Here are Rogers EPP Wireless Promos: June 2023
If your employer offers Rogers Preferred Program (RPP) pricing, also known as a corporate employee purchase plan, new promo plans have emerged for June 2023, with data ranging from 30GB to 150GB.
Check out the following Rogers EPP plan promos for June after autopay (pre-authorized credit card payments) according to RFD :
- $70/150GB (Canada-US)
All plans include a monthly discount of $25 and $5 after autopay. The plans noted are available for bring your own device customers and include unlimited nationwide calling and text. The $70 plan is a Canada-US roaming plan that normally costs $105 per month on the Rogers website. There’s also a $50 bill credit that cancels out the activation fee.
Some of these Rogers RPP plans may not be showing for all corporate customers, so it’s best to check with your employer’s website to see the latest promos in your province.
Other articles in the category: Rogers
Rogers and Striking Workers in Vancouver Reach Tentative Deal
Rogers’ Zoomer Wireless Now Redirects Customers to Dealer Partner [Update]
Fido Launches $45/50GB Canada-US Plan in Quebec
Exclusive savings on Rogers Infinite plans with our special corporate discount
Members of the rogers preferred program save up to $25 off select rogers infinite™ plans and can get amazing deals on the hottest devices., see if you're eligible for the rogers preferred program.
" * " indicates required fields
Cant find your company in the list?
Note: Proof of Employment is required with every order.
Benefits of the Rogers Preferred Program
Unlimited data plans.
Save on a Rogers Infinite plan and share data across all your devices. With infinite data and no data overage charges, you can stream all the video, music and content you want, worry-free.
With financing and Upfront Edge TM , we’ve made your favourite devices and accessories more affordable today and every day. Plus, with Rogers Pro On-the-Go TM , get your new phone delivered as soon as today, where you want within the serviceable area. 2
Experience Canada’s largest 5G network on Canada’s most reliable network. 3
Get premium service from Rogers representatives and dedicated dealers who can help you select the right device and plan for your needs and manage your account.
Terms and condition
A Setup Service Fee of $50 applies to setup your device and related services. Taxes extra.
- Valid proof of employment required to get your offer; Rogers reserves the right to request proof of employment from each Individually Paid Employee at any time. A one-time Employee Pricing Fee of $50 may apply for existing customers. Existing customers with 6 months or less tenure on their term plan are not eligible to receive this discount. This offer cannot be combined with any other consumer promotions and/or discounts unless made eligible by Rogers.
- Greater Toronto Area: Service available Monday-Saturday from 8am to 8pm and on Sunday from 10am to 8pm (excluding statutory holidays) unless otherwise specified. Appointment times are subject to Rogers Pro appointment availability. Ottawa & southwestern Ontario: The service is available 7 days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (excluding statutory holidays) unless otherwise specified. Appointment times are subject to Rogers Pro appointment availability.
- Largest based on total square kilometers of Rogers 5G coverage compared to published coverage of other national networks. Most reliable based on umlaut performance benchmark audit of Canadian mobile networks, June 2020.
Check your eligibility
Contact our team to speak with a Rogers Preferred Expert
- [email protected]
Get exclusive savings on smartphones and wireless plans with the Rogers Preferred Program
Save on Plans
Save up to $20/mo on Rogers unlimited 5G+ data plans (compared to regular consumer rates).
Save on Devices
Get additional savings on select phones with 2 year financing. Get any phone for $0 down, on approved credit, 0% interest with financing on select plans.
Extend your Savings
Add up to 9 family members or friends to your account so they can also benefit from your exclusive discounts.
Benefits of the Rogers Preferred Program
How to join the Rogers Preferred Program
Check if you’re eligible.
Check to see if you’re eligible for the Rogers Preferred Program by searching for your company name in the form above, or giving one of our Preferred Experts a call! We will confirm if your employer is part of the Rogers Preferred Program. If you’re eligible, you'll have access to an online ordering portal, and dedicated services!
Validate your Employment
Employee validation is fast, easy, and secure. Once you speak with an expert, or place your order in your online portal we'll ask you to upload a copy of your employee validation. This can be a corporate email, a copy of a paystub, or other employee documentation. Don't worry, we'll send you the information you need to complete this step!
Didn't find your company in the list?
You might not be eligible for the Rogers Preferred Program, but our team of experts is equipped to find the best deal available to you! Give us a call or send us an email to inquire on what the best offer is for you.
Subject to change without notice. A Setup Service Fee of $60 applies to setup your device and related services. Taxes extra.
Rogers Preferred Program. Employee verification is required; Rogers reserves the right to request proof of employment from each Individually Paid Employee at any time. A one-time Employee Pricing Fee of $50 may apply for existing customers. Existing customers with in-market Rogers consumer plans with 6 months or less tenure on their term plan switching to the plan above are not eligible to receive this discount. This offer cannot be combined with any other consumer promotions and/or discounts unless made eligible by Rogers. Plan and device will be displayed separately on your bill.
*Largest based on total square kilometers of Rogers 5G coverage compared to published coverage of other national networks. Rogers was ranked first in the umlaut Mobile Data Performance audit in 2022-2023. Visit www.umlaut.com/en/benchmarking/canada.
1. Compared to in market consumer rate plans, subject to change without notice. Applicable only on select Rogers Preferred Program plans available online. Discount available on both primary and additional lines. Excludes stick, hotspot, rocket hub, Talk & Text and Wireless Home Phone additional lines. May not be combined with any other monthly service fee discount offer unless specifically stated. Plan change or phone upgrade will cancel the discount.
Rogers & Design and related brand names and logos are trademarks of Rogers Communications Inc. or an affiliate used under license. © 2023 Rogers Communications.
- Internet, Ignite TV & Home Phone
- Account, MyRogers & Apps Support
- Get Started
- Smart Home Monitoring
- Scam, Phishing & Fraud
- New to Canada Group
- Rogers Sports Hub
- Rogers Gaming Hub
- The Ignite Couch
- Pride Community
- Rogers Community Forums
- Account, MyRogers & Apps Support
- Account Support
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Report Content
Solved! Solved! Go to Solution.
- Customer Service
- Back to Board
- Previous Topic
Re: Rogers EPP
01-03-2020 07:56 PM
View solution in original post
- 01-03-2020 04:02 PM
Your browser is out of date.
We highly encourage you to update your browser to the latest version of Internet Explorer, or use another browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
Ongoing Deal Discussion
Corporate EPP Plans - Bell/Telus/Rogers
- Last Updated:
- Nov 21st, 2023 1:58 pm
- Computers & Electronics
- Cell Phones
- bell unlimited
- Search this thread
Dec 10th, 2020 9:50 am
ADRiiAN` wrote: ↑ Anyone who got the Rogers $50/20GB deal, can you tell me if your plan on the website says $75 and the discounts are applied when the bill comes, or if it says $50? Rogers screwed up when I called to get the deal but the lady assured me I'm getting the plan for $50 on the phone.
- Reply with quote
Dec 10th, 2020 7:54 pm
Dec 11th, 2020 11:06 am
Dec 14th, 2020 1:52 pm
Dec 16th, 2020 6:07 pm
Dec 21st, 2020 3:23 pm
Now bear in mind, when Griger builds something, she's paying the people near it for the privilege. And her projects don't leak toxic goo. They fight climate change, stabilize the energy grid, and power our lights and our phones and all the other things we demand from modern life. Yet it can be almost impossible to get them built. If the paperwork isn't approved, if the environmental studies turn up something endangered, if the meetings and lawsuits go on forever, then the project gets too expensive. If it doesn't pencil out, it doesn't happen.
"It makes me frustrated," Griger says. "Any time I tell someone that I develop renewable energy, they're always like, 'Oh, that's so cool.' And I say, 'Well, you're not at the public meeting where people are screaming at me that I'm going to give their kid cancer.'"
How did it come to this? This is the country that crisscrossed a continent with railroads, and then with highways. We cut a canal across Panama, dammed the Colorado to power the West, invented the skyscraper, and created the modern assembly line. We built Golden Gate bridges, sent rockets to the moon, put space stations into orbit, blanketed the Earth with a digital information network. Megaprojects are, like, our thing!
Except they aren't. For the past 50 years, we've been coasting. Without a massive national effort, our collapsing infrastructure — everything from power grids to sewers — will deprive us of $10 trillion in economic growth. We've deferred $157 billion in maintenance on decaying dams, and 220,000 bridges need fixing or replacing, at a cost of $319 billion. We face a shortage of more than 4 million homes, creating a crisis of homelessness and exacerbating income inequality. America is the sixth-most-expensive place in the world to build subways and trolleys. California has spent 15 years trying to build a 500-mile high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco, now expected to cost $128 billion, quadruple the original estimate. In that same amount of time, China has built 23,500 miles of high-speed rail.
Our crisis of inaction threatens to cripple the economy beyond repair, condemn millions to poverty, and worsen the death toll from global warming. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, fires, heat waves — the bills from two centuries of burning fossil fuels are coming due. The solutions will cost trillions of dollars and require a pace of building unseen in America since World War II. To zero out carbon emissions, we need to build 100 gigawatts of new generating capacity — the equivalent of 100 nuclear power plants — every year until 2050. Yet at this moment of existential necessity, we're paralyzed. An offshore wind farm just broke ground after more than 20 years of bureaucratic dithering. If you want to supply America's homes and offices with clean energy, get in line: The average wait time to get a new project connected to the nation's mishmash of electrical grids is five years. Perhaps the single most pressing question we face today is: How do we make America build again?
Looking for answers, I talked to dozens of developers, economists, lawyers, policymakers, and researchers who work on infrastructure and megaprojects. I wanted to see whether there's a single, overarching way we can break through the complex logjam of idiocy and inertia that's preventing us from building all the housing and wind farms and chip factories and power lines we so desperately need. And I came away convinced that there is, in fact, a solution.
It's just not the one I expected to find. Or one I ever thought I'd agree with.
It's not really about the money. A megaproject, by definition, costs a metric shit ton of dollars to build. Let's say you wanted a 35-story spherical concert venue that could hold 20,000 people and have an exterior covered in 580,000 square feet of programmable LEDs. Well, that'll run you $2.3 billion. But if there are customers, there are investors — even with interest rates going up. As of September, you could go see U2 in that Sphere, if that's your thing.
Right now, money is on the table. The federal government has passed a bunch of laws — the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the CHIPS and Science Act — that amount to more than $2 trillion of tax credits and grants to get America building again. But all those new projects are going to run headfirst into the same slow-moving bureaucracy that has always hamstrung major works — large or small, good or evil. Taking federal money means going through the federal permitting process that Griger and other developers hate. That's why the hot topic in Washington right now is " permitting reform ."
To a certain kind of policy wonk, permitting looks like an eminently solvable problem. If the accumulated bureaucratic cruft of the past 50 years has become too onerous, just scrape it off. Sometimes, that alone is enough to get things moving. Take the Pinedale, Wyoming, field office of the Bureau of Land Management, which encompasses Grand Teton National Park. From 2016 to 2019, researchers found, BLM field offices took between 106 and 220 days, on average, to process permits for oil and gas drilling. Pinedale's average : just 49 days. How? They used environmental studies they had already drawn up for previous projects to streamline the process, speeding up their analysis of how each new permit would impact a specific site. They were, in other words, efficient .
A team of researchers who studied the Forest Service found lots of other ways to speed up the permitting process. Setting hard deadlines for responses to applications helped, as did simple stuff like putting all the required permits in the right sequence. Having more people to handle all the paperwork would help — tucked into the Inflation Reduction Act is $1 billion for more "staff resources," to get the bureaucracy humming at a higher frequency. And better communication between agencies and applicants can make a huge difference. "Just doing that, you're moving permit times down from five years to two years," says Jamie Pleune, a law professor at the University of Utah who was part of the team that crunched the Forest Service data.
Washington is bursting with proposed reforms like this. Every ambitious politician, big-brained academic, and think tank worth its dark money has produced their very own white paper arguing for ways to tweak the rules. The massive engineering firm AECOM says it's all about policies to foster new engineering talent . The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies says we need nationwide zoning reform to build affordable housing. The Brookings Institution recommends transferring oversight for the permitting of offshore wind farms to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an agency I did not know existed until just before I typed this sentence. Even the White House has gotten into the act. After permitting screwups threatened to monkey-wrench President Joe Biden's building agenda, a senior administration official tells me that streamlining the permitting process is now a top priority.
What gets in the way of most projects isn't bureaucrats in Washington or environmental activists. It's pissed-off locals.
There's just one problem with all these proposals: They're Band-Aids for boo-boos, not a cure for what ails us. The reality is, only a tiny handful of megaprojects get slowed down by federal regulations. A not-yet-published analysis of nearly 2,000 wind and solar projects found that 95% of them either dodged all federal regulation or got streamlined review. Only 50 of the projects were challenged in federal court on environmental grounds. "That's a very different understanding of things than is commonly portrayed in the debate over permitting reform," says David Adelman, an environmental-law professor at the University of Texas who led the research. "For this class of projects, federal environmental laws are more the exception."
To get America building, we need to understand what actually gets in the way of most projects. It isn't bureaucrats in Washington, or counties with strict height limits on buildings, or environmental activists chaining themselves to pipelines. It's pissed-off locals, who don't want stuff — any stuff — built in their backyards.
One way America is exceptional is that, for better or worse, we believe landowners should have the final word on what happens to their land — or even, for that matter, the land next to their land. So we essentially allow any property owners who happen to be in the vicinity to have the final word on who can build what, and where. One researcher described this to me as a "veto gate." I call it vigilante enforcement.
Wealthy landowners on Nantucket who are worried about the view from their summer homes have delayed wind-turbine projects off the coast of New England for nearly two decades. Native American tribes have sued to prevent construction of solar panels in the Mojave Desert . Lawsuits filed by cities and landowners have blocked the bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco . New housing in almost every city faces constant legal challenges over density , shadows , or plain old vibes .
David Spence, a professor of energy law at the University of Texas who studies permitting and regulation, wanted to figure out who opposes which kinds of project. His database of more than 200 fossil-fuel and renewable-energy projects — and what more than 400 local and national environmental groups said about them — shows that national groups like Greenpeace or the Natural Resources Defense Council consistently fight the harmful stuff, like oil wells and fracking. But state and local groups made no such distinction. They mobilized against everything — including wind farms and transmission lines. And they usually did it by making bogus claims about health risks.
"If I don't want my viewshed interrupted by a wind farm, and I'm not getting a job or anything I see as a tangible benefit, why not say no?" Spence says. "Once you see it as something you're opposed to, you start to grab onto these other arguments that aren't logical or are not supported by science."
Sometimes people fight the projects we need, from wind farms and power lines to high-speed railways, under the auspices of federal environmental laws — the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act. But a lot of other rules, federal and local, are also environmental regulations at their core. Siting rules dictate where you can put solar panels and wind turbines, and how far they have to be set back from other developments. Local zoning laws, from the outset, were superficially designed to give city dwellers access to open space, clean water, and homes free of disease and pests . Look close enough at any building regulation and you'll find a green agenda buried beneath all the red tape.
I want to be clear here: We need laws that protect the environment. Without them we'd have dams in the Grand Canyon, no Yellowstone National Park, skies of smoke, rivers of sludge, cats and dogs living together, etc. They're what keep hog farms from putting giant pools of waste wherever they want. They're what closed the ozone hole, stopped acid rain, and might yet hold off the worst effects of the climate crisis.
But the problem is that these well-intentioned laws are designed, intrinsically, to say no — especially to human constructs like factories and cities. It says so right there at the top of the granddaddy of all environmental regulations, the National Environmental Policy Act. The biggest threats to the environment, NEPA states, are things like "high-density urbanization" and "industrial expansion" and "new expanding technological advances."
And there's the rub. Those things are also good. What sounded like environmental threats back when NEPA was signed into law in 1970 — Technology! Cities with lots of people! — are now the very things we need to save a world wracked by climate disasters and economic instability. What's more, the old environmental laws designed to protect nice clean "nature" from dirty old "technology" are now being used to shut down projects that pose no threat to the environment. Early this year, a state appeals court sided with a handful of Berkeley residents who sued to block proposed housing for 1,100 students at the University of California. Their grounds? That the state's Environmental Quality Act protected them from the noise pollution all those college kids would cause. In August, irate residents in Los Angeles used the Berkeley precedent to block housing for the University of Southern California.
Or take wind turbines. According to one study , opposition to wind farms comes not from longtime residents of rural areas, but from newcomers who moved to the countryside for the beauty of the surroundings. These people "may not only be wealthier, but perhaps also more likely to work from home than long-term residents and commuters," so they get cranky about how the wind turbines will ruin the views from their home offices. And those who are retired or semiretired "may also have more time to attend public meetings and the resources necessary to participate in online opposition efforts."
The point is, the broad environmental regulatory framework we put in place to fight pollution a half century ago has become a weapon of self-interest. "No nukes" and "save the whales" mutated from rallying cries to protect the Earth against rapacious development into a machine for saying no to change — even necessary change.
"No nukes" and "save the whales" mutated from rallying cries to protect the Earth into a machine for saying no to change — even necessary change.
"Before we had the National Environmental Policy Act, we were in a situation where we were not doing enough environmental consideration before we built things," says James Coleman, a professor of energy law at Southern Methodist University. "We have probably moved to the other side of the spectrum. Since NEPA passed in 1970, we've basically been running down our existing infrastructure."
If we want to get America building again, we can't just tinker around with "permitting reform" or faster paperwork. The moment demands a bigger, more sweeping fix. It has to take into account essential new priorities, cut across warring jurisdictions, and move projects forward with the appropriate urgency. To construct the stuff we need to actually save the environment, we have to do something unthinkable. We have to demolish our existing environmental laws — top to bottom, federal to local — and replace them with something better.
Let's think about what a new environmental law would look like, if we set out to craft one for the age of climate change and income inequality and homelessness. Call it the National Ecosystems Conservation Act.
NECA would continue to vigorously safeguard the environment against pollution and degradation. It would protect grand open spaces and the creatures that live in them from abuse. It would prevent and punish dangerous pollution, especially in vulnerable communities and vulnerable places. Proposals for new projects would still have to show that they aren't harmful. This isn't some version of the utterly insane Republican plan reported to be in the works in case the GOP wins the presidency next year , which aims to kill any Biden program that contains the slightest whiff of carbon reduction and replace anyone who worked on them with oil-friendly apparatchiks. That would be bad.
But NECA would start by requiring policymakers, right from the start, to define the kinds of projects that are actually beneficial for the environment, and prioritize building the things that make that happen. Freeways, oil wells, incinerators, slaughterhouses? Put them through the regulatory wringer. Solar panels, power lines, more efficient urban housing? Take a hard look, but do everything you can to get them up and running, pronto.
Next, NECA would recognize that every project we cook up, no matter how much it might benefit the economy or the environment, is going to do some sort of harm. We already do this all the time — putting a price on an eagle, or the Badlands, or a kid dying of cancer. We even put a number on it. It's called the Value of a Statistical Life . If redesigning the guardrail on a freeway on-ramp costs more than the value of the lives it will save, it probably won't get built.
Right now, if the harm outweighs the good, we just shut down the project. Our current environmental laws turn everything into a yes-no equation. NECA would green-light projects that cause harm — provided that they mitigate that harm elsewhere. If you're building a wind farm, say, you acknowledge that it's going to kill some number of birds and bats. But instead of that being grounds for richy-rich neighbors to shut down the project, NECA would mandate that developers spend money somewhere else to cut down on the world's overall bird and bat deaths. The wind-farm developers, say, could be required to help reduce the global plague of outdoor feral and pet cats , which kill as many as 4 billion birds and 22 billion small mammals every year. Sure, you'll kill a few birds and bats with your wind turbines. But you'll more than make up for it by saving millions in other locations.
NECA would also limit the power of courts to review individual projects. Right now, courts have way too much power in determining how environmental laws get implemented. For clean-energy projects, they often wind up deciding to do something called a "hard-look review," which pretty much grinds everything to a halt. "If you read the National Environmental Protection Act, you would never guess that this is a statute that requires 10 years of study before you can build a bridge or a power line," says Coleman, the law professor. "That was more or less made up by the courts." NECA would take authority over project review away from the courts and lay out more explicitly what's required in an environmental review or a project approval. Permitting can't be bureaucratic improvisation.
Finally, and perhaps most important, NECA would limit the ability of locals to tank projects, and increase federal authority over essential infrastructure that crosses hundreds or even thousands of local and state jurisdictions. The new law would allow — mandate, even — public participation and comment. But it would set strict time limits on how long the back-and-forth can go on. Once everyone's had their say, and their concerns have been evaluated and either rejected or incorporated into the plan , the project would be allowed to move forward.
That's how we wound up with cellphones. Back in the days of Motorola flip phones, when local residents tried to use environmental laws to stop telecommunications companies from erecting a nationwide network of cell towers, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Cities and states were free to determine the aesthetics of cellular towers. People could make them look like a palm tree or whatever. But they couldn't just prohibit them, or file lawsuits based on wacky scientific claims about electromagnetic fields causing brain cancer.
Did it work? Tell you what, I'll do a TikTok about it. DM me after you watch it! I'm on Signal.
Conservatives are likely to cry "states' rights" at the idea of giving the feds more power over infrastructure projects. But I didn't hear them griping about empowering the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to preempt state and local opposition to natural-gas pipelines. FERC doesn't just plop gas pipes anywhere; it's still required to consult with state and local authorities about the best places to put them. But in the end, FERC gets to say yes or no. The feds need to have the same power over other infrastructure projects that cross multiple jurisdictions — especially the stuff that's essential to modernize the grid and help prevent a climate catastrophe.
Danielle Stokes, a professor of environmental and property law at the University of Richmond, has written about the need to centralize the approval process for vital infrastructure — a school of thought known as renewable-energy federalism . "Until there is some sort of federal agreement on rapid deployment of renewable energy, or high-speed rail, or electric vehicle charging stations — it's increasingly difficult to have systems that in the aggregate will effect change," she says. Federal preemption, she acknowledges, should be a "drop-dead trump card" for moving projects forward. "But it's necessary when you have the evidence."
I didn't come up with the idea of giving the feds more authority to push through climate projects; it was actually on the table in the debt-limit deal that Congress passed in the spring. It didn't make it in. Nobody wants a transmission line running above their homes, and oil and gas money has no interest in making it easier to build them . To them I say, tough luck. Better to see a power line than not have a planet.
A new federal regulatory regime won't solve everything. For one thing, NECA couldn't fix every state and local rule that's standing in the way of progress. But it could preempt some of the ones that are the most absurdly obstructionist. Take housing, which is shaped mostly by zoning rules at the local level. NECA could prevent irate neighbors from saying no to new housing on environmental grounds, or from suing over ridiculous claims. That's how the feds used the Telecommunications Act to clear the way for cell towers. And that's what California just did when it passed a law explicitly barring opponents from using state environmental rules about "noise pollution" to block new housing, as they did at UC Berkeley and USC.
Look, I understand why the prospect of overhauling our hard-won environmental laws might feel like sacrilege to anyone who cares about the Earth. I myself grew up in a save-the-whales, no-nukes, recycle-your-aluminum-cans sort of home. But it was also a Star Trek house; I still think well-regulated technology can save the world.
And I'm far from a lone voice in the wilderness here. A few environmental big shots have come out swinging on the need for a new regulatory regime. Bill McKibben, a sort of patron saint of the environmental movement, wrote an article in Mother Jones earlier this year called " Yes in Our Backyards ," calling for old-school tree huggers to embrace massive electrification infrastructure. "Maybe we could gaze up at wind turbines on the ridge and take pleasure in seeing the breeze made visible," McKibben writes. "And in seeing ourselves taking responsibility for something we need — energy — instead of pawning the costs off on poorer people somewhere else, or on the people who will come after us."
Late last year, the longtime environmental lawyer Michael Gerrard — faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University — banged the same shoe on the same table. In an article called "A Time for Triage," he argued that the current crisis was great enough to put aside some old ecological bugbears. "There are some models of laws that have achieved speedy approvals for certain kinds of projects," he writes, citing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, among others. "Whatever it is, I believe we need to move forward in this fashion, and not just plod along with business-as-usual environmental regulation toward a world of killing heat and mass human migration and species extinction."
Still, lots of Democrats and progressives find themselves split on this stuff, philosophically. The old environmentalists, the ones most likely to donate money to a cause or a political campaign, grew up in the preservationist tradition. "When you talk to people who are very involved in the environmental movement, things like high-speed rail aren't necessarily uncontroversial," says Coleman, the energy law professor. "On the left there's really two positions. One is, let's achieve this — we need to make it easier to build new infrastructure to have cleaner energy sources and cleaner options. And the other idea is, let's just use less energy."
Two things can be true! We should absolutely find ways to reduce our impact on the Earth and on one another. But we built our way into this problem, with our car-based economy and our determination to burn fossil fuels every time we want to toast a slice of bread. So I have to believe we can build our way out of it. And it makes no sense to allow local residents (most of them wealthy and white) to use environmental laws to block projects that will give other people (most of them poor and people of color) stuff like affordable housing and a way to get to work in the morning. Some state governments and environmental groups, in fact, are so fed up with all the environmental NIMBYism that they've stopped participating in lawsuits against new housing.
"We have strayed from the path of 'purity' on that," says David Pettit, a senior attorney in the climate and clean-energy program at the famously litigious Natural Resources Defense Council. "We feel that building housing is so important that some changes have to be made."
We can't let local residents (most of them wealthy and white) block projects that give other people (most of them poor and people of color) stuff like affordable housing.
The truth is, our entire framework of environmental regulation has always been kind of elitist. It was based from the start on a misguided idea of nature — a sense that the environment is some other, removed place that retains a sublime quality where people can encounter God, as long as nobody touches it. That view is fine for the people with the financial wherewithal and free time to journey there, preferably with glamping-quality gear. "Only when we had a middle class with leisure time to spend in the great outdoors was when we had legislative support to get NEPA," says Spence, the professor of energy law. "Mostly, it's a relatively wealthy persons' movement, and you see that in the composition of environmental organizations." It's long past time we uproot the racist and classist assumptions that underlie our modern environmental regulations. Demolishing the old rules would not only spur the rapid and widespread building we need to protect the planet — it would take into account the needs of everyone.
The good news is, revamping our environmental regulations will work. In some places, it already has. Look at what happened recently in New York. After nearly two decades of coastal communities fighting the construction of offshore wind farms, the state finally passed a law limiting the range of grounds for opposition. Now five wind projects are in the works. In Florida, meanwhile, the high-speed-rail company Brightline has built a mini-network of trains across the state, and it has another one in the works connecting Southern California to Las Vegas, simply by making use of existing, already-permitted rail lines. If we use our heads — as well as our existing infrastructure — we can find ways to build big.
And we don't have to worry that changing environmental regulations will open the door for a lot of dirty, planet-polluting industries. Sure, Republicans and their petrochemical allies would love to get more natural-gas pipelines into the pipeline. But the fact is, the economy will no longer support those kinds of projects. Coal power isn't coming back, solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels, and almost all the energy projects in the overstuffed queue to connect to the national grid are renewables rather than oil and gas. The war's over; now we just have to win the peace.
Calling for an overhaul of environmental protections remains something of a political third rail. But on background, many policy wonks and policymakers I spoke with are quick to admit that the current system doesn't work. They know we need to change it. They just aren't sure we can muster the political will to make it happen, even though it's supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.
I'm not claiming it'll be easy. The idea that we can protect the environment while continuing to feed our seemingly insatiable consumerist appetites in some even-handed equitable fashion is as pie-eyed as a "Star Trek" episode. Every decision we make about the "environment" is also a statement about who gets what. When an environmental regulation determines where, or whether, a factory can be built, it becomes economic policy. When environmental laws allow the continued operation of petrochemical refineries in the poorest communities in the poorest states, but disallow the construction of wind turbines off the richest beaches in the richest states, it becomes social policy. When a permitting process determines who will have jobs, or whether a city vulnerable to killer heat waves can have consistent electrical power, it becomes a social and economic determinant.
"These are deep questions of democracy and the administrative state," says Zachary Liscow, a former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget who now teaches at Yale Law School. "Any of these infrastructure projects are a combination of two things — technical things that are very hard for the public to understand, but also deeply political choices about balancing development versus the environment and weighing the interests of different communities. Where do we want to lodge that authority?"
Right now, the answer to those questions is being held hostage, for the most part, by local interest groups. That's who's deciding our future. The problem is too big to leave to every high-horse property owner who feels like tilting at windmills. Our solutions have to be big, too. Global warming and the global economy didn't merge environmental rules with economic policy; they were never separate to begin with. But pretending that they are, and that environmental regulations are only about protecting nature from human greed, is why we don't build big anymore. And if we don't change course, it's going to get us all killed.
Adam Rogers is a senior correspondent at Insider.
About Discourse Stories
Through our Discourse journalism, Insider seeks to explore and illuminate the day’s most fascinating issues and ideas. Our writers provide thought-provoking perspectives, informed by analysis, reporting, and expertise. Read more Discourse stories here .
World War Two: The Eastern Front Part 2
- World War II
- Battles & Wars
- Key Figures
- Arms & Weapons
- Naval Battles & Warships
- Aerial Battles & Aircraft
- French Revolution
- Vietnam War
- World War I
- American History
- African American History
- African History
- Ancient History and Culture
- Asian History
- European History
- Latin American History
- Medieval & Renaissance History
- The 20th Century
- Women's History
- M.A., Medieval Studies, Sheffield University
- B.A., Medieval Studies, Sheffield University
Part 1 / Part 3 / WW2 / Origins of WW2
Barbarossa: The German Invasion of the USSR
On the western front Hitler found himself at war with Britain. This wasn’t what he wanted: Hitler’s targets were Eastern Europe, to crush the communism state and give his German Empire lebensraum, not Britain, with whom he had hoped to negotiate a peace. But the Battle of Britain had failed, invasion looked impractical, and Britain was staying belligerent. Hitler had been planning a turn to the east even as he was planning the invasion of France which he hoped would allow full focus on the USSR, and spring 1941 became the focus. However, even at this late stage Hitler was delaying as he was completely confused by Britain, but it became apparent to the Nazi regime that Russia was interested in territorial expansion too, and wanted not just Finland, but Romanian territory (threatening the Romanian oil the Third Reich needed), and Britain was unable to re-open the western front any time soon. The stars seemed to have aligned for Hitler to stage a quick war in the east, believing that the USSR was a rotten door that would collapse when kicked, and he could seize the vast resources and move the focus back to Britain without facing two fronts. On December 5th 1940 an order went out: the USSR was to be attacked in May 1941 with Operation Barbarossa. The plan was for a three pronged invasion, taking Leningrad in the north, Moscow in the centre and Kiev in the South, with the Russian armies that stood in the way quickly surrounded and forced into a surrender, and the goal was to seize everything between Berlin and a line from the Volga to Archangel. There were objections from some commanders, but German success in France had convinced many that the Blitzkrieg was unstoppable, and optimistic planners believed this could be achieved against a poor Russian army in three months. Much like Napoleon two centuries before , the German army made no preparations for having to fight in the winter. Furthermore the German economy and resources were not solely dedicated to the war and to the crushing of the Soviets, as many troops had to be held back to hold other areas. To many in Germany, the Soviet army was in a bad state. Hitler had little useful intelligence on the Soviets, but he knew Stalin had purged the officer core, that the army had been embarrassed by Finland, and thought many of their tanks were out of date. He also had an estimate of the size of the Russian army, but this was hopelessly wrong. What he ignored was the massive resources of the full Soviet state, which Stalin would be able to mobilise. Equally, Stalin was ignoring every and all intelligence reports telling him that the Germans were coming, or at least misinterpreting dozens and dozens of hints. In fact Stalin seems to have been so surprised and oblivious to the attack that German commanders speaking after the war accused him of allowing it to draw the Germans in and break them inside Russia.
The German Conquest of Eastern Europe
There was a delay in launching Barbarossa from May to June 22nd which is often blamed on having to aid Mussolini, but the wet spring necessitated it. Nevertheless, despite the build-up of millions of men and their equipment, when the three Army Groups surged over the border they had the benefit of surprise. For the first few weeks the Germans poured forward, covering four hundred miles, and the Soviet armies were cut to shreds and forced to surrender en masse. Stalin himself was deeply shocked and suffered a mental crisis (or performed a piece of daring cunning, we don’t know), although he was able to resume control in early July and began the process of mobilising the Soviet Union to fight back. But Germany kept coming, and soon the western portion of the Red Army was soundly beaten: three million captured or killed, 15,000 tanks neutralised, and the Soviet commanders at the front panicking and failing. It looked liked the Soviet Union was collapsing as planned. The Soviets massacred prisoners as they retreated rather than have the Germans ‘rescue’ them, while special squads dismantled and moved over a thousand factories eastwards to resume arms production. With Army Group Centre having the most success and nearing Moscow, the capital of the Soviet Union, Hitler made a decision that has been labelled fatal: he reassigned Centre’s resources to aid the other Groups, particularly South which had been slower. Hitler wanted to gain the maximum territory and resources, and this meant crushing Moscow and possibly accepting surrender when holding key regions. It also meant securing flanks, allowing foot soldiers to catch up, supplies to be bought up, and conquests consolidated. But this all needed time. Hitler may also have been worried about Napoleon’s single minded pursuit of Moscow. The pause was fiercely objected to by Centre’s commanders, who wanted to keep their drive going, but their tanks were wearing out and the pause allowed infantry to arrive and begin to consolidate. The diversion allowed the encirclement of Kiev, and the capture of a vast number of Soviets. Nevertheless, the need to re-allocate reveals that the plan was not going smoothly, despite the successes. The Germans had several million men, but these could not deal with millions of prisoners, hold hundreds of square kilometres of territory and form a fighting force, while German resources could not maintain the tanks needed. In the North, at Leningrad, the Germans besieged a city of half a million troops and two and a half million civilians, but decided to let them starve to death rather than fight through the city. In addition, two million Soviet soldiers who had been rounded up and put in camps died, while special Nazi units were following the main army to execute a list of perceived enemies, both political and racial. The police and army joined in. By September many in the German army realised they were engaged in a war that may well have been beyond their resources, and they’d had little time to put roots down in the conquered lands before moving back. Hitler ordered Moscow taken in October in operation Typhoon, but something crucial had happened in Russia. Soviet intelligence had been able to brief Stalin that Japan, who was threatening the eastern half of the empire, had no plans to join Hitler in carving up the Soviet empire, and was focused on the US. And while Hitler had destroyed the western Soviet Army, now eastern forces were transferred freely to aid the west, and Moscow was stiffened. As the weather turned against the Germans – from rain to frost to snow - the Soviet defences hardened with new troops and commanders – such as Zhukov – who could do the job. Hitler’s forces still got to twenty miles from Moscow and many Russian’s fled (Stalin stayed put in a decision which galvanised defenders), but Germany’s planning caught up with them, and their lack of winter equipment, including no antifreeze for the tanks or gloves for the soldiers, crippled them and the offensive was not just stopped by the Soviets, but pushed back. Hitler called a winter halt only on December 8th, when his troops had been stopped. Hitler and his senior commanders now argued, with the latter wanting to make strategic withdrawals to create a more defensible front, and the former banning any retreat. There were mass sackings, and with the cream of the German military command ejected Hitler appointed a man with far less ability to lead: himself. Barbarossa had made major gains and taken a vast area, but it had failed to defeat the Soviet Union, or even come close to the demands of its own plan. Moscow has been called the turning point of the war, and certainly some high ranking Nazis knew they had already lost because they could not fight the war of attrition the Eastern Front had become. Part 3.
- World War II Europe: The Eastern Front
- World War II: Battle of Moscow
- World War II: Marshal Georgy Zhukov
- The Winter War
- World War II: Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt
- World War II: Battle of Stalingrad
- 10 World War II Battles You Should Know
- The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact
- World War II: Field Marshal Walter Model
- An Overview of World War II
- World War II: Yalta Conference
- The Postwar World After World War II
- World War II: Colonel General Heinz Guderian
- World War I Timeline: 1914, The War Begins
- Causes of World War II
- World War I and The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.
We've detected unusual activity from your computer network
To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.
Why did this happen?
For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.
U.S. Manages Expectations of a Breakthrough Before Biden and Xi Meet
President Biden and President Xi Jinping of China will try to defuse a year of bubbling tensions on Wednesday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.
- Share full article
By Katie Rogers and David E. Sanger
Katie Rogers covered last year’s meeting between President Biden and President Xi Jinping. David E. Sanger, a former foreign correspondent in Asia, has covered national security for four decades. They reported from Washington.
Of all the issues dividing the United States and China — spy balloons, Beijing’s rapid nuclear buildup and Washington’s crackdown on advanced computer chips — the White House has been engaged in one more topic of debate: what China’s leader will see when he looks out of his window during his visit to California this week.
When President Biden meets with President Xi Jinping on Wednesday, China’s diplomats want to know what Mr. Xi will be looking at, and to make sure the scenery does not include protesters. Nearly every minute they spend together, from the number of steps it will take Mr. Xi to reach a chair when he enters a room to the specific timing of their handshake, will be part of a highly choreographed diplomatic dance, one designed to give them the space to try to defuse a year of bubbling tensions.
The ceremonial details have now been hashed out. But compared with the U.S.-China summits of a decade ago or more, the expectations for substantive agreement are minimal, at best.
Mr. Biden’s advisers have hinted at only one concrete agreement expected to emerge from the meeting, which is scheduled to be held near the end of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, called APEC, in San Francisco. The leaders, they said, could announce a resumption of military-to-military communications , which were suspended by the Chinese after Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in the summer of 2022.
And both sides have been discussing whether they could find a way to a future commitment to keep artificial intelligence software out of their nuclear command and control systems. While that might seem to be a pretty straightforward discussion, until now China has never entered a significant negotiation about its fast-expanding nuclear arsenal, so even the first wedge into the issue could prove significant.
Yet the fact that the bar is this low is telling. American officials say there is no plan for the two leaders to issue a joint statement of any kind. Instead, each government will provide its own account of the discussions.
There was a time when summits with Chinese leaders resulted in agreements on containing North Korea and keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, on climate goals and economic coordination to avoid financial crises and joint efforts in counterterrorism. Those days are over. While Mr. Biden plans to address China’s continued shipment of technology to Russia to feed the war in Ukraine, and its purchases of sanctioned Russian and Iranian oil, there is little to no prospect of changed behavior, officials acknowledge.
The summit is set to be the first time Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi have talked in a year, and Mr. Xi’s first visit to American soil since 2017. In their carefully crafted description of their expectations, Mr. Biden’s advisers have refrained from repeating their past wish to put “guardrails” in the relationship — a phrase the Chinese reject as a new American style of containment — or to place a “floor” underneath a relationship that has spiraled downward.
In briefings to reporters, they have used phrases like being “cleareyed” and keeping “open lines of communication” to describe a relationship they believe is best managed not with “engagement” — the approach to China advocated for decades — but old-fashioned diplomacy.
Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, told reporters on Monday that the relationship is now about “managing competition responsibly so that it does not veer into conflict. The way we achieve that is through intense diplomacy,” Mr. Sullivan said. “That’s how we clear up misperceptions and avoid surprises.”
Chinese officials say Mr. Xi will seek assurances from Mr. Biden that the United States “does not seek a new Cold War,” the country’s ambassador to the United States, Xie Feng, said last week. But over the past year, Mr. Xi has made it clear that he considers the United States to be deep into Cold War-like behavior. “Western countries led by the United States have implemented all-around containment, encirclement and suppression of China,” he said in March.
Chief among China’s concerns has been the Biden administration’s efforts to build up a patchwork of old allies and new partners in the Indo-Pacific — with new accords from the Philippines to Papua New Guinea — to counter China’s ambitions.
“We know this because Chinese leadership complains frequently, and at high volume, about what it sees as a U.S. encirclement campaign,” said Jude Blanchette, a China scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Mr. Xi’s visit to APEC, a group of 21 countries that surround the Pacific Ocean, Mr. Blanchette said, is an “effort to slow down or modify the pace and severity of future U.S. actions, especially in the technology space, that it sees as costly.”
Both men will be feeling each other out about a potential conflict over Taiwan. Six months ago, American officials were regularly conducting tabletop exercises about how they might respond to an attack, or strangulating squeeze, of the island.
There is still concern, but American officials are now signaling that they believe China’s economic slowdown has bought some time, with Mr. Xi in a poor position to risk broad economic sanctions. And in recent talks with American officials, Chinese diplomats have sounded more worried about the coming elections in Taiwan — fearful that if the election fueled a move toward independence, China might be forced to act.
Analysts say Chinese officials, for their part, have intently watched American political discord from afar. Republicans have assailed Mr. Biden for seeking to stabilize the relationship with China, though until the Covid pandemic that was exactly what President Donald J. Trump said he was trying to do, as he pursued trade deals .
A letter sent to the White House on Wednesday by a House select committee on China called on Mr. Biden to challenge Mr. Xi on several points of tension, including the wrongful detention of Americans, existing regulations on fentanyl production and recent near collisions between Chinese and American ships and warplanes.
Administration officials have largely avoided detailing how Mr. Biden plans to bring up those issues with Mr. Xi, but said the president would address other concerns, including noninterference in the election in Taiwan.
The administration has also said very little about how Mr. Biden plans to raise the issue of China’s rapid nuclear buildup. The Pentagon reported recently that the Chinese arsenal had hit 500 strategic weapons, and it expects that figure to double by 2030. But the current number of Chinese deployed weapons is still a third of the size of the American and Russian arsenals, and Chinese officials have told their American counterparts they will not discuss arms control until they have parity with the other two nuclear superpowers. The artificial intelligence discussion may be the best way into a broader nuclear discussion, experts say.
Mr. Biden is also expected to broach the war in Gaza with Mr. Xi, Mr. Sullivan said. Beijing has a warm trade and diplomatic relationship with Iran, a country that helps support Hamas and other militant groups in the Middle East. Mr. Biden is expected to stress to Mr. Xi that an expanded war in the Middle East “is not in the interests of the P.R.C.,” using an acronym for the Chinese government, and that the United States will respond if Iranian proxies continue to attack American forces .
The meeting will take place a year after Mr. Biden and Mr. Xi met and tried to strike a warmer tone during the Group of 20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, another rigidly planned affair.
(Mr. Xi’s aides have good reason to worry about the details of a meeting with an American president: In a 2006 visit to the White House , President Hu Jintao’s speech at a welcoming ceremony on the South Lawn was interrupted by a protester, and it took several minutes for security officials to reach her and escort her out. At the same event, China’s anthem was announced as the anthem of the “Republic of China” — the formal name for Taiwan. Mr. Hu’s party considered leaving Washington.)
Mr. Biden’s advisers are going into the Wednesday meeting betting that the Chinese have been surprised by efforts to develop allies across the Indo-Pacific and build stronger diplomatic accords with other leaders. That includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India , whose country has been a target of Chinese aggression at its borders and who was the guest of honor during a White House state visit in June.
In September, Mr. Biden met with Mr. Modi again in India, and then traveled to Vietnam to announce a new strategic partnership . On Monday, Mr. Biden hosted Joko Widodo , the president of Indonesia, at the White House, where both leaders announced that Indonesia is elevating its relationship with the United States to its highest level.
Kurt Campbell, the president’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific Affairs and nominee for deputy secretary of state, said in an interview with the Atlantic Council that the most important thing for the United States to do during the summit would be to “make clear and to demonstrate to the Chinese that we still have staying power, that we are still the most powerful country, and we are still committed to our larger purpose in the Indo-Pacific.”
Outside of the meeting with Mr. Biden, Mr. Xi is expected to focus much of his time in California on showing leaders of American industry that his country is open for business. After he and Mr. Biden meet, Mr. Xi is expected to speak to top American business executives at a $2,000-a-plate dinner , part of a “C.E.O. Summit” on the sidelines of the main event.
Mr. Biden is expected to attend another event, according to officials.
Katie Rogers is a White House correspondent covering a range of issues, including foreign policy, domestic policy, and the Biden family. Her book, “American Woman,” about first ladies in the White House, will be published in February 2024. She joined The Times in 2014. More about Katie Rogers
David E. Sanger covers the Biden administration and national security. He has been a Times journalist for more than four decades and has authored several books on challenges to American national security. More about David E. Sanger