TikTok Fights Looming Ban, School Cellphone Bans, Are Carbon Offsets Working?

The clock is ticking for TikTok users in the United States, and a new court filing shows.

How the social media company plans to try to block the law that could see it banned in seven months. Does TikTok make a strong case?

I'm Michelle Martin, that's Leila Faddo, and this is up first from NPR News.

They're surreptitiously scrolling in school, in class time, they have their head in their hands.

California's Democratic governor is calling for the policy to be implemented statewide. Why are Democratic and Republican-led states banning cell phones in schools?

And for many people, summer plans means travel. But are the promises companies make of a carbon offset when you book a plane ticket or a car rental false promises? Stay with us, we'll give you the news you need to start your day.

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Wise, the app that makes managing your money in different currencies easy. With Wise, you can send and spend money internationally at the mid-market exchange rate, no guesswork and no hidden fees. Learn more about how Wise could work for you at Wise..com. Support for NPR comes from NPR member stations. And Eric and Wendy Schmidt, through the Schmidt Family Foundation. Working together to create a just world where all people have access to renewable energy, clean air and water, and healthy food.

When voters talk during an election season, we listen, we ask questions, we follow up, and we bring you along to hear what we learned. Get closer to the issues, the people, and your vote at the NPR Elections Hub. Visit Npr..org Slash Elections.

The Justice Department says it expects the law to survive the challenge. It's seen as one of the most important legal battles in the history of the internet in the United States.

With me now is NPR's tech correspondent Bobby Allen. Thanks for being here, Bobby.

Hey Lila.

So let's start with where things currently stand for TikTok.

Yeah, TikTok is in a very precarious situation. In April, President Biden signed a law that bans TikTok nationwide by January 19th unless it is sold to a non-Chinese buyer. This is because lawmakers in the White House fear the Chinese government could use TikTok as a spy tool or to spread propaganda to influence elections. Now, TikTok swiftly went to court to challenge the law, and the future of the app is really riding on the outcome of this case. And now, as you mentioned, we have TikTok's first major filing in the case, and there's a good amount of new detail in here.

Okay, say more about that. What are TikTok's lawyers arguing to the court?

Yeah. TikTok says the ban would be a First Amendment violation for the app's 170 million users in the U.

Why is that?

Well, the Biden administration wouldn't say exactly why they walked away from the deal, but officials in the administration I've spoken to have said. It's because anything short of complete separation of TikTok from its China-based parent company, ByteDance, was seen as a non-starger. So, you know, for the White House, you know, severing ties completely from Beijing was the only thing they wanted, and TikTok wouldn't give that.

OK, so let's take a step back here. Why are the stakes in this case larger than TikTok?

Yeah, they really are. Leila, I mean, this case could ultimately be decided by the U.S Supreme Court. And we haven't ever seen a case that tests the balance between free speech and national security on a massive social media app. If the ban is upheld, it could further splinter the internet, right? There would be one internet for most of the world that includes TikTok and then a second internet in the U.S.

So what's next in this legal battle?

Yeah, well, the Justice Department will respond. In a statement to me, the Justice Department said the law is constitutional. That the department has, quote, consistently warned about the threat of autocratic nations that can weaponize technology. So that's a preview of what they're likely to argue. But experts say the focus will really be on what kind of hard evidence the Justice Department can muster. Because so far, the case against TikTok has been hypothetical and the appeals court that is hearing the case will likely be interested in what kind of proof the government has that TikTok is currently a danger to Americans?

That's NPR's Bobbie Allen. Thank you, Bobbie.

Thanks, Laila.

The Los Angeles School Board has voted to ban the use of cell phones in the country's second largest school district.

L.A. School board member Nick Melvoin pointed to studies highlighting the harmful effects of cell phones in the classroom.

They're surreptitiously scrolling in school, in class time, have their head in their hands, walking down the hallways. They're not talking to each other, or playing at lunch or recess because they have their AirPods in.

California's Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, is pushing to implement a statewide ban, and that's after Republican-led states such as Indiana and Florida have already put their own bans in place.

With me now is Alison Klein. She's a reporter for Education Week. Good morning Alison.

Good morning.

So banning smartphones in schools is one of those rare policies that Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on. But it hasn't always been a popular idea. So what's changed?

So I think during the pandemic, kids just had access to their tech 24-7, and many say that they're addicted to them, right? Kids get hundreds of notifications a day, a study by Common Sense Media found. And that can make it hard to focus. All those dings in class, right? All that buzzing. And the same study, by common Sense, found that nearly all students use their phone at some point during the day. For about 43 minutes, which is about the same time as a class period.

So earlier this week, the U.

So I think it's a mix of both. Yes, kids are obviously distracted in class. Although there are some teachers who really don't want to see cell phones banned because they're using them as a teaching tool. Phones, though, are also changing how kids, like, socialize with each other. And you heard the L.A. school board member reference this? I had one principal tell me that there are days when his lunchroom is basically quiet and kids are texting the kid across the table from them instead of actually talking to each other.

Wow, okay, another form of communication. Has anyone figured out a good way to implement and enforce these restrictions?

So it's often up to teachers to enforce these bans, which really puts them in a tough spot with their students. It's kind of like playing whack-a-mole, right? They're just taking a phone away every minute. And back in 2015, New York City reversed its ban on cell phones because they found there were some really big equity issues. Essentially, the ban was being really strictly enforced at schools serving mostly low-income kids, and not so strictly enforced at some of the wealthier schools.

And how are students and their parents reacting to these recent bans?

So a lot of parents want their kids to have their phone in school, basically, so they can reach them in case of an emergency. I talked to a superintendent one time, who said. A parent told her that she could take away her kid's phone once she started paying the family's cell phone bill, right? But in other cases, parents understand that this is about focusing in class. And it's important to say that these bans don't necessarily say you can't have your phone in school at all. Some schools require kids to keep their phone in their locker, for instance.

Allison Klein, reporter for Education Week Thanks, Allison.

Thank you.

It's summer, and if you're lucky, you may be booking a plane ticket or a car rental for vacation.

And when you click buy, sometimes an offer pops up for something called a carbon offset to reduce climate pollution, but how can you know that offset is doing what it claims?

Joining us now to talk about this is NPR's Julia Simon. Good morning.

Good morning.

So, first off, what really is a carbon offset?

I spoke to Danny Cullenward at Upenn about this, he says. An offset is basically a promise.

It's a promise that somebody else did something good somewhere else that resulted in a climate.

Benefit.

It could be a promise that someone protected a forest that would have been cut down, or a promise that someone made a wind farm and switched from fossil fuels. The key promise, being your money, is actually reducing or removing planet heating pollution, like that carbon dioxide pollution from your flight or your car rental. But Barbara Haya at UC Berkeley says there's a problem.

Most offsets don't represent what they claim.

There are two big ways many offsets can be false promises. First, many offset projects overestimate their impact. For example, many offset projects that claim they're saving forests from deforestation. Research finds many are getting money for forests that don't actually need protection.

Okay, well, that feels like a big problem. If your money isn't actually reducing as much climate pollution as the offset claims, what's the other issue?

Something called permanence offsets are supposed to reduce or remove carbon dioxide pollution, right? The carbon dioxide. Some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere hundreds of years, some CO2 sticks around even longer, thousands of years.

So if a lot of these are false promises, is the government doing anything to address these issues with offsets consumers and companies are buying?

Late last month, the Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, announced new principles for high-quality carbon offsets. High-quality t.h.a.t. is offsets that actually reduce or remove climate pollution. But researchers say even these new principles have gaps. For example, the principles do not identify how long offsets have to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. No number.

So then is there any actual accountability if a carbon offset company makes a climate claim that's false? Is there a way for consumers to take action or is there enforcement here?

In California, there is a bill in the state Assembly right now. All those promises of climate benefits that carbon offset companies make. This bill would make those claims legally enforceable. Here's California State Senator Monique Limon, who introduced the bill. So if that company knows that I'm not getting what I paid for and you paid for it, you can.

Take them to court.

OK, we'll see if that carbon offset bill becomes a law. That's NPR's. Julia Simon. Thank you, Julia.

Thank you, Layla.

And that's up first for Friday, June 21st. I'm Layla Faldil.

And I'm Michelle Martin, thanks for listening to Up First. You can find more in-depth coverage of the stories we talked about today and more on NPR's Morning Edition. That's the radio show that Layla Faldil, Steve Inskeep, A. Martinez and I host.

Today's episode of Up First was edited by Gabrielle Spitzer, Ali Schweitzer, Neela Banerjee, Mohamed El-Bardisi and Lisa Thompson. It was produced by Ziad Butch, Christopher Thomas and Taylor Haney. We get engineering support from Carly Strange, and our technical director is Zach Coleman, our executive producer is Erika Aguilar. Join us again on Monday.

Christian nationalists want to turn America into a theocracy, a government under biblical rule. If they gain more power, it could mean fewer rights for you. I'm Heath Drewsen and on the new season of Extremely American, I'll take you inside the movement. Listen to Extremely American from Boise State Public Radio, part of the NPR network. Wilderness is changing.

More wildfires, more people, more cell service. The How Wild podcast hits the trail to explore the history of wilderness. How it's changing.

And what that says about us as humans? Listen now to the How Wild podcast from KalW, part of the NPR network.