Troy Baker says he prepared in 'a completely wrong way' for the hero's voice in 'Indiana Jones and the Great Circle'

The United States has vowed to blockade Iran's ships until the country makes a deal to end their war. But is the blockade working?

Analysts and ship-tracking data paint a complicated picture. Shifting objectives and shadowy activity by vessels making the success of the US operation hard to measure.

"There's been confusion over the scope and the parameters of the blockade because of conflicting information given by the US administration and some delays in when information has been released," Bridget Diakun, an analyst at shipping journal Lloyd's List Intelligence, told AFP.

Here are facts about the military standoff over shipping access to the Strait of Hormuz, based on data from tracking sources including Kpler and its MarineTraffic platform, and Bloomberg.

- Where is the blockade? -

After the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, Iranian forces effectively closed the strait by targeting vessels trying to cross between its southeastern coast and the northern tip of Oman.

After later peace talks failed during a ceasefire, US forces launched a counter-blockade on April 13. The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, said the US blockade would be enforced further east, at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman.

- What are its terms? -

Launching the operation, US Central Command said its blockade applied to ships of all nations going to or from Iranian ports.

The US Navy later said it would also block ships suspected of carrying "contraband" including oil, weapons and nuclear material linked to Iran -- regardless of their location.

Lloyd's List Intelligence on Wednesday quoted an unnamed US defence official as saying that the force was now gauging the blockade's success on how badly it damaged Iran's trade, not on how many rogue vessels crossed the line.

- Has it been breached? -

Tracking data and satellite images analysed by maritime firms show that dozens of ships that potentially fall under these terms have crossed the line, including Iranian-flagged vessels under US sanctions and vessels going to and from Iranian ports.

US Central Command says similar numbers have turned around under US orders. It issues daily updates on its operation, and up until April 17 said that "zero" vessels had evaded the blockade.

On April 18, it said the blockade had "completely halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea". But since then it has only listed the number of vessels turned around -- currently standing at 28.

- Can ships dodge it? -

Counting the number of rogue vessels that may have skirted the blockade is difficult, due to the conflicting definitions and other factors.

Some sanctioned vessels have sailed west into the Gulf beyond Hormuz, but flagged their destination as Iraq or other non-Iranian destinations.

Once inside the Gulf, Diakun said, vessels can "spoof" their transponders to hide their positions and even perform ship-to-ship transfers of Iranian oil, testing the terms of the US blockade.

Several Iranian-linked vessels also appear to have turned off their transponders while sailing out of the Gulf before reappearing in the Arabian Sea, satellite imagery seen by maritime firms apparently confirming their route.

- Are there exemptions? -

US officials suggested early in the blockade that certain vessels would be granted exemptions on humanitarian grounds, but did not specify the exact conditions.

Tracking data showed that at least two vessels travelled in and out of the Gulf unimpeded having either dropped off or picked up food at Iranian ports.

jwp/rlp/jj

Frankfurt airport opened a new terminal on Wednesday, just a few years late and a billion euros over budget, with officials hailing a success in a country notorious for troubled infrastructure projects. 

Terminal 3 at Germany's biggest airport, which has an 18-metre (60-foot) high ceiling and vast glass facade, is designed to handle around an additional 20 million passengers a year. 

The privately financed project took around 10 years to complete, and was supposed to open in 2022 but was delayed due to problems linked to the Covid pandemic. 

It cost four billion euros ($4.7 billion) to build, higher than an original estimated cost of 2.5 to three billion euros. 

Still, those attending the terminal's inauguration ceremony simply seemed relieved it had been finished at all.

"The clear message from Terminal 3 is 'yes, we can carry out major projects in Germany,'" said Stefan Schulte, CEO of airport operator Fraport, speaking from the site's duty-free area.

In total, 57 airlines will move into the terminal, with German carrier Condor set to be the main user of the site. 

It is a contrast to the chaotic construction of Berlin's international airport -- a catalogue of problems meant it took 14 years to build the site, which finally opened in 2020. 

Other infrastructure projects have also fared poorly, with critics complaining of onerous permit procedures and strict rules around all aspects of construction. 

A mammoth new rail hub, "Stuttgart 21", was supposed to open in 2019 but has been indefinitely delayed, leaving a vast area in the centre of the southwestern city looking like a building site.

Not everyone is happy with the addition of a new terminal in Frankfurt, however.

The timing has raised eyebrows, with global aviation in crisis due to the Middle East war, while critics also note passenger numbers at the airport have fallen due to competition from other hubs.

Green groups have been angered, with the Initiative for Climate Protection, the Environment and Against Noise in Air Transport slamming the new terminal.

It will lead to greater "destruction of the environment, as well as the health and quality of life of airport residents through aircraft noise, (carbon dioxide) and pollutants," said the group.

pca-sr/fz/pdw

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday defended the Trump administration's recent about-face to temporarily extend a sanctions waiver that allowed the sale of Russian oil already at sea.

The month-long relief announced last Friday was meant to cool soaring energy prices. But it came just two days after Bessent told reporters that Washington would not renew the waiver.

The latest move allowed for purchases of oil and petroleum products that had been loaded onto vessels as of Friday, through 12:01 am (0401 GMT) on May 16.

It prolongs an earlier easing of sanctions that expired on April 11.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned sanctions relief on Russian oil over the weekend, saying that this provides money for Moscow's war on Ukraine.

Asked about the US administration's change of tack during a hearing, Bessent said Wednesday that the shift came after he was "approached by more than 10 of the most vulnerable and poorest countries in terms of energy."

This happened on the sidelines of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank's spring meetings, which brought finance ministers, central bankers and other leaders to Washington.

"They asked us to extend that sanction (relief), and it's only for 30 days," Bessent told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.

He rejected criticism that temporary waivers on purchases of Russian and Iranian oil served to enrich Tehran, saying the aim was to lower energy costs.

After US-Israeli strikes targeting Iran since February 28, Tehran retaliated by effectively closing off the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for energy shipments.

Oil prices surged, squeezing countries, especially those dependent on energy exports from the region.

US gasoline prices jumped as well, putting pressure on American households ahead of key midterm elections in November.

But such waivers could complicate efforts to deprive Russia of oil revenue needed for its war on Ukraine.

On Wednesday, Bessent added that many US allies in the Gulf, as well as some Asian countries, have requested foreign exchange swap lines.

"Swap lines, whether it's from the Federal Reserve or the Treasury, are to maintain order in the dollar-funding markets and to prevent the sale of the US assets in a disorderly way," the Treasury chief told lawmakers.

bys/mjf

(The Center Square) – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Wednesday about expanding admissibility standards for immigrants under suspicion of a crime.

The high court justices heard arguments in Blanche v. Lau, a case that focuses on a Chinese national who was convicted of trademark counterfeiting. In 2012, Muk Choi Lau was charged with trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey and fled the country.

When Lau returned, an immigration officer admitted him on parole, due to the pending criminal charge on his record. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, an immigrant who is admitted on parole must provide clear and convincing evidence they are admissible into the United States.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials began removal proceedings for Lau based on his charges. He was eventually convicted of trademark counterfeiting.

The justices debated the meaning of clear and convincing evidence in the immigration statutes and how it would apply to this case.

Justice Samuel Alito posed a hypothetical where an immigrant entering the United States was under suspicion by the French government for killing someone in France. He asked whether the individual could move forward in removal proceedings.

Shay Dvortetzky, a lawyer for Lau, said the immigrant could be admitted into the country, even under that circumstance because there was not a clear conviction that they engaged in the alleged murder.

“The charge does not show that the person has actually committed the offense,” Dvoretzky said.

Chief Justice John Roberts sharply criticized Dvoretsky’s response and said it was “bizarre” that the immigrant would not be detained.

Sopan Joshi, a lawyer arguing for the Trump administration, said a mere charge in a criminal case is enough evidence to suggest the crime was committed and the individual is removable.

“When prosecutors file charges or seek indictments, the prosecutor thinks you did it and can prove to the jury that you did it,” Joshi said.

Dvoretsky warned that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could expand the government’s authority to parole or detain individuals based on little evidence. He pointed to increased immigration enforcement action over the past year.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to agree with Dvoretsky’s explanation. She said presidential administrations that are more strict on immigration could use a ruling in the case to restrict access.

“You could imagine a world in which a government is not really interested in immigration could use this kind of thing to inappropriately parole people so that it depressed immigration,” Jackson said.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh hit back at Jackson’s assertion, calling it a “conspiracy theory.” He said the court’s decision should not be based on potential outcomes from a presidential administration.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the government did not have adequate proof to determine that Lau committed the crime.

“You didn’t have proof at the moment that he presented himself that he committed a crime of moral turpitude,” Sotomayor said.

Joshi said uncovering solid proof would require a hearing with an immigration judge, which would not be feasible to conduct at a port of entry.

“The government is not challenging the clear and convincing evidence standard,” Alito said. “The question is whether the government must prove if it took clear and convincing evidence.”

The justices debate privately and vote on a ruling in the case. The high court is expected to release a decision in the case by July.

(The Center Square) – A majority of adults in the U.S. believe that the costs of data centers outweigh the benefits with 69% believing the costs are greater and 30% believing that the benefits are higher, according to a new national poll from the Marquette University Law School.

The results were an increase from the 62% who believed that the costs outweighed the benefits in January.

The results mirrored results from a survey of 850 registered voters in Wisconsin, when 69% of those voters said the costs outweigh the benefits.

Questions were asked of 982 voters nationwide between April 8-16.

Large-scale data center projects have popped up across the country in recent years with the tax incentives often hidden in tax increment districts and waiving sales tax on construction materials.

A recent Good Jobs First report showed that 14 states and scores of local governments fail to properly disclose how much revenue they are losing to data center tax breaks while a deeper look at just three states showed that they are losing more than $1 billion per year to data center tax breaks.

A Wisconsin waiver on sales tax on large-scale data center construction materials has led to that $70 million in forgone sales tax in its first two years, a number that is expected to multiply as data centers in Mount Pleasant, Verona, Beaver Dam and Port Washington have now been certified by the state to be eligible for the sales tax exemption.

The new Marquette Poll showed bipartisan opposition to data centers with 62% of Republicans, 76% of Democrats, and 73% of independents saying the costs are greater than the benefits. Those numbers all increased since a January poll.

The latest developments in the Middle East war:

- Talks possible -

A second round of US-Iran talks could take place within the next three days, the New York Post reported Wednesday, citing unnamed Pakistani sources and President Donald Trump.

"It's possible!" Trump reportedly told the Post by text message, when asked about sources in Pakistan -- which mediated the first round of talks -- saying that a second round was "expected in Islamabad within the next 36 to 72 hours."

Trump on Tuesday extended a two-week truce in the war just as it was about to expire. A digital news outlet in Pakistan, News Post, reported the three-day time frame for more talks without a source or further details.

- Lebanon war toll, damage -

Israeli strikes killed three people in Lebanon despite an ongoing 10-day ceasefire, Lebanese state media said, adding that Beirut would request an extension of the truce during upcoming talks with Israel in Washington.

More than 2,400 people have been killed and more than a million displaced in the country since Iran-backed Hezbollah drew the nation into the war on March 2.

Israeli attacks on Lebanon have damaged or destroyed more than 62,000 housing units in the country, a government estimate said.

- Iran hanging -

Iran hanged a man convicted of links to Israel's Mossad spy agency, the judiciary said. Two NGOs based outside the country said he worked for the Iranian atomic energy organisation.

- Iran Guards say two ships seized -

Iranian forces targeted three container ships, seizing two and firing on a third, global security monitors and the country's Revolutionary Guards said.

Tehran has said vessels must seek permission to leave or enter the Gulf through the strait, a route that in peacetime accounts for a fifth of the world's oil and gas exports along with other vital commodities.

- $500-mn cash shipment to Iraq blocked -

The United States blocked a plane carrying nearly $500 million in banknotes from delivering the cash to Iraq, US media reported, piling pressure on Baghdad to fight Iran-backed militant groups.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Washington had suspended cash shipments to Iraq and frozen funding for security programs following attacks on US interests in the country by groups showing solidarity with Iran.

- Oil prices fall -

Oil prices edged higher Wednesday while Europe's main stock markets eased on uncertainty surrounding the prospect of resumed Mideast peace talks following an extension to the US-Iran ceasefire.

Brent North Sea was again closing on $100 a barrel while main US contract, West Texas Intermediate, traded back above $90. Both main oil contracts had risen around three percent Tuesday.

- Iran cargo ship targeted -

A cargo ship leaving Iran was fired upon and stopped in the water, a British maritime agency reported, as the United States continued its blockade of Iranian ports.

"A master of an outbound cargo ship reports having been fired upon and is now stopped in the water. Crew are safe and accounted for. There is no reported damage to the vessel," the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations centre said.

burs/yad/jj

After decades of struggling to find a way to treat pancreatic cancer, researchers have developed several promising new drugs that could offer rare hope to patients given this particularly deadly diagnosis.

Pancreatic cancer is notoriously aggressive, with only roughly one in 10 people surviving more than five years after being diagnosed, research has shown.

Rates of this cancer have also been surging worldwide, notably among young adults. It is projected to become the second deadliest cancer, after lung cancer, in developed countries in the coming years. 

Despite the scale of this scourge, there has not been "any medical progress for 40 years," Patrick Mehlen, a researcher at France's Leon Berard cancer centre, told AFP.

But more funding and interest over the last decade has finally been making a "real difference," he added.

While a cure is still a long way off for most patients, some of these new drugs could add precious months to their lifespan.

The most widely celebrated news came last week, when US pharma firm Revolution Medicines announced positive results for its experimental drug daraxonrasib.

The drug targets a protein called KRAS which is known to play an important role in tumour growth. 

Half of the patients taking the pill survived more than 13 months -- twice as long as a control group receiving chemotherapy.

This may not sound revolutionary, but for a cancer that kills so quickly, doubling the life expectancy of patients is unprecedented. 

- 'Heck of a lot better' -

One high-profile patient has spoken out about just what a difference the drug can make.

Ben Sasse, a former senator from the US state of Nebraska, started taking daraxonrasib after being diagnosed with metastasised, stage-four pancreatic cancer late last year.

"In mid-December I got a three-to-four month life expectancy," the 54-year-old told the New York Times.

After taking the drug, "I'm doing a heck of a lot better than I was doing at Christmas," Sasse said.

He added that it was "a nasty drug", pointing to severe side effects that left his face peeling and bloody.

Revolution Medicines has said it will soon apply for its treatment to be approved in the United States. More detailed results about the phase 3 trial will be presented at the ASCO cancer conference in Chicago next month.

Meanwhile, other researchers have been exploring alternative ways to extend the lives of pancreatic cancer patients.

Early trial results, published in the journal Nature on Wednesday, tested a treatment that is not designed to directly eradicate tumours.

Instead, it aims to prevent cancerous cells from starting a process that makes them resistant to other drugs -- including chemotherapy.

The NP137 antibody was tested on 43 patients receiving chemo whose cancer had spread through their pancreas, but not to other parts of their body.

Compared to normal survival rates, the patients lived several months longer, according to the phase 1b trial.

"We're giving people an average of six months more -- which is significant for this disease," said Mehlen, who supervised the research.

The team plans to conduct another trial with a larger sample size and a control group later this year.

Ultimately, Mehlen hopes his drug will not just extend the lives of people receiving chemotherapy, but also daraxonrasib.

- New cancer vaccine -

Promising early trial results were also announced over the weekend for an experimental pancreatic cancer vaccine. 

The vaccine, which uses the messenger RNA technology that came to prominence during the Covid-19 pandemic, was developed by pharma firms BioNTech and Genentech.

During the phase 1 trial, 16 patients who already had pancreatic cancer were given the shot.

It promoted immune cells to target cancerous cells in eight of the patients, seven of whom were still alive six years later. 

Out of the eight patients whose immune systems did not respond to the vaccine, just two survived that long.

Phase 1 trials are designed to determine whether drugs are safe, not demonstrate they are effective, so more research is planned.

jdy/dl/yad

(The Center Square) – In a closely watched congressional race in southwest Washington’s 3rd District, where Republicans hope to flip a seat, campaign dollars are pouring in for both candidates, with a large portion of those donations coming from out of state for the incumbent.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez raised $1.3 million in the first three months of this year per filings with the Federal Election Commission. 

This is more than three times the amount brought in by the leading Republican challenger, Sen. John Braun, R Centralia.

The redrawn 3rd district was marginally more favorable for Republicans ahead of redistricting in 2020. The district voted for Trump in 2020 by a margin of 4.2%, as opposed to the old district's 3.7%. Gluesenkamp Perez narrowly defeated Republican nominee Joe Kent by 2,629 votes in 2022. She beat him again in 2024, but Republicans believe she is vulnerable.

“She talks about not taking money from corporations, but if you look at her FEC filing, you have a particularly large bundle – over $600,000-from financiers in New York City,” said Braun in an interview with The Center Square. “You know, this strikes me as a Congresswoman who is bought and paid for by the Democratic machine in DC and the East Coast.”

When looking at her total fundraising for the quarter, only about 7.8% of the donations to the Congresswoman’s campaign came from within the state of Washington.

As reported by the Federalist, Republicans have also criticized Gluesenkamp Perez for financial backing she received from a Super PAC funded by billionaire Reid Hoffman, ($48,000), whose past associations with Jeffrey Epstein have come under scrutiny.

A spokesperson for the Gluesekamp Perez campaign declined an interview request, but emailed a statement refuting the suggestion that her donors are primarily from out of state.

"Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez is focused on working people in her district and doing everything in her power to represent them as an independent voice. She's committed to fixing what's broken in this country and is working hard in D.C. to lower taxes on Washington families,” wrote the spokesperson.

The incumbent’s campaign also noted that Braun is getting funding from wealthy donors as well.

“Our average Washington contribution was $130. Braun's was $868. Braun is spreading lies that are easily disproven by public filings, to distract from his own weak campaign,” wrote the campaign spokesperson.

Braun, who is the Republican Senate minority leader, received Trump’s endorsement last week. According to FERC filings, in the first quarter of this year, he brought in $356,000. He reported just under $1 million on hand at the end of March.

“We’re working hard and whether you like it or not, funding is part of politics, particularly at the congressional level,” said Braun. “We're one of the top fundraisers for challengers in the country, and the thing I'm most proud of is that almost all that money is coming from the state of Washington. Most of it comes from the 3rd congressional district. Put that in contrast with my opponent, when you look at where that money comes from, only about 7% is coming from in the state. The rest is coming from the DC crowd.”

Braun said on the campaign trail, Washingtonians in the southwest Washington district are extremely concerned about the lack of affordability and the new income tax signed into law by Gov. Bob Ferguson last month.

“The top issue people bring up is the state's income tax and we haven't heard a peep from my opponent on this tax, and what she thinks about it, and whether she's willing to push back with her colleagues in the Democratic Party and say this is wrong for the state of Washington,” Braun said.

Upon declining our request for an interview, The Center Square just two topics for the Gluesenkamp Perez campaign and quotes from Braun to respond to: one about campaign donations and the other about the income tax.

The Center Square did not receive a response from the Gluesenkamp Perez campaign to our request for comments about the new millionaire’s tax.

“I can tell you, overwhelmingly, this is very unpopular,” said Braun. “Nobody believes that it's going to stay on high earners. Everybody understands that this is the first step and the next step is to reduce the deduction so that everybody pays this in the future.

The incumbent has a new Democratic challenger heading into the primary. In early April, progressive candidate Brent Hennrich joined the race. He ran for the seat in 2022 but pulled out just ahead of the primary, citing concerns about dividing the Democratic ticket. He had just under $40,000 in his campaign war-chest as of April 1.

Braun also has a challenger on the Republican side. Antony Barran is running on the Cascade Party ticket and had about $5,000 on hand at the end of the first quarter campaign filing.

The August 4 primary election is a top two primary, meaning  the top two vote-getters, regardless of party ,will advance to the November general election.

(The Center Square) — President Donald Trump has weighed in on a New York GOP primary race to replace outgoing Rep. Elise Stefanik, endorsing a political newcomer over the candidate backed by the state's Republican Party.

Trump announced over social media Tuesday that he’s backing Republican Anthony Constantino over state Assemblyman Robert Smullen — who is backed by the New York GOP and the state Conservative Party — in the wide-open race to fill the upstate congressional seat in the fall midterms.

“It is my Great Honor to endorse America First Patriot, Anthony Constantino, who is running to represent the fantastic people of New York’s 21st Congressional District," Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday. "HE IS A GREAT GUY WHO WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!" 

Constantino said Trump called him to "jovially" announce that he was endorsing his candidacy and said the president also "acknowledged" his boxing career during the conversation. 

"His words were better than I expected," Constantino said in a statement. "It is uncommon for a CEO to box professionally, but I did, and it taught me to fight, fight, fight, which I will do in Congress to make President Trump and everyone who supported me proud." 

The president's endorsement in the congressional race is viewed as a snub to NY GOP chairman Ed Cox, who threw the party's support behind Smullen's bid for the seat last month, calling him "a fearless champion for conservative principles and for the people of Upstate New York. 

"He has stood up to one-party rule, defended our constitutional freedoms, backed law enforcement, and fought for the rural communities that are too often ignored by New York’s political establishment," Cox said in a statement at the time. "I’m proud to endorse him and look forward to helping send him to Washington." 

Smullen, a retired Marine colonel, jumped into the race for New York's 21st congressional district shortly after Stefanik announced that she was bowing out of the GOP race for governor and leaving Congress. He has described himself as the only “Trump-appointed conservative” in the race.

In a statement, Smullen said he still supports Trump but thinks the president "made a mistake" by endorsing his political rival in the race. He called Constantino "mentally unfit" to serve in Congress. 

Stefanik's decision to step down from Congress came after Trump turned her down for an ambassadorship job he had previously dangled. The president also later endorsed Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman for governor, prompting her to bow out of the gubernatorial race.

Constantino, a former Democrat, is seeking the GOP nomination in the June 23 state primary by running as an outsider with endorsements from Trump allies, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, political operative Roger Stone, and other MAGA-world conservatives. 

As the CEO of Sticker Mule, a custom apparel company, he gained notoriety for a court fight with local zoning officials over a “Vote for Trump” billboard he had installed on the rooftop of his business in the Albany region. 

"Anthony has been such a Great Supporter that he actually put up a somewhat ‘controversial’ sign, against strong opposition, in my honor," Trump said in his endorsement statement. "The sign is still there!”

South Africa risks thousands of premature deaths if the phase-out of coal plants is delayed due to the government's updated decommissioning dates, climate rights groups said in a report Wednesday.

Coal provides 80 percent of South Africa's power, according to the OECD, and the country ranks among the world's largest greenhouse gas emitters.

It is also a cornerstone of the country's economy, employing more than 90,000 people, making decommissioning plans a divisive issue.

Last year, the government approved the extension of operating dates for its 14 coal-fired power plants across the country, with two set to continue operating until 2050.

The new report by Greenpeace, the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and the South Africa-based climate NGO GroundWork said continued delays could cause up to "32,000 preventable deaths" between 2026 and 2050.

Gauteng province -- home to the capital Pretoria and financial hub Johannesburg -- and with no state-owned coal plants, is projected to bear the largest burden from the extension, with 15,000 deaths forecast over the same period.

In January, authorities attributed elevated sulphur pollution levels in Gauteng to transboundary pollution from neighbouring Mpumalanga, South Africa's most polluted industrial zone.

"Pollution does not stay where it is made, it travels," said Cynthia Moyo, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace.

The delay will also place a heavy burden on children's health, resulting in 41,000 pre-term births, 17,000 new cases of childhood asthma, and 370 deaths among children under five, the report said.

"Coal's true cost is being hidden in hospitals and in early graves," Moyo told AFP in a phone interview, dismissing the government's argument that the delay is for economic reasons.

- 'A pandemic' -

Residents of Middelburg, in Mpumalanga, present at the report's launch, recounted the effects of air pollution they have experienced, including early-onset asthma in children, skin diseases, and other respiratory flare-ups.

"It is a pandemic for us," said 30-year-old mother Sharon Mbonani, who was forced to separate from her one-year-old son and send him to another province after doctors linked his respiratory problems to environmental factors.

The report estimates the cost of the delay to the South African economy at 721 billion rand ($38 billion), including lost working days and increased pressure on the public healthcare system.

Coal-rich but energy-starved South Africa -- the continent's most industrialised nation -- became the first country in the world to sign a Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) deal with wealthy nations in 2021, worth $8.5 billion, to shift away from coal-fired power generation.

But last year the United States withdrew its multi-million dollar deal with Pretoria as part of the Trump administration's pullback from global climate commitments.

The transition to green energy has been mired with infighting among the government, which has a long history of support from labour unions representing mine workers.

mnk/ho/phz