, we think she could have her eyes on the 2028 presidential election." The organization Republicans against Trump wrote on a July 30 post to X: "Newsom tops Polymarket's 2028 Dem odds at 21%, with AOC at 16%. Honestly, popular governors like Beshear or Shapiro would be stronger picks to win over moderates and Never Trumpers." Donald Trump Jr. wrote to X on July 22: "LOL Trump has equal odds as Kamala for 2028. It's just as likely there will be a constitutional amendment to add a third term for Trump as it is for Kamala to win a national election after being her party's nominee. Hilarious!" What Happens Next Typically, candidates don't make their presidential announcements until after the midterms, which are set to be held on November 3, 2026. Candidates are likely to spend the coming years laying the groundwork for their future runs.
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Democrats retreat on the Green New Deal
President Trump's first term provoked the movement for a Green New Deal. His second term may have killed it. Why it matters: Democrats aren't explicitly disavowing the Green New Deal, but they've abruptly stopped talking about it as they scramble to find new ways to talk about climate change. Over the past three months, Democrats in Congress collectively said "Green New Deal" only six times across social media and on the floor. That's the fewest mentions since the proposal rose to prominence in the fall of 2018, according to data from the legislative tracking service Quorum. Over the same 3-month period, Republicans mentioned "Green New Deal" 337 times as they continue to believe that what President Trump calls the "Green New Scam" is a losing issue for Democrats. Zoom in: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts have not reintroduced their Green New Deal resolution that had become one of their signature initiatives (they introduced it in April 2023 of the last Congress). Spokespeople for Markey and Ocasio-Cortez did not respond for comment. In attacking the GOP's "one big, beautiful bill," Democrats and many groups have focused on claims it will drive up energy costs and cost jobs from scuttled projects rather than focus on it exacerbating climate change. Other Democrats eyeing presidential runs have signaled they aren't purists on climate change in the way some Democrats did during Trump's first term. Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona told The New York Times earlier this year: "Every Latino man wants a big-ass truck, which, nothing wrong with that." After Elon Musk called Sen. Mark Kelly a "traitor," the Arizona senator traded in his Tesla for a Chevy Tahoe SUV (he noted he had two of them: one in D.C. and another in Arizona). Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has continued to be supportive of natural gas projects in his state. Flashback: Many 2020 Democratic presidential candidates embraced the "Green New Deal" and put forward multitrillion-dollar proposals. When then-Sen. Kamala Harris ran for president in 2020, her Green New Deal agenda called for mandating automakers to only make electric or hydrogen cars by 2035. Between the lines: The tide against far-reaching Green New Deal-esque proposals began before Trump won in 2024. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dismissed it in 2019 as the "green dream, or whatever they call it." When Vice President Harris was running for president last fall, her campaign equivocated and dodged on the issue. In October, Harris said in Michigan: "Let us be clear, contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, I will never tell you what kind of car you have to drive." The intrigue: Some Democratic leaders are increasingly skeptical that liberal climate advocacy groups can deliver the voters they claim to represent. Former President Biden passed one of the most ambitious and expensive climate-focused bills in history, and voters did not appear to reward him. Josh Feed, who leads the Climate and Energy Program at the moderate think tank Third Way, said: "The groups wouldn't or couldn't sell the IRA, and promised they'd deliver young voters on climate. They didn't deliver on selling the IRA, and Democrats did worse with young voters. A lot of elected officials' faith and trust in that apparatus has been shaken." Some of those groups are having trouble raising money in the Trump era. The Sunrise Movement, which has been one of the most aggressive advocates for a Green New Deal, raised less than $30,000 over the first six months of 2025. By the numbers: Wind and solar remain the most popular forms of energy, but popular support has declined significantly over the past decade, especially among Republicans, according to a Pew Research poll published in June. "Republicans' views on the nation's energy priorities are now the reverse of what they were in 2020," Pew wrote. "Today, 67% of Republicans and Republican leaners say the country should give priority to developing fossil fuel sources like oil, coal and natural gas." The bottom line: Some Democrats think that the party is overreacting to Trump's victory in what was ultimately a close presidential race after the party swapped out Joe Biden last summer. "Some Democrats are so stuck in the fetal position post-2024 that they might miss an opportunity to go on offense in 2025 on clean energy cost savings and job creation," said Jared Leopold, a strategist and co-founder of Evergreen Action.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
Analysis: The US government has declared war on the very idea of climate change
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. Americans are used to whiplash in their climate policy. The US has been in and out and in and out again of the key Paris climate agreement over the past four presidencies. But in his second administration, President Donald Trump is not just approaching climate science with skepticism. Instead, his administration is moving to destroy the methods by which his or any future administration can respond to climate change. These moves, which are sure to be challenged in court, extend far beyond Trump's well-documented antipathy toward solar and wind energy and his pledges to drill ever more oil even though the US is already the world's largest oil producer. His Environmental Protection Agency announced plans this week to declare that greenhouse gas emissions do not endanger humans, a move meant to pull the rug out from under nearly all environmental regulation related to the climate. But that's just one data point. There are many others: ► Instead of continuing a push away from coal, the Trump administration wants to do a U-turn; Trump has signed executive orders intended to boost the coal industry and has ordered the EPA to end federal limits on coal- and gas-fired power-plant pollution that's been tied to climate change. ► Tax credits for electric vehicles persisted during Trump's first term before they were expanded during Joe Biden's presidency. Now, Republicans are abruptly ending them next month. ► The administration is also ending Biden-era US government incentives to bring renewable energy projects online, a move that actually appears to be driving up the cost of electricity. ► Republicans in Congress and Trump enacted legislation to strip California of its authority to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles beginning in 2035. ► Trump is also expected to overturn national tailpipe standards enacted under Biden's EPA and is also to challenge California's long-held power to regulate tailpipe emissions. ► The authors of a congressionally mandated report on climate change were all fired; previous versions of the report, the National Climate Assessment, which showed likely effects from climate change across the country, have been hidden from view on government websites. ► Other countries, large and small, will gather in Brazil later this year for a consequential meeting on how the world should respond to climate change. Rather than play a leading role — or any role at all — the US will not attend. ► Cuts to the federal workforce directly targeted offices and employees focused on climate change. The list goes on. But it is the Trump administration's move to undo the 'endangerment finding' that could have the most lasting effect. The 2009 declaration that planet-warming pollution from fossil fuels endangers human health is what allows the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Now, anticipating the end of that endangerment finding, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin bragged of the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.' That's the kind of statement that will excite people who don't see a threat from climate change and strike fear in the hearts of those who do. Zeldin is a former congressman with little background in environmental policy but a demonstrated loyalty to Trump. He has described his mandate at EPA less in terms of protecting the environment than in terms of unleashing businesses from regulation. The Trump administration is justifying its move to gut the endangerment finding based on a report it commissioned from five climate skeptics. After a public comment period, the Trump administration can move to undo the endangerment finding in the fall. It would essentially close off the Clean Air Act as a vehicle to combat climate change. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who made millions in the fracking industry, commissioned the report. In a preface, he did not deny that climate change exists. 'Climate change is real, and it deserves attention,' he wrote. 'But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.' In other words, Wright sees more damage to humans from cutting back on carbon emissions. That is a minority view in the scientific community, which has a much, much larger body of peer reviewed studies that raise the alarm about climate change. Most notably, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues peer-reviewed reports with hundreds of authors from around world. The Trump administration has barred US government scientists from taking part in the next installment, due out in 2029. Katie Dykes, the commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told me that you no longer need a government report to see the effects of changing climate. 'We see that the impacts of climate change have become part of everyday lives of our residents and our communities,' Dykes said. 'In ways that scientists were predicting years ago, we're seeing those impacts are happening faster and they're more severe than we had anticipated.' By moving to declare that greenhouse gas emissions don't endanger humans, the Trump administration is shifting the burden for dealing with climate change. 'This effort to undo this long-standing framework is really abandoning our communities and our residents to shoulder these costs and these impacts of climate change,' Dykes said. Those include health risks like respiratory illness, safety risks from extreme weather events, and impacts on infrastructure, housing and neighborhoods. 'We've seen these impacts already in our state in terms of extreme heat and drought, wildfires and flooding,' Dykes said. 'Seeing EPA walk away from decades of their core mission of protecting public health, reducing pollution and setting common sense standards at a national level is really concerning,' she added. The Trump administration's report should not be viewed as a scientific document, according to Andrew Dessler, director of the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University. 'Their goal is not to weigh the evidence fairly but to build the strongest possible case for CO2's innocence,' he told my colleague Ella Nilsen. 'This is a fundamental departure from the norms of science.' Nilsen reached out to numerous scientists after the report's release. Phil Duffy, the chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, a nonprofit focused on climate change, told her tens of thousands of Americans die every year as a result of particulate pollution, but the numbers have declined as the US has reduced its dependence on coal. The Trump administration would reverse that trend. Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, sees a hostility to science in the Trump administration. 'Not since Stalin and Soviet Lysenkoism have we seen such a brazen effort to misrepresent science in service of an ideological agenda,' Mann told Nilsen, referring to the disastrous effects of political interference in the scientific process in the Soviet Union.
