The announcement is set to be the most consequential in modern Tibetan history, one that will shape the future of Tibetans’ seven-decade-long struggle to preserve their religious and cultural freedoms in the face of Chinese oppression and the continuation of the 14th Dalai Lama’s legacy as a global icon of compassion, peace, democracy and human dignity.

(Sanjay Baid/AFP)

At a conference of Tibetan religious leaders scheduled for July 2-4 in Dharamsala, just days before his 90th birthday, the global Buddhist leader is expected to announce if the institution of the Dalai Lama will continue and confirm whether formal responsibility for the recognition of the 15th Dalai Lama should rest with the Gaden Phodrang Trust, his private office.

In 2011, at the conclusion of a similar convention of the heads of all Tibetan religious traditions, the Dalai Lama issued a formal statement saying that when he turns 90, he would consult with Tibetan religious leaders and the public on whether there should be a next Dalai Lama.

“If it is decided that the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama should continue and there is a need for the Fifteenth Dalai Lama to be recognized, responsibility for doing so will primarily rest on the concerned officers of the Dalai Lama’s Gaden Phodrang Trust (the Office of the Dalai Lama),” the Buddhist leader said in his Sep. 24, 2011, statement.

(AFP)

“They should consult the various heads of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions and the reliable oath-bound Dharma Protectors who are linked inseparably to the lineage of the Dalai Lamas… and carry out the procedures of search and recognition in accordance with past tradition. I shall leave clear written instructions about this,” he added.

At the time, the Dalai Lama also made clear that “...apart from a reincarnation recognized through such legitimate methods, no recognition or acceptance should be given to a candidate chosen for political ends by anyone, including those in the People’s Republic of China.”

If China does intervene, it wouldn’t be the first time. On May 17, 1995, the Chinese government abducted a then-6-year-old boy named Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, just days after he was officially recognized by the Dalai Lama as the 11th Panchen Lama, the second-highest spiritual leader in the largest sect of Tibetan Buddhism.

Rights groups say his continued disappearance and China’s installation of another boy, Gyaltsen (in Chinese, Gyaincain) Norbu, in his place, highlights the Chinese government’s long-held plan to control the recognition of the next Dalai Lama, given the two lamas have historically recognized the other’s successive reincarnations and served as the other’s teacher.

(Niranjan Shrestha/AP)

The Chinese government, for its part, believes it can appoint the reincarnation of the 14th Dalai Lama under Chinese law.

“The reincarnation of Living Buddhas is unique to Tibetan Buddhism. It must comply with Chinese laws and regulations as well as religious rituals and historical conventions, and follow the process that consists of search and identification in China, lot-drawing from a golden urn, and central government approval,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington D.C., told RFA last month.

In 2007, Beijing decreed that the Chinese government would begin overseeing the recognition of all reincarnate Tibetan lamas, or “living Buddhas,” including the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama. China plans to use its own Beijing-appointed Panchen Lama to endorse their choice – a move the Dalai Lama has said contradicts the Chinese Communist Party’s political ideology.

“It is particularly inappropriate for Chinese communists, who explicitly reject even the idea of past and future lives, let alone the concept of reincarnate Tulkus (or Buddhist incarnated beings), to meddle in the system of reincarnation and especially the reincarnations of the Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas,” the Dalai Lama said in 2011.

(Jim Young/Reuters)

“Such brazen meddling contradicts their own political ideology and reveals their double standards. Should this situation continue in the future, it will be impossible for Tibetans and those who follow the Tibetan Buddhist tradition to acknowledge or accept it,” he added.

The Dalai Lama’s statement on his reincarnation may, therefore, serve to preempt Beijing’s efforts to interfere in the recognition of the 15th Dalai Lama.

It is expected to come just days before the U.S. Congress is likely to formally designate July 6 as “A Day of Compassion” through a bipartisan resolution introduced by U.S. lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate in recognition of the Dalai Lama’s “outstanding contributions to peace, nonviolence, human rights, and religious understanding.”

Edited by Greg Barber

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Tenzin Pema for RFA Tibetan.

“When you arrive, you have boxes that have been sometimes sitting outside in Antarctica for a month or two in a cold warehouse,” said Boyer, a PhD student in atmospheric science at the University of Helsinki. “And we’re talking about sensitive instrumentation.”

But the effort paid off, because Boyer and his colleagues found something peculiar about penguin guano. In a paper published on Thursday in the journal Communications Earth and Environment, they describe how ammonia wafting off the droppings of 60,000 birds contributed to the formation of clouds that might be insulating Antarctica, helping cool down an otherwise rapidly warming continent. Some penguin populations, however, are under serious threat because of climate change. Losing them and their guano could mean fewer clouds and more heating in an already fragile ecosystem, one so full of ice that it will significantly raise sea levels worldwide as it melts.

A better understanding of this dynamic could help scientists hone their models of how Antarctica will transform as the world warms. They can now investigate, for instance, if some penguin species produce more ammonia and, therefore, more of a cooling effect. “That’s the impact of this paper,” said Tamara Russell, a marine ornithologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies penguins but wasn’t involved in the research. “That will inform the models better, because we know that some species are decreasing, some are increasing, and that’s going to change a lot down there in many different ways.” 

With their expensive instruments, Boyer and his research team measured atmospheric ammonia between January and March 2023, summertime in the southern hemisphere. They found that when the wind was blowing from an Adelie penguin colony 5 miles away from the detectors, concentrations of the gas shot up to 1,000 times higher than the baseline. Even when the penguins had moved out of the colony after breeding, ammonia concentrations remained elevated for at least a month, as the guano continued emitting the gas. That atmospheric ammonia could have been helping cool the area.

The researchers further demonstrated that the ammonia kicks off an atmospheric chain reaction. Out at sea, tiny plant-like organisms known as phytoplankton release the gas dimethyl sulfide, which transforms into sulphuric acid in the atmosphere. Because ammonia is a base, it reacts readily with this acid. 

This coupling results in the rapid formation of aerosol particles. Clouds form when water vapor gloms onto any number of different aerosols, like soot and pollen, floating around in the atmosphere. In populated places, these particles are more abundant, because industries and vehicles emit so many of them as pollutants. Trees and other vegetation spew aerosols, too. But because Antarctica lacks trees and doesn’t have much vegetation at all, the aerosols from penguin guano and phytoplankton can make quite an impact. 

In February 2023, Boyer and the other researchers measured a particularly strong burst of particles associated with guano, sampled a resulting fog a few hours later, and found particles created by the interaction of ammonia from the guano and sulphuric acid from the plankton. “There is a deep connection between these ecosystem processes, between penguins and phytoplankton at the ocean surface,” Boyer said. “Their gas is all interacting to form these particles and clouds.”

But here’s where the climate impacts get a bit trickier. Scientists know that in general, clouds cool Earth’s climate by reflecting some of the sun’s energy back into space. Although Boyer and his team hypothesize that clouds enhanced with penguin ammonia are probably helping cool this part of Antarctica, they note that they didn’t quantify that climate effect, which would require further research.

That’s a critical bit of information because of the potential for the warming climate to create a feedback loop. As oceans heat up, penguins are losing access to some of their prey, and colonies are shrinking or disappearing as a result. Fewer penguins producing guano means less ammonia and fewer clouds, which means more warming and more disruptions to the animals, and on and on in a self-reinforcing cycle. 

“If this paper is correct — and it really seems to be a nice piece of work to me — [there’s going to be] a feedback effect, where it’s going to accelerate the changes that are already pushing change in the penguins,” said Peter Roopnarine, curator of geology at the California Academy of Sciences.

Scientists might now look elsewhere, Roopnarine adds, to find other bird colonies that could also be providing cloud cover. Protecting those species from pollution and hunting would be a natural way to engineer Earth systems to offset some planetary warming. “We think it’s for the sake of the birds,” Roopnarine said. “Well, obviously it goes well beyond that.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The weird way that penguin poop might be cooling Antarctica on May 22, 2025.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Matt Simon.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

A short video taken inside an Illinois school captured troubling behavior: A teacher gripping a 6-year-old boy with autism by the ankle and dragging him down the hallway on his back.

The early-April incident would’ve been upsetting in any school, but it happened at the Garrison School, part of a special education district where at one time students were arrested at the highest rate of any district in the country. The teacher was charged with battery weeks later after pressure from the student’s parents.

It’s been about eight months since the U.S. Department of Education directed Garrison to change the way it responded to the behavior of students with disabilities. The department said it would monitor the Four Rivers Special Education District, which operates Garrison, following a ProPublica and Chicago Tribune investigation in 2022 that found the school frequently involved police and used controversial disciplinary methods.

But the department’s Office for Civil Rights regional office in Chicago, which was responsible for Illinois and five other states, was one of seven abolished by President Donald Trump’s administration in March; the offices were closed and their entire staff was fired.

The future of oversight at Four Rivers, in west-central Illinois, is now uncertain. There’s no record of any communication from the Education Department to the district since Trump took office, and his administration has terminated an antidiscrimination agreement with at least one school district, in South Dakota.

In the April incident, Xander Reed, who has autism and does not speak, did not stop playing with blocks and go to P.E. when he was told to, according to a police report. Xander then “became agitated and fell to the ground,” the report said. When he refused to get up, a substitute teacher, Rhea Drake, dragged him to the gym.

Another staff member took a photo and alerted school leadership. Principal Amy Haarmann told police that Drake’s actions “were not an acceptable practice at the school,” the police report said.

Xander’s family asked to press charges. Drake, who had been working in Xander’s classroom for more than a month, was charged about three weeks later with misdemeanor battery, records show. She has pleaded not guilty. Her attorney told ProPublica that he and Drake did not want to comment for this story.

Tracey Fair, the district’s director, said school officials made sure students were safe following the incident and that Drake won’t be returning to the district. She declined to comment further about the incident, but said school officials take their “obligation to keep students and staff safe very seriously.”

Doug Thompson, chief of police in Jacksonville, where the school is located, said he could not discuss the case.

Xander’s mother, Amanda, said her son is fearful about going to Garrison, where she said he also has been punished by being put in a school “crisis room,” a small space where students are taken when staff feel they misbehave or need time alone. “He has not wanted to go to school,” she said. “We want him to get an education. We want him to be with other kids.”

Four Rivers serves an eight-county area, and students at Garrison range from kindergartners through high schoolers. About 70 students were enrolled at the start of the school year. Districts who feel they aren’t able to educate a student in neighborhood schools send them to Four Rivers; Xander travels 40 minutes each way to attend Garrison.

The federal scrutiny of Garrison began after ProPublica and the Tribune revealed that during a five-year period, school employees called police to report student misbehavior every other school day, on average. Police made more than 100 arrests of students as young as 9 during that period. They were handcuffed and taken to the police station for being disruptive or disobedient; if they’d physically lashed out at staff, they often were charged with felony aggravated battery.

The news organizations also found that Garrison employees frequently removed students from their classrooms and sent them to crisis rooms when the students were upset, disobedient or aggressive.

The Office for Civil Rights’ findings echoed those of the news investigation. It determined that Garrison routinely sent students to police for noncriminal conduct that could have been related to their disabilities — something prohibited by federal law.

The district was to report its progress in making changes to the OCR by last December, which it appears to have done, according to documents ProPublica obtained through a public records request.

But the records show the OCR has not communicated with the district since then and it’s not clear what will come of the work at Four Rivers. The OCR has terminated at least one agreement it entered into last year — a deal with a South Dakota school district that had agreed to take steps to end discrimination against its Native American students. Spokespeople for the Education Department did not respond to questions from ProPublica.

Scott Reed, 6-year-old Xander Reed’s father, said he and Xander’s mother were aware of the frequent use of police as disciplinarians at Four Rivers and of OCR’s involvement. But they reluctantly enrolled him this school year because they were told there were no other options.

“You can say you’ve made all these changes, but you haven’t,” Scott Reed said. For example, he said, even after confirming that Drake had dragged the 50-pound boy down the hall, school leadership sent her home. “They did not call police until I arrived at school and demanded it” hours later, he said.

“If that was a student” that acted that way, “they would have been in handcuffs.”

New ProPublica reporting has found that since school began in August, police have been called to the school at least 30 times in response to student behavior.

Thompson, the police chief, told ProPublica that, in one instance, officers were summoned because a student was saying “inappropriate things.” They also were called last month after a report that a student punched and bit staff members. The officers “helped to calm the student,” according to the local newspaper’s police blotter.

And police have continued to arrest Garrison students. There have been six arrests of students for property damage or aggravated battery this school year, police data shows. A 15-year-old girl was arrested for spitting in a staff member’s face, and a 10-year-old boy was arrested after being accused of hitting an employee. There were at least nine student arrests last school year, according to police data.

Thompson said four students between the ages of 10 and 16 have been arrested this school year on the more serious aggravated battery charge; one of the students was arrested three times. He said he thinks police calls to Garrison are inevitable, but that school staff are now handling more student behavioral concerns without reaching out to police.

“I feel like now the calls for service are more geared toward they have done what they can and they now need help,” Thompson said. “They have attempted to de-escalate themselves and the student is not cooperating still or it is out of their control and they need more assistance.”

Police were called to the school last week to deal with “a disturbance involving a student,” according to the police blotter in Jacksonville’s local newspaper. It didn’t end in an arrest this time; a parent arrived and “made the student obey staff members.”

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Jennifer Smith Richards and Jodi S. Cohen.

The rising spiral of world military spending provides a striking example of how highly national governments value armed forces.  In 2024, the nations of the world spent a record $2.72 trillion on expanding their vast military strength, an increase of 9.4 percent from the previous year.  It was the tenth year of consecutive spending increases and the steepest annual rise in military expenditures since the end of the Cold War.

This enormous investment in military might is hardly a new phenomenon.  Over the broad sweep of human history, nations have armed themselves―often at great cost―in preparation for war.  And an endless stream of wars has followed, resulting in the deaths of perhaps a billion people, most of them civilians.  During the 20th century alone, war’s human death toll numbered 231 million.

Even larger numbers of people have been injured in these wars, including many who have been crippled, blinded, hideously burned, or driven mad.  In fact, the number of people who have been wounded in war is at least twice the number killed and has sometimes soared to 13 times that number.

War has produced other calamities, as well.  The Russian military invasion of Ukraine, for example, has led to the displacement of a third of that nation’s population. In addition, war has caused immense material damage.  Entire cities and, sometimes, nations have been reduced to rubble, while even victorious countries sometimes found themselves bankrupted by war’s immense financial costs.  Often, wars have brought long-lasting environmental damage, leading to birth defects and other severe health consequences, as the people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and the Middle East can attest.

Even when national military forces were not engaged in waging foreign wars, they often produced very undesirable results.  The annals of history are filled with incidents of military officers who have used their armies to stage coups and establish brutal dictatorships in their own countries.  Furthermore, the possession of military might has often emboldened national leaders to intimidate weaker nations or to embark upon imperial conquest.  It’s no accident that nations with the most powerful military forces (“the great powers”) are particularly prone to war-making.

Moreover, prioritizing the military has deprived other sectors of society of substantial resources.  Money that could have gone into programs for education, healthcare, food stamps, and other social programs has been channeled instead into unprecedented levels of spending to enhance military might.

It’s a sorry record for what passes as world civilization―one that will surely grow far worse, or perhaps terminate human existence, with the onset of a nuclear war.

Of course, advocates of military power argue that, in a dangerous world, there is a necessity for deterring a military attack upon their nations.  And that is surely a valid concern.

But does military might really meet the need for national security?  In addition to the problems spawned by massive military forces, it’s not clear that these forces are doing a good job of deterring foreign attack.  After all, every year government officials say that their countries are facing greater danger than ever before.  And they are right about this.  The world is becoming a more dangerous place.  A major reason is that the military might sought by one nation for its national security is regarded by other nations as endangering their national security.  The result is an arms race and, frequently, war.

Fortunately, though, there are alternatives to the endless process of military buildups and wars.

The most promising among them is the establishment of international security.  This could be accomplished through the development of international treaties and the strengthening of international institutions.

Treaties, of course, can establish rules for international behavior by nations while, at the same time, resolving key problems among them (for example, the location of national boundaries) and setting policies that are of benefit to all (for example, reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).  Through arms control and disarmament agreements they can also address military dangers.  For example, in place of the arms race, they could sponsor a peace race, in which each nation would reduce its military spending by 10 per cent per year.  Or nations could sign and ratify (as many have already done) the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which would end the menace of nuclear annihilation.

International institutions can also play a significant role in reducing international conflict and, thus, the resort to military action.  The United Nations, established in 1945, is tasked with maintaining international peace and security, while the International Court of Justice was established to settle legal disputes among nations and the International Criminal Court to investigate and, where justified, try individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

Unfortunately, these international organizations are not fully able to accomplish their important tasks―largely because many nations prefer to rely upon their own military might and because some nations (particularly the United States, Russia, and Israel) are enraged that these organizations have criticized their conduct in world affairs.  Even so, international organizations have enormous potential and, if strengthened, could play a vital role in creating a less violent world.

Rather than continuing to pour the wealth of nations into the failing system of national military power, how about bolstering these global instruments for attaining international security and peace?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Lawrence S. Wittner.

Image by Filip Andrejevic.

Although the statement that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun” was made by Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong, it’s an idea that, in one form or another, has motivated a great many people, from the members of teenage street gangs to the statesmen of major nations.

The rising spiral of world military spending provides a striking example of how highly national governments value armed forces. In 2024, the nations of the world spent a record $2.72 trillion on expanding their vast military strength, an increase of 9.4 percent from the previous year. It was the tenth year of consecutive spending increases and the steepest annual rise in military expenditures since the end of the Cold War.

This enormous investment in military might is hardly a new phenomenon. Over the broad sweep of human history, nations have armed themselves―often at great cost―in preparation for war. And an endless stream of wars has followed, resulting in the deaths of perhaps a billion people, most of them civilians. During the 20^th century alone, war’s human death toll numbered 231 million.

Even larger numbers of people have been injured in these wars, including many who have been crippled, blinded, hideously burned, or driven mad. In fact, the number of people who have been wounded in war is at least twice the number killed and has sometimes soared to 13 times that number.

War has produced other calamities, as well. The Russian military invasion of Ukraine, for example, has led to the displacement of a third of that nation’s population. In addition, war has caused immense material damage. Entire cities and, sometimes, nations have been reduced to rubble, while even victorious countries sometimes found themselves bankrupted by war’s immense financial costs. Often, wars have brought long-lasting environmental damage, leading to birth defects and other severe health consequences, as the people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and the Middle East can attest.

Even when national military forces were not engaged in waging foreign wars, they often produced very undesirable results. The annals of history are filled with incidents of military officers who have used their armies to stage coups and establish brutal dictatorships in their own countries. Furthermore, the possession of military might has often emboldened national leaders to intimidate weaker nations or to embark upon imperial conquest. It’s no accident that nations with the most powerful military forces (“the great powers”) are particularly prone to war-making.

Moreover, prioritizing the military has deprived other sectors of society of substantial resources. Money that could have gone into programs for education, healthcare, food stamps, and other social programs has been channeled instead into unprecedented levels of spending to enhance military might.

It’s a sorry record for what passes as world civilization―one that will surely grow far worse, or perhaps terminate human existence, with the onset of a nuclear war.

Of course, advocates of military power argue that, in a dangerous world, there is a necessity for deterring a military attack upon their nations. And that is surely a valid concern.

But does military might really meet the need for national security? In addition to the problems spawned by massive military forces, it’s not clear that these forces are doing a good job of deterring foreign attack. After all, every year government officials say that their countries are facing greater danger than ever before. And they are right about this. The world is becoming a more dangerous place. A major reason is that the military might sought by one nation for its national security is regarded by other nations as endangering their national security. The result is an arms race and, frequently, war.

Fortunately, though, there are alternatives to the endless process of military buildups and wars.

The most promising among them is the establishment of international security. This could be accomplished through the development of international treaties and the strengthening of international institutions.

Treaties, of course, can establish rules for international behavior by nations while, at the same time, resolving key problems among them (for example, the location of national boundaries) and setting policies that are of benefit to all (for example, reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere). Through arms control and disarmament agreements they can also address military dangers. For example, in place of the arms race, they could sponsor a peace race, in which each nation would reduce its military spending by 10 percent per year. Or nations could sign and ratify (as many have already done) the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which would end the menace of nuclear annihilation.

International institutions can also play a significant role in reducing international conflict and, thus, the resort to military action. The United Nations, established in 1945, is tasked with maintaining international peace and security, while the International Court of Justice was established to settle legal disputes among nations and the International Criminal Court to investigate and, where justified, try individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

Unfortunately, these international organizations are not fully able to accomplish their important tasks―largely because many nations prefer to rely upon their own military might and because some nations (particularly the United States, Russia, and Israel) are enraged that these organizations have criticized their conduct in world affairs. Even so, international organizations have enormous potential and, if strengthened, could play a vital role in creating a less violent world.

Rather than continuing to pour the wealth of nations into the failing system of national military power, how about bolstering these global instruments for attaining international security and peace?

The post The Limitations of Military Might appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Lawrence Wittner.

Yangshan containership terminal. Photo: Bruno Corpet (Quoique). CC BY-SA 3.0

When Donald Trump pulled back on his plan to impose eye-watering tariffs on trading partners across the world, there was one key exception: China.

While the rest of the world would be given a 90-day reprieve on additional duties beyond the new 10% tariffs on all U.S. trade partners, China would feel the squeeze even more. On April 9, 2025, Trump raised the tariff on Chinese goods to 125% – bringing the total U.S. tariff on some Chinese imports to 145%.

The move, in Trump’s telling, was prompted by Beijing’s “lack of respect for global markets.” But the U.S. president may well have been smarting from Beijing’s apparent willingness to confront U.S. tariffs head on.

While many countries opted not to retaliate against Trump’s now-delayed reciprocal tariff hikes, instead favoring negotiation and dialogue, Beijing took a different tack. It responded with swift and firm countermeasures. On April 11, China dismissed Trump’s moves as a “joke” and raised its own tariff against the U.S. to 125%.

The two economies are now locked in an all-out, high-intensity trade standoff. And China is showing no signs of backing down.

And as an expert on U.S.-China relations, I wouldn’t expect China to. Unlike the first U.S.-China trade war during Trump’s initial term, when Beijing eagerly sought to negotiate with the U.S., China now holds far more leverage.

Indeed, Beijing believes it can inflict at least as much damage on the U.S. as vice versa, while at the same time expanding its global position.

A changed calculus for China

There’s no doubt that the consequences of tariffs are severe for China’s export-oriented manufacturers – especially those in the coastal regions producing furniture, clothing, toys and home appliances for American consumers.

But since Trump first launched a tariff increase on China in 2018, a number of underlying economic factors have significantly shifted Beijing’s calculus.

Crucially, the importance of the U.S. market to China’s export-driven economy has declined significantly. In 2018, at the start of the first trade war, U.S.-bound exports accounted for 19.8% of China’s total exports. In 2023, that figure had fallen to 12.8%. The tariffs may further prompt China to accelerate its “domestic demand expansion” strategy, unleashing the spending power of its consumers and strengthening its domestic economy.

And while China entered the 2018 trade war in a phase of strong economic growth, the current situation is quite different. Sluggish real estate markets, capital flight and Western “decoupling” have pushed the Chinese economy into a period of persistent slowdown.

Perhaps counterintuitively, this prolonged downturn may have made the Chinese economy more resilient to shocks. It has pushed businesses and policymakers to come to factor in the existing harsh economic realities, even before the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

Trump’s tariff policy against China may also allow Beijing a useful external scapegoat, allowing it to rally public sentiment and shift blame for the economic slowdown onto U.S. aggression.

China also understands that the U.S. cannot easily replace its dependency on Chinese goods, particularly through its supply chains. While direct U.S. imports from China have decreased, many goods now imported from third countries still rely on Chinese-made components or raw materials.

By 2022, the U.S. relied on China for 532 key product categories – nearly four times the level in 2000 – while China’s reliance on U.S. products was cut by half in the same period.

There’s a related public opinion calculation: Rising tariffs are expected to drive up prices, something that could stir discontent among American consumers, particularly blue-collar voters. Indeed, Beijing believes Trump’s tariffs risk pushing the previously strong U.S. economy toward a recession.

Potent tools for retaliation

Alongside the changed economic environments, China also holds a number of strategic tools for retaliation against the U.S.

It dominates the global rare earth supply chain – critical to military and high-tech industries – supplying roughly 72% of U.S. rare earth imports, by some estimates. On March 4, China placed 15 American entities on its export control list, followed by another 12 on April 9. Many were U.S. defense contractors or high-tech firms reliant on rare earth elements for their products.

China also retains the ability to target key U.S. agricultural export sectors such as poultry and soybeans – industries heavily dependent on Chinese demand and concentrated in Republican-leaning states. China accounts for about half of U.S. soybean exports and nearly 10% of American poultry exports. On March 4, Beijing revoked import approvals for three major U.S. soybean exporters.

And on the tech side, many U.S. companies – such as Apple and Tesla – remain deeply tied to Chinese manufacturing. Tariffs threaten to shrink their profit margins significantly, something Beijing believes can be used as a source of leverage against the Trump administration. Already, Beijing is reportedly planning to strike back through regulatory pressure on U.S. companies operating in China.

Meanwhile, the fact that Elon Musk, a senior Trump insider who has clashed with U.S. trade adviser Peter Navarro against tariffs, has major business interests in China is a particularly strong wedge that Beijing could yet exploit in an attempt to divide the Trump administration. A strategic opening for China?

While Beijing thinks it can weather Trump’s sweeping tariffs on a bilateral basis, it also believes the U.S. broadside against its own trading partners has created a generational strategic opportunity to displace American hegemony.

Close to home, this shift could significantly reshape the geopolitical landscape of East Asia. Already on March 30 – after Trump had first raised tariffs on Beijing – China, Japan and South Korea hosted their first economic dialogue in five years and pledged to advance a trilateral free trade agreement. The move was particularly remarkable given how carefully the U.S. had worked to cultivate its Japanese and South Korean allies during the Biden administration as part of its strategy to counter Chinese regional influence. From Beijing’s perspective, Trump’s actions offer an opportunity to directly erode U.S. sway in the Indo-Pacific.

Similarly, Trump’s steep tariffs on Southeast Asian countries, which were also a major strategic regional priority during the Biden administration, may push those nations closer to China. Chinese state media announced on April 11 that President Xi Jinping will pay state visits to Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia from April 14-18, aiming to deepen “all-round cooperation” with neighboring countries. Notably, all three Southeast Asian nations were targeted with now-paused reciprocal tariffs by the Trump administration – 49% on Cambodian goods, 46% on Vietnamese exports and 24% on products from Malaysia.

Farther away from China lies an even more promising strategic opportunity. Trump’s tariff strategy has already prompted China and officials from the European Union to contemplate strengthening their own previously strained trade ties, something that could weaken the transatlantic alliance that had sought to decouple from China.

On April 8, the president of the European Commission held a call with China’s premier, during which both sides jointly condemned U.S. trade protectionism and advocated for free and open trade. Coincidentally, on April 9, the day China raised tariffs on U.S. goods to 84%, the EU also announced its first wave of retaliatory measures – imposing a 25% tariff on selected U.S. imports worth over €20 billion – but delayed implementation following Trump’s 90-day pause.

Now, EU and Chinese officials are holding talks over existing trade barriers and considering a full-fledged summit in China in July.

Finally, China sees in Trump’s tariff policy a potential weakening of the international standing of the U.S. dollar. Widespread tariffs imposed on multiple countries have shaken investor confidence in the U.S. economy, contributing to a decline in the dollar’s value.

Traditionally, the dollar and U.S. Treasury bonds have been viewed as haven assets, but recent market turmoil has cast doubt on that status. At the same time, steep tariffs have raised concerns about the health of the U.S. economy and the sustainability of its debt, undermining trust in both the dollar and U.S. Treasurys.

While Trump’s tariffs will inevitably hurt parts of the Chinese economy, Beijing appears to have far more cards to play this time around. It has the tools to inflict meaningful damage on U.S. interests – and perhaps more importantly, Trump’s all-out tariff war is providing China with a rare and unprecedented strategic opportunity.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post In Trade War With the US, China Holds a Lot More Cards Than Trump May Think − In Fact, It Might Have a Winning hand appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Linggong Kong.

Image by Katelyn Perry.

The Democrat’s new candidate for 2028 is… Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

As it begins to strategize for the 2028 presidential election, the Democratic Party may be misjudging the nation’s mood and which issues Americans consider a priority. The Party’s success will hinge on whether it is able to properly “read the room” and understand fully the concerns, frustrations, and needs of its voters. It will then need to translate this into actionable tasks and tackle each problem one by one. The problem is that so far, the Democrats might be at risk of losing the next election as well if they don’t learn from the past.

In the last decade, Democrats relied heavily on minority voters, urban progressives, and suburban moderates, many of whom were united in voting against President Donald Trump.

But what happens in the next election cycle, when Trump will no longer be a candidate? The anti-Trump messaging will have lost its main goal – keeping Trump out of the White House. With him leaving anyway, the Democrats will need a new message – one that resonates with voters and appeals to their needs. Democrats will need to provide solutions for ongoing issues like inflation, housing, and healthcare.

An oft-voiced critique against the Democrats has been that they are out of touch with working-class voters. It is true that the party has made inroads with college-educated voters and affluent suburbanites, but it has not found full support among blue-collar workers, especially in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The right candidate will need to speak to the struggles of factory workers, small-town residents, and other working-class voters. It’s the economy and money in the pocket that matters most to this large and crucial demographic.

Democrats will need to address issues that matter to these workers and not focus solely on elite cultural issues such as climate change or identity politics. Cosmopolitan liberalism will only push away these voters and hand the Democrats a defeat once again.

The Democrats in 2028 will have the advantage of having been in power for only four of the previous 12 years. Voters undergo fatigue when one party has control of the White House for a long period, and desire change. Although Republicans might insist on Vice President JD Vance or another figure close to President Trump for the sake of continuity, this could backfire if the public demonstrates eagerness for a political shakeup.

Young voters especially might be the engine for such change, demanding a bold departure from the status quo, especially if the economy does not improve or global crises persist.

Then there are the culture wars. The Democratic Party has positioned itself as a warrior for progressive social change. While this has succeeded in energizing its base, it has also alienated the more conservative or moderate voters within the party. Gender identity, critical race theory, and cancel culture have all backfired and if Democrats continue to place these issues front and center, it will likely lose again in 2028.

Choosing a hyper-progressive candidate to appeal to the activist wing of the party might prove to be a mistake since swing voters are now likely weary of divisive rhetoric, craving instead practical governance over ideological crusade.

Reading the room wrong means the Democrats will either overreach or underperform.

Personality also matters and much of the skepticism surrounding former Vice President Kamala Harris’ run for president focused on her personality and “word salad” interviews.

Barack Obama’s charisma carried him to victory and Joe Biden won due to his “everyman” appeal. Democrats will need to choose a relatable candidate who can connect emotionally with voters – not someone who fails to inspire.

Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, as she is otherwise known, is not yet the Democratic Party’s official next presidential nominee, but the 35-year-old New York congresswoman is positioning herself well for a run.

Several recent polls show how voters are thinking about the upcoming primary – with AOC emerging as one of the top few contenders.

A CNN poll carried out from March 6 to 9 showed that AOC was the top politician among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents when asked which “one person best reflects the core values” of the party.

The path to 2028 is fraught with opportunities to slip up and misread the room. The Democratic Party must be careful not to underestimate the desire for change, misjudge cultural fault lines, or overlook the power of charisma. The party must listen closely to the electorate and hear its frustrations, needs, and hopes. The room is shifting and Democrats must utilize the next few years to prove they can still read it – and win the next election.

The post Why Democrats Might Be Misreading the Room for 2028 appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

We’ve been reporting from the US Capital over the past several weeks, hoping to document how Congress is responding to the authoritarian impulses of the Trump administration.  

It has been fruitful, albeit chaotic. There have been colorful press conferences and illuminating back-and-forths with Republican legislators, but not in the way we expected.  

Republicans, it seems, are happy to dispense with democracy, provided liberals go with it into the dustbin of history. In person they seem practically giddy, almost ebullient, and dangerously overconfident that abolishing liberalism is an end unto itself, regardless of the consequences.

And that might be their downfall—and ours.

During the press conferences we’ve attended, Republicans have reveled in massive federal job cuts and a possible tariff-induced recession. They’ve deflected serious concerns about data privacy and the dislocation of veterans from the federal workforce with puzzling confidence.

They have expressed few doubts about a feckless billionaire delving into Social Security data and IRS records with little apparent oversight.

Congressman Pete Sessions, co-chair of the Republican-led DOGE caucus, gave an elliptical answer on this very topic. When we asked if he could guarantee the safety of Americans’ personal information in light of reports that the DOGE team was underskilled and over-empowered, he deflected.

“The IRS failed that test, and has failed it for many, many years,” he responded obliquely. 

Even on topics like economic growth, high-profile Republicans have acted confident about usually touchy subjects, like a possible recession. Congressman Tim Burchett embraced a tariff-induced downturn, proclaiming with confidence on the Capitol steps that there would be temporary pain from the fallout over Trump’s tariff ballet, but it would be limited to the wealthy. 

“There is going to be some pain, but it’s going to be very, very short term,” he said with confidence.

Normally, all of these political third rails—a dour economy and massive federal job cuts—would be anathema to a party working to remain in power. Yet these controversial topics have been met with a collective shrug by MAGA apostles. 

You could write off this behavior as the natural hubris of a newly elected majority. But that would be an understatement. Conservatives seemed buoyed by a different sort of political calculus—the kind that shrinks politics to a binary conception of power, us versus them, that is downright dangerous.

That’s because Republicans seem certain their sole enemy—and ongoing biggest political challenge—is excising liberalism from its traditional bastions, like the federal government and academia; not improving, not reforming, or even meeting the challenges of a changing world, but vanquishing their Democratic rivals. They’re giddy that Democrats and liberals have been silenced, obliterated, or otherwise marginalized.  

That’s one of the reasons they seem unconcerned that the cuts have been indiscriminate and unlawful. Purging appears to be a priority. Chaos, the primary effect.

But all of this gloating ignores the reality of a world that is not so easily cowed. Conservatism may consider itself to be locked in an epic battle of left versus right, but the world is more complicated and nasty, and that might be a fatal miscalculation. The defeat of liberalism could be a pyrrhic conservative victory.

Consider that while the Trump administration has withdrawn aid and drastically cut funding for research at American universities, China has committed to even more funding for research.

As Trump has been deleting references to climate change and green energy, China is on the precipice of world domination in renewable energy. Sure, Republicans may wipe out the “Green New Scam,” as they call it. But how do we compete with China when cheaper and cleaner solar power drives an economy already constructed to overwhelm ours?

Trump has slowed immigration to a trickle, even as our falling birthrate indicates we need more people. The downturn occurs as the conservative Cato Institute touts that immigrants consume fewer welfare benefits than native-born Americans and have also been a key factor in America’s recent economic growth. 

If the game were simply between these two teams, liberals and MAGA, the victory could be resounding. Universities will falter, the federal workforce will dissolve, and the power base of liberalism will wither.

But the world does not abide by this calculus. This will not be the win MAGA expects. The upcoming fight will, more accurately, be one of democracy versus autocracy, scientific truth versus disinformation, and a free market versus a command economy. Battles we might not be able to fight if the chaotic deconstruction of the federal government continues.

These are the spoils Republicans seek. The rest of the world awaits a weakened nation courtesy of the Republican obsession with liberalism.

This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by Stephen Janis and Taya Graham.

The Trump administration might let hundreds of millions of dollars in aid pledged to Pacific island nations during former President Joe Biden’s time in office stand, says New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters.

The Biden administration pledged about $1 billion in aid to the Pacific to help counter China’s influence in the strategic region.

However, Trump last month froze all disbursements of aid by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), for 90 days pending a “review” of all aid spending under his “America First” policy.

• READ MORE: Political analyst hopes NZ, Australia will ‘step up’ over USAID cuts gap
• Other USAID reports

Peters told reporters on Monday after meetings with Trump’s USAID acting head, Peter Marocco, and his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, “more confident” about the prospects of the aid being left alone than he was before.

Peters said he had a “very frank and open discussion” with American officials about how important the aid was for the Pacific, and insisted that they “get our point of view in terms of how essential it is”.

“In our business, it’s wise to find out the results before you open your mouth, but we are looking ahead with more confidence than when we arrived,” Peters said, pushing back against claims that the Trump administration would be “pulling back” from the Pacific region.

“We don’t know that yet. Let’s find out in April, when that full review is done on USAID,” he said. “But we came away more confident than some of the alarmists might have been before we arrived.”

Frenzied diplomatic battle
The Biden administration sought to rapidly expand US engagement with the small island nations of the Pacific after the Solomon Islands signed a controversial security pact with China three years ago.

The deal by the Solomon Islands sparked a frenzied diplomatic battle between Washington and Beijing for influence in the strategic region.

Biden subsequently hosted Pacific island leaders at back-to-back summits in Washington in September 2022 and 2023, the first two of their kind. He pledged hundreds of millions of dollars at both meets, appearing to tilt the region back toward Washington.

The first summit included announcements of some $800 billion in aid for the Pacific, while the second added about $200 billion.

But the region has since been rocked by the Trump administration’s decision to freeze all aid pending its ongoing review. The concerns have not been helped by a claim from Elon Musk, who Trump tasked with cutting government waste, that USAID would be shut down.

“You’ve got to basically get rid of the whole thing. It’s beyond repair. We’re shutting it down,” Musk said in a February 3 livestreamed video.

However, the New Zealand foreign minister, who also met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, said he held out hope that Washington would not turn back on its fight for influence in the Pacific.

“The first Trump administration turned more powerfully towards the Pacific . . .  than any previous administration,” he said, “and now they’ve got Trump back again, and we hope for the same into the future.”

Radio Free Asia is an online news service affiliated with BenarNews. Republished from BenarNews with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Campaigners for the rights of Vietnamese who fled from repression in their country to Thailand say they hope U.S. sanctions against Thai officials for deporting Uyghur people to China may deter Thailand from sending other asylum seekers home to an uncertain future.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced sanctions on March 14 against unidentified Thai government officials involved in sending 40 ethnic Uyghur men to China on Feb. 27 despite U.S. and U.N. warnings they could face torture and a call from Rubio not to send them back.

Asylum seekers from Vietnam in Thailand, including ethnic minority Christians from Vietnam’s Central Highlands, are hoping the stern U.S. response to the deportation of the Uyghurs might save them from the same fate at the hands of Thai officials, campaigners and refugees say.

“I believe that Thailand will pause and review its policy instead of obeying or complying with the requests of China and Vietnam,” Nguyen Dinh Thang, the director of the refugee rights group Boat People SOS, told Radio Free Asia.

He said while Thailand does not suppress religious freedom, it assists neighboring countries in doing that by arresting asylum seekers from places like Vietnam, China, Laos, and Myanmar and deporting them.

Thailand says it has a long record of helping people displaced from neighboring countries and it follows the law when it comes to handling immigration cases.

Among the approximately 1,500 Vietnamese seeking asylum in Thailand and awaiting resettlement in a third country, are many Montagnards, or Dega, from the Central Highlands and Hmong people from the mountainous northwest.

Both groups are mainly Protestant Christians who fled Vietnam after being pressured by authorities to renounce their faith. Vietnam denies persecuting people because of their religion.

One prominent case in recent months has been that of Y Quynh Bdap, the co-founder of Montagnards Stand for Justice, which campaigns for the rights of indigenous people in the Central Highlands. He fled from Vietnam to Thailand in 2018.

Despite being granted U.N. refugee status and involved in a process to resettle in Canada, he was arrested by Thai police in the middle of last year after Vietnam requested his extradition.

A court in Vietnam had sentenced him earlier in the year to 10 years in prison for “terrorism” in connection with attacks on two government offices in Dak Lak province, in which nine people were killed. Y Quynh Bdap was in Thailand at the time and he said he had nothing to do with organizing the attacks.

Late last year, a Bangkok court ruled that Y Quynh Bdap could be deported despite calls from the U.N. and rights organizations for his release and for him to be allowed to resettle in a third country.

An appeal against the ruling is making its way through the Thai courts.

Last month, Thai police arrested more than 60 Montagnards at a ceremony to mourn the death of Y Quynh Bdap’s mother-in-law who died in Vietnam. About 43 are still being held at a detention center in Bangkok.

‘Not safe’

According to Boat People SOS – labeled a terrorist organization by Vietnam last month – Thai authorities allowed Vietnamese police and embassy officials to meet the Montagnards in detention to ask them to “volunteer” to return home. The Vietnamese authorities threatened to send police to Thailand to arrest all Montagnard refugees and repatriate them, the group said.

Thailand adopted a similar tactic with the Uyghurs, who were also in detention, according to rights group Justice for All. Weeks before the deportation of the men, the group said Thai authorities had pressed them to agree to go home. Thai officials denied that.

“Refugees here are not safe, not just the Uyghurs,” said Montagnard Thoan Siu, who fled Vietnam due to religious persecution and land confiscation.

“If the United States does not condemn them, they will treat Vietnamese refugees the same way in the future,” he said, referring to Thai authorities.

“If the international community does not care and does not speak up, the Thai government will arrest people and possibly deport them back to Vietnam.”

RELATED STORIES

Thai delegation heads to China to check on deported Uyghurs

Thai authorities detain 68 Montagnards during raid on funeral service

Vietnam asks Y Quynh Bdap’s family to urge his surrender ahead of appeal trial

Rahlan Su, a protestant member of a Vietnamese ethnic minority who brought his wife and three children to Thailand in 2019, said U.S. sanctions on Thai officials could force Thai police to think twice.

Nevertheless, he said he still worried as his family had yet to be granted U.N. refugee status, which offers some protection.

Nguyen Dinh Thang, executive director of Boat People SOS, said Thailand had to consider its international standing.

“Thailand also has to find a balance because it does not want to be condemned by the free world, that would affect not only its diplomatic relations but also geopolitical and trade issues,” Thang said.

Thang said his organization, which has been advocating for religious freedom for ethnic minority communities in Vietnam for decades, would continue to lobby the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and U.N. human rights institutions to pressure the Thai government over cases such as that of Y Quynh Bdap.

On Tuesday, Y Quynh Bdap’s lawyer told RFA the Court of Appeal had accepted her appeal against her client’s deportation. A date has not been set for the appeal court’s ruling.

Translated by RFA Vietnamese. Edited by Mike Firn.

Pimuk Rakkanam in Bangkok contributed to this report.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Vietnamese.

The Biden administration pledged about $1 billion in aid to the Pacific to help counter China’s influence in the strategic region.

However, Trump last month froze all disbursements of aid by the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, for 90 days pending a “review” of all aid spending under his “America First” policy.

New Zealand’s foreign minister told reporters on Monday that he had exited meetings with Trump’s USAID acting head, Peter Marocco, and his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, “more confident” about the prospects of the aid being left alone than he was before.

Peters said he had a “very frank and open discussion” with American officials about how important the aid was for the Pacific, and insisted that they “get our point of view in terms of how essential it is.”

(Vincent Thian/Reuters)

“In our business, it’s wise to find out the results before you open your mouth, but we are looking ahead with more confidence than when we arrived,” Peters said, pushing back against claims that the Trump administration would be “pulling back” from the Pacific region.

“We don’t know that yet. Let’s find out in April, when that full review is done on USAID,” he said. “But we came away more confident than some of the alarmists might have been before we arrived.”

Pacific theater

The Biden administration sought to rapidly expand U.S. engagement with the small island nations of the Pacific after the Solomon Islands signed a controversial security pact with China three years ago.

The deal by the Solomon Islands sparked a frenzied diplomatic battle between Washington and Beijing for influence in the strategic region.

Biden subsequently hosted Pacific island leaders at back-to-back summits in Washington in September 2022 and 2023, the first two of their kind. He pledged hundreds of millions of dollars at both meets, appearing to tilt the region back toward Washington.

The first summit included announcements of some $800 billion in aid for the Pacific, while the second added about $200 billion.

But the region has since been rocked by the Trump administration’s decision to freeze all aid pending its ongoing review. The concerns have not been helped by a claim from Elon Musk, who Trump tasked with cutting government waste, that USAID will be shuttered.

“You’ve got to basically get rid of the whole thing. It’s beyond repair. We’re shutting it down,” Musk said in a Feb. 3 livestreamed video.

However, the New Zealand foreign minister, who also met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, said he held out hope that Washington would not turn back on its fight for influence in the Pacific.

“The first Trump administration turned more powerfully towards the Pacific … than any previous administration,” he said, “and now they’ve got Trump back again, and we hope for the same into the future.”

Edited by Malcolm Foster

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alex Willemyns.

A Fijian academic believes Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s failed attempt to garner enough parliamentary support to change the country’s 2013 Constitution “is only the beginning”.

Last week, Rabuka fell short in his efforts to secure the support of three-quarters of the members of Parliament to amend sections 159 and 160 of the constitution.

The prime minister’s proposed amendments also sought to remove the need for a national referendum altogether. While the bill passed its first reading with support from several opposition MPs, it failed narrowly at the second reading.

• READ MORE: Fiji government fails to secure support to make changes to constitution
• Other Fiji politics reports

Video: RNZ Pacific

While the bill passed its first reading with support from several opposition MPs, it failed narrowly at the second reading.

Jope Tarai, an indigenous Fijian PhD scholar and researcher at the Australian National University, told RNZ Pacific Waves that “it is quite obvious that it is not going to be the end” of Rabuka’s plans to amend the constitution.

However, he said that it was “something that might take a while” with less than a year before the 2026 elections.

“So, the repositioning towards the people’s priorities will be more important than constitutional review,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

If you ask a National Park Service ranger how the Trump administration’s cost cutting will affect your next park visit, you might get talking points instead of a straight answer.

A series of emails sent late last month to front-line staff at parks across the country provided rangers with instructions on how to describe the highly publicized staff cuts. Park leaders further instructed staff to avoid the word “fired” and not blame closures on staffing levels.

On Feb. 14, at least 1,000 park service employees were terminated as part of broad reductions to the federal workforce by the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. As a result, visitor centers have reduced hours, tours of popular attractions have been canceled, lines have spiraled, bathrooms may go uncleaned, habitat restoration has ceased and water has gone unchecked for toxic algae.

Meanwhile, rangers have been ordered to describe these cuts — or “attrition” and “workforce management actions,” according to the talking points — as “prioritizing fiscal responsibility” and “staffing to meet the evolving needs of our visitors.” They also should tell visitors the parks will continue to ensure “memorable and meaningful experiences for all.”

If asked about limited offerings, one park’s rangers were instructed to say “we are not able to address park or program-level impacts at this time.”

The guidance mirrors other measures instituted by the Trump administration to dictate how federal employees communicate with the public. This month, employees at the National Cancer Institute were told they needed approval for any communication dealing with 23 “controversial, high profile, or sensitive” issues, including peanut allergies and autism. Agencies across the federal government have begun compiling lists of words to avoid because they could conflict with Trump’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, The New York Times has reported.

The guidance handed down to park employees puts rangers in a particularly difficult position, said Emily Douce, deputy vice president of government affairs at the National Parks Conservation Association, an advocacy organization for the parks. Rangers pride themselves on knowledge of their parks and their responsibility to accurately educate the public about the habitats, wildlife and geology of those special places.

“They shouldn’t be muzzled to not talk about the impacts of what these cuts mean,” Douce said. “If they are asked, they should be truthful on how federal dollars are being used or taken away.”

An NPS spokesperson said in an emailed statement that any assertion that park staff are being “silenced is flat-out wrong” and that talking points are a “basic tool” to “ensure consistent communication with the public.”

“The National Park Service is fully committed to responsible stewardship of our public lands and enhancing visitor experiences — we will not be distracted by sensationalized attacks designed to undermine that mission,” the statement said.

The spokesperson also criticized park staff who spoke with a ProPublica reporter. “Millions of hardworking Americans deal with workplace challenges every day without resorting to politically motivated leaks,” the spokesperson said.

One park ranger, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, said the talking points prevent rangers from telling the public the truth. Some employees have delivered the statements in an exaggerated “monotone” to convey to visitors they are toeing the company line but there’s more to the story, the ranger said.

“We have a duty to tell the public what’s going on,” the ranger said. “If that’s saying, ‘We just don’t have the staff to stay open and that’s what these firings are doing,’ I think the people have a right to know. Every person we lose hurts.”

In the immediate aftermath of the firings, parks quickly closed visitor centers, ended tours and altered other services. Some parks were clear on social media that the staffing cuts had resulted in the closures. But recently parks have been more vague in discussing the impact and not offered explanations for particular closures.

The administration has reinstated about 50 NPS employees and announced it will proceed with the hiring of seasonal employees, a workforce that is essential to park operations during the busy summer season. The hiring process, however, has been delayed, which may lead to operation disruptions. And more cuts are likely coming. The Hill recently reported that the administration is considering a 30% payroll reduction for the NPS.

The cuts come as the parks are seeing increases in visitation, which hit a record in 2024 for the first time since 2016. Although the new data was released on the park service’s website last week, the administration didn’t publicize that milestone with a news release as it has in the past. The terminations also come amid staffing shortages across the service.

Aviva O’Neil, executive director of the Great Basin National Park Foundation, a nonprofit organization that supports a small park in a remote corner of Nevada, bristled at the idea put forth in the talking points that parks can continue to provide the same level of “memorable experiences” with the cuts. When the park lost five of its 26 permanent employees in February, it was forced to close tours of a signature attraction, Lehman Caves. To help restore services, the foundation raised the money to temporarily hire the terminated workers.

“How do they do their day-to-day operations when they don’t have the staff?” she said.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Anjeanette Damon.

When Vietnam’s National Assembly meets in May, parliamentarians will be asked to study, review and amend the 2013 constitution at the request of the politically powerful Politburo.

According to Article 120 of the constitution, the president, the National Assembly standing committee, or at least a third of National Assembly deputies, have the right to propose amendments.

If two thirds of parliamentarians vote in favor of the changes, the National Assembly will set up a constitutional drafting committee.

The committee will organize public consultations, then submit a draft to the assembly. Again, two thirds of members need to support the changes for them to be incorporated into the constitution.

Deliberations on any proposed changes could reveal differences between the ruling Communist Party, which is usually intent on consolidating its powers, and reformers seeking a more open society.

Is amending the constitution constitutional?

Vietnamese lawyers have very different views on the planned changes.

One human rights lawyer said the Politburo’s plan is in line with the current political environment.

”The party holds leadership through Article 4 of the constitution and most members of the National Assembly are party members, so their call for the national assembly to vote on the amendment is appropriate," said the lawyer, who didn’t want to be named because he practices in Vietnam

Not so, said Germany-based lawyer Nguyen Van Dai.

“The [state-controlled] press should have said that the president or the National Assembly standing committee, at the request of the Politburo, had proposed to amend the constitution, which would have been more consistent with the provisions of the constitution.

“But they only bluntly said that the Politburo requested to amend the constitution, so clearly they have pushed the highest authority of the party of the communist regime of Vietnam into an unconstitutional state.”

What will be amended?

Officials have not specified which articles of the constitution are under consideration according to Carl Thayer, emeritus professor of politics at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. However, he said the planned abolition of district-level government and the reorganization of the nationalities council suggest that Article 110 and Articles 75-77 will be amended.

Article 110 states that provinces are divided into counties, and centrally governed cities are divided into urban and rural counties. These references will be deleted, he said.

Articles 75-77 set out the structure, organization and tasks of the nationalities council. The council was reorganized in February and it is likely that the wording of these articles will be revised.

“If the constitutional amendment is limited to amending the Articles to reflect the dissolution of district-level governments and the reorganization of the ethnic council, there will be no major impact on Vietnam’s political system beyond the institutional restructuring that is underway,” Thayer said.

(Nghia Duc/AP)

“General Secretary To Lam’s institutional restructuring will only strengthen the party’s role in Vietnam’s political system. It is unlikely that Article 4 will be amended, and so far, no Vietnamese official or legislator has mentioned this possibility” added Thayer.

“This does not rule out the possibility that reform-minded citizens could try to use this process to push for broader political change by amending Article 4, as happened in 2013.”

What is Article 4?

Since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 there have been several amendments of the constitution. It was changed in 1980 and again in 1992. It was amended and supplemented in 2001 and most recently amended in 2013.

Many rights groups and political activists want Article 4 removed from the constitution when it is next amended. The article outlines the Communist Party’s leadership role in the state and society.

According to Human Rights Watch, Article 4, which stipulates the Communist Party as “the vanguard of the working class [and] the Vietnamese people,” restricts the right to participate in freely held multi-party elections.

RELATED STORIES

EXPLAINED: Vietnamese leader To Lam plans to redraw Vietnam’s provincial lines

New decree keeps associations under control of Vietnam’s Communist Party: Project 88

Vietnamese rights lawyer Nguyen Van Dai released, exiled to Germany

Lawyer Nguyen Van Dai said many believe the next time the constitution is amended Article 4 needs changing or removing.

“When To Lam said he wanted to bring Vietnam into the ‘era of rising up’ and declared that ‘the institution is the bottleneck of bottlenecks,’ the word institution referred to the political institution, Dai said, referring to the Communist Party.

Although Article 4 does not prohibit people from forming other political parties, Dai discovered to his own cost that people who threaten the one-party system face long prison sentences.

Dai founded the Brotherhood for Democracy in 2013 to defend human rights and promote democratic ideals in Vietnam.

He was sentenced to four years in prison for “propaganda against the state” in 2007, and 15 years in prison in 2018 for “activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s government.” He was released in 2018 and exiled to Germany.

Dai said the constitution needs radical amendments with the phrase “according to the provisions of law” removed, because this allows the party to crack down on any attempts to introduce a democratic political system.

He said there should also be a constitutional court which could annul laws and documents that are issued unconstitutionally or contain unconstitutional provisions.

Germany-based democracy activist Nguyen Tien Trung agrees, saying the court could ensure that no law contradicts the constitution.

Which laws are unconstitutional?

Trung cited the example of the Cyber ​​Security Law which he said violates the right to freedom of speech enshrined in Article 25 of the constitution.

“To ensure the people’s right to be masters, the new constitution needs to remove Article 4 to avoid conflict with Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution: Every citizen has the right to form a party to run for election, and only the winning party has the legitimacy to lead the state. Communists and non-communists are equal. That is also the principle clearly stated in Article 16 of the constitution.

“Finally, the constitution is only valid when it is approved by the people. The one-party National Assembly has no right to pass the constitution because the people have never given that right to the National Assembly through a referendum.

“The Communist Party needs to hold a referendum and let the people approve the new constitution as they have always claimed that ‘the people are the masters’.”

Translated by RFA Vietnamese. Edited by Mike Firn.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Vietnamese.

Logo for Five Eyes Alliance – Fair Use

Eight decades after the “Anglosphere” powers (the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) codified their World War intelligence sharing protocols in the 1946 UKUSA Agreement, the “Five Eyes” alliance — named for a  “AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US Eyes Only” classified information designation — may finally find itself retired.

In early March, the Trump administration “paused” sharing intelligence with Ukraine, also forbidding the four other partners from passing along US-gathered intel. Rumor has it that Trump may also want the Canadian “eye” plucked out as one of his trade war tantrums. That, along with Trump’s recent “pro-Russia” lean, has the other four “eyes” considering a separate intelligence-sharing apparatus minus the US.

As an American, I’ve got limited skin in the game on the matter of whether the “Four Eyes” should continue absent US involvement … but I do think that Americans would benefit from the US regime’s withdrawal or expulsion, for several reasons.

First, the US regime massively subsidizes the other four partners. The publicly disclosed US intelligence budget exceeds $80 billion per year and likely comes to far more than that. That’s at least ten times the publicly disclosed intelligence budgets of the other four regimes combined. Even assuming those other regimes operate far more effectively and efficiently, it’s just not a very good deal.

Second, access to intelligence from other “Anglosphere” regimes feeds Washington’s bad habit of, as John Quincy Adams put it, going “abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Those other four regimes are essentially crack dealers who service the US regime’s addiction to a globally ruinous imperial foreign policy.

Third, the arrangement has also been long-known to expose US regime secrets to foreign adversaries, going back at least as far as the 1950s, when British spy Kim Philby passed information to the Soviet Union on US plans and operations in the Korean War.

Finally, the Five Eyes arrangement empowers the domestic US surveillance state that Edward Snowden revealed to the public more than a decade ago. US intelligence operators are legally forbidden to cast their Sauron-like gaze on Americans. They ignore that prohibition themselves … likely with quite a bit of help from the signals intelligence the other four “eyes” provide.

US withdrawal from the Five Eyes, or better yet its complete dissolution, wouldn’t cure the above diseases, but it would reduce the inflammation and ease the symptoms, while leaving all four regimes free to share information at need rather than wholesale.

The post How Losing an Eye Might Make the World a Better Place appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Thomas Knapp.

We speak with foreign policy analyst Matt Duss about increasingly fraught relations between the United States and Ukraine, which have undergone a seismic shift under the second Trump administration. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is meeting with President Trump at the White House on Friday and is expected to sign an agreement giving the U.S. access to his country’s rare earth minerals, which are key components in mobile phones and other advanced technology. It’s unclear what, if anything, Ukraine will get in return, even as Trump pushes Kyiv to reach a deal with Moscow to end the war that began in February 2022 when Russian forces invaded Ukraine. Trump is simultaneously moving to restore relations with Russia and lift its international isolation. Duss says the throughline in Trump’s thinking, from Ukraine to Gaza and elsewhere, is that “great powers” like the United States “make the decisions, and less powerful countries, less powerful communities and peoples simply have to live with the consequences.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

President-elect Donald Trump’s vow to kill offshore wind energy development “on day one” of his second term is already triggering project slowdowns on the East Coast, but the biggest wind farm proposed in the Gulf of Mexico will likely stay on track. 

That’s because the project is on such a long development timeline that Trump’s four-year term will be over before permitting and construction begin, according to RWE, the German energy giant that plans to build a 2,000-megawatt wind farm about 40 miles south of Lake Charles, Louisiana. The project, which could power more than 350,000 homes, isn’t expected to be operational for about a decade. 

“The project has a long-lead development timeline that is longer than any one federal administration, and with a planned operational date in the mid-2030s,” RWE spokesman Ryan Ferguson said. 

RWE, the world’s second-largest offshore wind developer, and other key players in the renewable energy industry announced shifts in funding priorities and warned of project delays and possible derailments after Trump was elected president this month. 

“The change of administration in the U.S entails risks for the timely implementation of offshore wind projects,” RWE Chief Financial Officer Michael Muller said at a press conference earlier this month. “The new Republican administration could delay specific projects. The realization of our Community Offshore Wind project near New York, for example, depends on outstanding permits from U.S. federal authorities.”

The “higher risks and delays” in the U.S. offshore wind market prompted RWE to initiate a $1.6 billion share buyback, RWE CEO Markus Krebber said during a call with investors. The buyback signaled a significant shift in the company’s short-term spending priorities but not waning confidence in the durability of U.S. demand for renewables, Muller said, noting that a growing number of states are setting goals for solar and wind energy. 

RWE’s recalibration makes sense, said Jenny Netherton, the Southeastern Wind Coalition’s Louisiana program manager.

“That was not unexpected,” she said. “Companies are always trying to find the best way forward in an uncertain environment.”

Trump’s opposition to offshore wind began in 2006, when he initiated a decade-long fight against the Scottish government over a proposed wind farm the future U.S. president said would spoil the view from a golf course he hoped to build. Trump lost the battle and was ordered to pay Scotland nearly $300,000 in legal fees. In recent speeches, Trump has said wind farms harm property values and wildlife. More outlandishly, he has claimed wind energy causes cancer, increases food prices and prevents people from watching TV when the wind isn’t blowing. 

During his first term, Trump was accused of “slow walking” the permits for some of the first offshore wind farms in federal waters. RWE and other companies say wind farms already under construction will likely move forward, but projects slated to break ground over the next couple years may face setbacks. 

Of the 30 states with offshore wind potential, nine have statewide wind energy mandates. Two states — Massachusetts and Rhode Island — have deadlines to reach wind energy targets in the 2020s and four states — New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia — have deadlines in the 2030s. 

These goals and the U.S.’s ever-rising electricity needs are signs that Trump may slow but not kill wind energy development, Muller said. 

“We still believe U.S. offshore wind [energy] is still needed,” he said, noting New York in particular. “If they are going to keep up with demand, they need offshore wind.”

Louisiana set a goal of developing the capacity for 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2035, but the target wasn’t legally binding. Proposed in 2021 during the administration of Governor John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, the goal appears to have been abandoned by Governor Jeff Landry, who took office in January. The Republican governor has said little publicly about offshore wind development and has not responded to requests seeking his position on the matter. 

Many other Louisiana Republicans strongly back offshore wind, seeing it as an economic boon for the state. Louisiana companies that long served the offshore oil and gas industry have seen business flag in recent years. Several of them, including shipbuilders, engineering firms and metal fabricators, have easily transitioned to helping plan and build offshore projects on the East Coast, including the U.S.’s first offshore wind farm.

Bipartisan legislation in Louisiana paved the way for a fast-tracked approval process for wind projects in state-managed waters, which extend 3 miles from the coast. Louisiana has approved agreements with two companies to build small-scale wind farms near Cameron Parish and Port Fourchon, the Gulf’s largest oil and gas port. The two projects will likely be built years before the RWE wind farm. 

The last federal lease auction in the Gulf was canceled in July due to weak interest from bidders, but two companies recently offered competing plans for a 142,000-acre area near Galveston, Texas. It’s unclear how Trump’s victory will affect those proposals. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is waiting to see if there’s more developer interest in the area and will likely initiate a competitive lease sale in the coming months. 

While Trump may cause uncertainty at the federal level, Louisiana isn’t likely to waver in its support for offshore wind energy, Netherton said. 

“It still enjoys broad support here,” she said. “Nationally, there’s very little control over what happens, but in Louisiana, offshore wind has a very clear path forward.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump has vowed to kill offshore wind energy — but it might not be easy on Nov 25, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Tristan Baurick.

That’s so sweet. When we started doing kids music, it was a parallel career. We thought, “We’ll do this as a side project.” At the moment we did it, we were probably about as broke as we’ve ever been. It was like, “Let’s figure out a way to not be quite so broke right now.” If you’ve been in a band for 20 years, you’re thinking, “Will I ever buy a car? Will I ever do normal adult things?” You’re committed to your band and you’re like, “I swear I will never sell out the way all these other rock people sold out.” But then at a certain point, you’re also like, “But can I even just buy into a middle class existence?”

What was weird is that it took off in this huge way that was not anticipated at all. And in some ways it got a crazy amount of press attention because it was a real “man bites dog” story. Nobody was thinking They Might Be Giants was a band that was going to work for kids. I think in some ways what we were doing was a little bit meta and a little bit sophisticated and considered kind of artsy. But we figured out a way to thread the needle and do stuff that worked for kids, and it was a long run for us. I mean, we ended up making five kids records. We got a Grammy and we sold this sick number of records.

Did you buy that car?

And at the age of 62, I actually bought a new car. [laughs] I had never bought a new car in my life. And that was very exciting. But all things being equal, it was never our dream or our goal.

You shifted the concept of what children need to listen to. Even if you didn’t intend to lead a double artistic life, I can imagine those two sides fit together better than you expected.

You don’t know how something’s going to land. When we were doing the first kids record, we were probably at our most idealistic about what a kids record could be. We would think of references like Dr. Seuss or Bugs Bunny, things that were straight up great in their own specific way and don’t have the weird aftertaste of a lot of stuff that’s made for kids. Later on, out of necessity, we actually leaned on making stuff educational. The veneer of education is a cultural Trojan horse to get us out of the Walmart on Disney records and into the homes of unsuspecting parents everywhere. And then just lay our crazy They Might Be Giants stuff on them.

I hear you saying that you weren’t sure how it would be received, but you two seem aware of what your fans want. Not that it’s contrived strategy, but look at the way you’ve evolved your live shows. You’ve changed and grown with your audience.

Live is different. In a sense because live is the most contrived. I mean, live is theater. We’re designing the experience that everybody’s going to have, and we know how certain songs wash over people. We have a repertoire, we have limitations as performers, and we have a lot of life experience. We did a lot of touring before anybody knew who we were, and that made us better performers. But when you’re writing a song or putting a record together, the weird thing is you’re constantly being born again. You’re reinventing. You have some thread of an idea, and you don’t really have the awareness.

Different songwriters are different. Different performers are different. I don’t care for the music of U2, but I have to respect their ability to understand how to write to an audience. The most successful people in music and the most successful entertainers are people who know how it’s going to land in the audience all the way down the line. They’ve got some kind of crazy 1000-mile stare. You think of a band like Queen. It’s like, “When we get to the arena, this is going to really kill them.” I can’t even see past the empty page on my desk, let alone think about people stomping their feet in arenas. I’m just trying to figure out a word that rhymes with orange.

You’re not giving yourself enough credit. On your Big Show Tour, you’ll be playing different setlists night to night, even in the same city, with a big band. While you’re not thinking about arenas, you are thinking about what your fans would love.

On a practical level, on a band management level, I’m just trying to figure out how to hold onto a horn section. It’s so exciting to have that sort of musical Saturn V rocket on our backs when we do a show. The horn section, they are the show makers. They can do a chart that sounds like an amazing velvet curtain of sound behind us, or they can improvise insane stuff that has crazy extra energy to it. Beyond that, there’s a liveliness to the sound. It’s so vivid. It’s exciting for us.

When you’re playing in an eight-piece band, there’s seven other people who are listening to what you’re doing. It makes you sit up a lot straighter. It’s a personal challenge to everybody to keep your musicianship as high as it can possibly be. John and I started as a duo, and then we added players. Now we have horn players. Do you work with people who are just as good as you? Who are worse than you? Or better than you? John and I have always made a point of working with people who are better than us, and by and large people who are much better than us, which is a weird dynamic. There’ll be times when we’ll be rehearsing and we’ll say something about the structure of a song that we wrote, and Danny, our bass player, who has an incredible musical memory will be like, “No, that’s not how this song goes.” And it’s like, “Oh, okay. All right. Sorry, Danny.”

Do you keep that perspective throughout the rest of your life? You don’t want to be around somebody that’s going to judge you, whether it’s about your art or about your personality, but the longer you live an artistic life there’s the risk of getting complacent. You could just be like, “Well, let’s churn out the same stuff.” But you don’t do that.

We try hard. I think about someone who’s taken to the show by their husband who’s much more into the band than they are. That is a big component of making the show really great: figuring out what we can do that has a strong enough pull. I think in general people put a lot more emphasis on hits or popular songs or radio songs than really trying to figure out a repertoire that has a linear, more theatrical appeal.

I remember when John [Linnell] brought the song “Older” into the show. That song has the line, “You’re older than you’ve ever been, and now you’re even older.” And as you hear the song, it’s just this linear gag that the first time you hear it is really interesting because you really don’t know what’s going to happen next. And it’s just very in the moment. And as something you experience in seeing a band, you kind of can’t underestimate how great that kind of experience is. It’s like, “Wow. I’m watching the show and I’m living completely in the immediate moment listening to this song.”

We got a chance to play that song a bunch before we even recorded it. These days with YouTube and everything kind of spoiling things, you’re really dissuaded from working stuff out live. When we first started, we would do songs live that were years away from being recorded. And that was a whole other element to the show that was kind of interesting. We had a lighting guy who was in The Breeders crew. He worked for the Pixies for years and years. And he said that when The Breeders did their first tour in the United States, they actually played all the songs that were on their first album, their first full album, but they didn’t have any of the words sorted out. So [Kim Deal] would just kind of mumble through a bunch of stuff incoherently. They were playing in clubs. You couldn’t necessarily hear the songs that clearly anyway, so it wasn’t any great loss. But they basically workshopped their album on tour, which sounds thrilling.

When you have the longevity that you two have as a duo, how does it feel to not have that fluidity anymore, to not have that likelihood of failure in a live experience?

It’s interesting. Our career doesn’t rely on a new album being successful. That is a level of achievement that only comes to certain legacy bands, and that’s a nice place to be. In a lot of ways, and this sounds funny, but I mean it quite sincerely, we’ve essentially clawed our way to the middle. And that’s not the most comfortable place to be in rock music. When you look around, you realize that it’s actually kind of a precarious place to be. Most of the time things are either something that blew up so huge, so long ago, that it has its own fixed audience that’s never going to leave them, or the audience left them so long ago that they’re never coming back. We’ve done enough festival shows with bands that blew up at some point, and then you realize they’re not even playing at the local club or the theater down the street. They need other people’s audiences to get people out for them, which is a really weird existence.

But where do you want to be?

I want to be exactly where we are, because I feel like playing in legit theaters with real sound systems is the most complimentary place for a band like us. The sound is actually good, so the theatrical experience is actually a quality experience for the people in the audience. I much prefer playing for 1500 people or less. I’ve played plenty of places that hold 3000 people or 4000 people, and I can tell you, it’s not really as cool, in terms of just what people are experiencing.

On the opposite end of human experience, I wanted to ask something related to the horrible car accident you were in that led to postponing a lot of tour dates in 2022.

Oh, it was horrible. Don’t drive drunk. I mean, I wasn’t driving drunk. I got hit by a drunk driver, and it was terrible.

I wanted to say I’m really glad you’re okay, but also when it happened, postponing the tour, did you for a second think, “I don’t need to be doing this. I could be at home relaxing.”

Well, the thing is, it was after the first show we had done since COVID. I was taking an Uber home and it was so life-affirming. And to be perfectly honest with you, having shows to get back to really helped me heal faster. If you have a reason to get better, you’re just going to will yourself to get better that much faster. When we started doing shows, I was in no condition to really do shows. Obviously this country is in a very weird opiate mania right now, but living with actual active physical pain that never goes away, I can really understand how people get hooked on those kind of drugs. If you have a situation where you just can’t either mentally or physically escape the pain of living, suddenly a terrible idea seems like the greatest idea in the world.

When you go through an accident like that and you are somebody who is needed in the public, whether it’s for yourself, for John, for your band, or for your crew, it must put an enormous amount of pressure on you. I know John wasn’t beating down your door like, “Get up from bed! Let’s go!” But still…

For me, it’s the best kind of pressure, the best kind of incentive. I feel very fortunate. I don’t think the appeal of what we’re doing is that universal, but it does find an audience that does find it very specifically interesting. And I’m very glad that it’s worked out that way.

As you go through massive events in your life, both negative and positive, do you feel the same way writing new songs as you did when you first started the band?

It’s a weird challenge. When you’re writing songs that lean on nouns as much as ours do, it’s hard to think, “Oh, I’ll write a song about a bird.” And then you’re like, “Oh, wait, wait. We already have a song about a bird.”

A really famous one. Yeah.

Yeah. And in that way, things start getting in the way of what might be your most natural tendency, because obviously you don’t want to repeat yourself. It’s hard enough writing a song and not bumping into a much better song by Cole Porter. Nobody wants to be in a competition with Prince. If you’re in a competition with Prince, you are going to lose. But what’s beautiful about writing a song is that you’re in dialogue with all these songs. You might be writing a song and you realize like, “This is kind of like a song that was written 100 years ago.”

We had a weird work-for-hire situation when we were working with Disney. The head of the Disney Network called us up and they were like, “We had a song already in place for this Mickey Mouse Clubhouse thing, but we’re not going to use it. And we’re wondering if basically over the weekend can you cook up a theme song for this animated series?” And the thing that’s tough about it was a really tight deadline.

That’s fine. I’ve done stuff for advertising in TV and TV shows, and I’ve gotten very used to writing with a deadline. Sometimes it actually kind of helps because it just focuses your effort. But I’m up here in Sullivan County in the Catskill Mountains, and we had friends over for the weekend and my wife is like, “Come on, what is this? What are you doing? We were going to have fun this weekend. No need to work.” But the friends that we had over were musicians as well, and then they ended up singing on this song as well. But when I was putting the track together…

The other thing is, they specifically wanted the song to spell out Mickey Mouse. It’s like, “Oh, okay. How hamstrung can you get?” You’re really making it very hard to not have us just be a satellite. But the one thing that I picked up on with the original is that the way that the original did it, it was sort of mono-melodic. It’s just repeating the same note over and over again. So I made mine completely scale-wise. It was like an arpeggio going M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E in this up and down thing. It’s moving as much as possible.

The other thing is, I quizzed the people at Disney about the history of Mickey Mouse as a character. Because I had nothing to work on and I had to get these songs done in two seconds. So I was like, “Does he have a slogan? Does he have a catchphrase?” And they’re like, “Oh, yeah. He’s, like, Mickey Mouse. You know? Mickey Mouse?” [laughs] But somebody there knew enough about it that evidently his first little catchphrase was “Hot dog!”

How do you feel when you get the call for a project like that? What do you need to feel confident?

It’s much more like being a tailor. What makes it easy is that it’s a very egoless process. What you’re doing isn’t really going to reflect on your feelings about your own identity. In a way, it’s the least self-conscious way of working because you’re just working in the abstract. You’re working on behalf of somebody else who can’t put the music together. We’ve done bigger jobs where we’ve done libraries of music and soundtracks to TV shows where we’ve had to do soundalikes, and that can really feel like a weird kind of homework. Some things are just very hard to reproduce, even in the most general sense.

When we were doing the music for Malcolm in the Middle, they would be putting in these very imaginative sound cues. They would have some reggae tone or some actual ska music from 1962, and it’s very hard to reproduce that vibe on a computer. You’re working with a set of sounds that are in some ways inherently electronic, even as vivid as they can be. Their limitations are very immediate. And you’ve got a piece of music that they want the exact vibe of, but it was recorded on an island 50 years ago. But I enjoy that kind of challenge.

Right after we left Elektra, we got all these work-for-hire things, as I said, to keep ourselves alive. But it helped in learning how to work really fast. We basically started from 1990 till 2000, working slower and slower and slower, in that way that rock bands who have record deals do. And then all of a sudden we were in the all-you-can-rock buffet trying to just churn stuff out as quickly as possible. But you get a lot of good skills and you learn how to do it.

Over COVID, having a lot of downtime, I started examining my record collection and started examining the history of music that I fell in love with. I got back into music listening more over COVID. And quite specifically, it rekindled my love of The Beatles. And I have to say, talk about writing on a deadline. The worst deadline of my life was just like any day of their career. And their work ethic was just so…Everything about The Beatles was extra amazing to me. They’re so stylish and so smart, and then all their songs are great.

Do you contextualize failure in comparison to a level of perfection like that?

I’ll give you a perfect example. We made an album called John Henry that was contoured. It was too long. It was too normal sounding. And it didn’t have any of these sort of exceptional things that They Might Be Giants offers as a project. Part of that was we were working with a producer. It was at a very specific time, which was a kind of a post-grunge time. Everybody at your record company, they’re all on your side. They all want you to have success. But their idea of success is really contoured by a lot of often very short-lived musical trends.

There were people at Elektra who loved us as a project, and there were people at Elektra who did not love us as a project. One of the reasons they didn’t love us as a project is because a lot of people who worked at record companies loathe the idea of novelty acts. Novelty acts require all the work of having a hit record, but you can’t really build on it in the same way. And I think they perceived us at best as being a novelty act. But, in fact, there were other acts on the label that were much closer to being novelty acts, but they just didn’t feel that way. There’s some high points in John Henry. There’s some really odd things on the album. But overall, I feel like it’s very mid-tempo and… It just seems very safe. And I don’t think anybody wants to hear They Might Be Giants being safe.

We were also in this huge transition, because it was the first record we were making with a full band. We didn’t have a big skillset of how to make a live recording sound edgy. There’s certain ways you can approach recording a live band where you’re painting yourself into a corner to make it be extreme and make it be powerful and make it be vivid. But that involves decision making. And everything about modern recording, especially then, was about maintaining maximum flexibility till the end. Nobody ever committed to anything. Nobody ever said, “Well, that’s a weird sound, but let’s go with it.” It was really like, “Well, that sounds good, and it’s clean enough that if we want to replace it later, we can replace it.” But it’s like, we don’t want to replace it later. I don’t want to come back to this. Let’s just do it up all the way.

But that speaks to your intentionality as an artist, where even a mailing list email will have that passion. Heck, when you announced the car accident it was poetic. Is that a part of your artistic business or is that just the way you’d write even if it were more personal?

John and I share this impulse that the great thing about the legacy of rock bands in general is that you have this opportunity to keep on making everything new again. If you can take advantage of that, it’s just such an opportunity. There’s so many ways that creative people get boxed in. And if you keep your eye on the ability to get the most out of whatever platform you’ve been given, it’s a wonderful energy to surround your project with.

We’ve been early adopters with a lot of technological changes, and it’s the legacy of doing this Dial-A-Song project early on in our career that we felt like we’re not worried about working with computers, we’re not worried about putting our music online. We’re doing a lot of things with technology. To us those are opportunities to expand our audience. Those are opportunities to work in a different way. It’s not about getting there first, or trying to find glory in something, so much as it is about just enjoying the possibility of experimenting. And that’s a really interesting way to run your creative endeavor. The identity of the band is so wrapped up in that, that it kind of rubs off even on doing like an email blast to a mailing list. We want it to be personal. We want it to be us. We’re regular people doing regular things with lots of regular worries, but when it comes to the band that we’re in, we want it to be a dream.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Lior Phillips.

Deep learning deploys a set of lenses that takes the complexities of contradictions and not-so-self-evident truths and focus into some sense of why “they” are where “they” are economically, culturally and spiritually.

The US election is over (as of Nov. 5 midnight?), but the dangerous clown show of misanthropy and hegemony marches on. I am writing this for National American Indian Heritage Month (Nov.), because Native Peoples in this part of the world are actually way beyond the rhetoric and knee-jerk responses of the bad history books of the children of the colonizers.

My Native brothers and sisters everywhere, but specifically in New Mexico, West Texas and Northern Arizona, have a deeper understanding of their own history and that of the current indigenous people undergoing eradication, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

“Dehumanization is the first step in genocidal incitement. However, counter-annihilation is also a key feature of settler colonialism. It is the belief and practice that colonial society must annihilate Native people; otherwise, the colonizers, in turn, will be annihilated in a zero-sum calculus. It is a pre-emptive ‘self-defense’ against any real or imagined anti-colonial attack. It makes invasion look like ‘self-defense.’ It is why the chorus of Western media outlets repeat the mantra: ‘Israel has the right to defend itself.’ But the colonized are never granted the authority of self-defense or the right not to be annihilated.” — Nick Estes

Again, ‘open those eyes,’ is what I insist with students and others I intersect with in Lincoln County. Those words above are from someone most Lincoln County Leader readers have never heard of: Nick Estes, an enrolled member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. He is an Assistant Professor of American Indian Studies at the University of Minnesota and the co-host of The Red Nation Podcast.

We can jump through superficial hoops with this 34th year of National American Indian Heritage Month, a 1990 congressional resolution signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

The irony isn’t lost on many of us who have parsed our history, or the Bush Family’s dark legacy.

George H.W. Bush’s father, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

Journalists 20 years ago discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave laborers at Auschwitz.

Moreover, the cry by Estes and others in the Native American rights community announce their own declaration of liberation: “Until Decolonization, Liberation, and Landback.”

This November’s not limited to those here on Turtle Island to find a space for deep reflection and education. Others around the world who are indigenous are collectively traumatized by the current genocide in Gaza and Lebanon.

“Many of the lessons people are learning are not new to me;  for many this moment has been a realization that their governments are not just corrupt, but also complicit in the evils of the world, that their media is biased and that the people around them will turn their backs on a genocide being live-streamed on their social media. As an Aboriginal person living in so-called Australia, these truths have been a reality for me and my people for decades and nor am I shocked to learn of the ignorance of so many others,” states Dominic Guerrera, a Ngarrindjeri and Kaurna poet, community organizer, artist and curator.

Closer to my Central Oregon Coast home, we have groups fighting for cultural preservation and land acknowledgement. View the Future is a Yachats nonprofit collaborating with our two confederated tribes from the central Oregon Coast who are the descendants of the first people: The Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians and the Confederated Tribe of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians.

Land Acknowledgment for tribes is more than a ceremonial point in cultural fluency. Words and declarations are the soul and spirit of Native people. You can read the two land acknowledgments at  (https://viewthefuture.org/)

Find something to “hook into” this month (and every month), to acknowledge our own temporary “holding” of land here in Lincoln County or wherever you live. Forget about the elections.

Be deep in understanding why this month can be important for individual and societal change. Don’t parrot the bad history taught or just live life in an echo chamber of your choosing with “monkey do as monkey sees” superficial engagement with the issues.

Find Native writers on alternative sources like Red Nation.

Listen to Leanne Betasamosake Simpson, a Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg writer, academic and musician and member of Alderville First Nation.

“Although our ancestors lived through the genocide of Indigenous peoples in North America, this past year we have witnessed genocide in real-time, with technologically advanced warfare, destruction and obliteration on a spectacular scale. We’ve watched daily video footage and photos of unimaginable violence targeting families and children. We’ve read social media posts, news reports and poetry coming from Palestinians inside Gaza. And we’ve watched the very states that have dispossessed us of our homelands, supply the weapons and unwavering political support to Israel to do the same to the Palestinian people.”

Be Native Aware.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Haeder.

When I thought about why I wanted to embark upon this very special yet very challenging thing that I’ve never done before, one of the things that I kept coming back to was that I knew that there were recipes that were very familiar to me and very special to the regions that I felt like made me who I am as a chef that needed to be highlighted, documented, talked about. And one of the moments that I kept going back to was me being a young chef and having a really hard time finding this lens. And I just know that having that information and having those food ways [and] their history talked about on such a platform—having that readily available for me, I think, would’ve been very transformative. So, no, I didn’t know initially that this is how it was all going to play out.

I appreciate the way that you take us through your early childhood. You describe yourself as a precocious only child in Coastal Virginia, and how that was really important as one of your earliest food experiences. And then you also talk about your grandparents, their relationships to food and the land, and the visits that you made to family members throughout the South. What was it like to revisit these memories?

Revisiting the memories of my childhood was a really large part of writing this. And doing that was very nostalgic. I learned a lot about my family—some things that I didn’t know. It helped me to see the power of food. It really showed me how powerful food was in my family because, I mean, I even was finding skeletons in closets. And ones that I couldn’t believe were right in front of me growing up, all along. Those moments where we allowed the kitchen to be the gathering place, those integral moments where food was at the center—that just showed me how food truly is the great unifier. So, yes, it was a very special and emotional time diving back in that way.

You give us this great visual of your journey, going to Hampton University to study business marketing, but spending your time watching Food Network and cooking. You’d later go on to be a finalist in Top Chef. How have TV and pop culture been important in your journey?

For my family— my parents—me wanting to be a chef was a really hard sell. And for me, knowing that this is something that I wanted to do, I felt that I needed proof that I could do it. I wouldn’t call Virginia Beach a food city. I didn’t live in New York City, where you know who’s cooking the food in the kitchen. So when I was actually looking for tangible examples, it was easy to turn to places like Food Network and see someone like Rachael Ray or Bobby Flay and find inspiration in that. And also, being a latchkey kid, my parents worked quite a bit growing up, so I wasn’t supposed to be, but I did watch a lot of Food Network when they were at work… That was an introduction to ingredients that I didn’t have readily available and I wasn’t accustomed to. Things like Food Network had a pretty big impact on my formative years, and just falling in love with food.

Was it surreal, then, to be on Top Chef later?

Yes. Definitely, I feel like for the first time, I was able to understand what that phrase “out-of-body experience” meant. It was really important for me at that time to ground myself, and just remember that I had worked really hard to get there, but also that I was so grateful to be in that space with such amazing talent. Yeah, it was a pretty wild experience.

One thing that you’re really transparent about is how the food you grew up with, you didn’t really see as the food that you “should be” making as a chef. You write that you fantasized about going to restaurants that you read about in magazines like Food & Wine and that you felt like earning the respect of your peers in the kitchen meant cooking the food that you were seeing in these magazines. Why was it important to include this internal struggle?

It was important to include because there was a moment—this intersection in my career—where I just stopped caring what people thought. I just turned away from what I felt was this box that I was put in as a Black chef. In doing that, I readily turned to the food that was most familiar to me. And I was in a position where I was able to put that food in the same restaurants that I would’ve never expected to [see it] before. And the response was very warm… It was a really defining moment for me as a chef.

You mentioned that sometimes you felt like leaving the industry entirely. One thing that came to mind for me was just this, I think, push and pull that sometimes creative folks have—it’s like the industry itself as an institution can really get you down, but it’s not always necessarily about the craft. What fueled you to keep going?

I mean, it’s that thing you said: It’s the institution, I think, that can really grind my gears—this French hierarchy that doesn’t have the same warm, fuzzy feelings that I grew up with. And for me, people talk about hating their jobs often—and that’s not something I’ve ever experienced because I’ll never stop loving food. As long as my job relates to food, I’m always going to love it, and that’s always the thing that continues to pull me back in. So, I mean, I think it’s that—and just the respect of the humble Southern ingredient, and the makers that work so hard to get these beautiful things on our tables. Those are the things that allow me to continue to have that drive, even when the industry itself doesn’t always feel so good.

In 2020, you started to collaborate with other chef friends, putting on pop-up events, and then you were able to open your own restaurant, Good Hot Fish, in 2024. What were your priorities when you were starting your own space?

I was so focused on finding a creative space. I knew that, at the time, that creative space was owning my own restaurant and finally feeling like I have ownership of my own stories. And having that autonomy that I never really felt like I had as a chef—and being able to travel and cook with chefs that I really admire.

My biggest thing as a Black chef, as a woman that’s only worked for white people [is] I never felt like I had a seat at the table. And while I’ve put in so much sweat equity, I’d never felt like I learned the guts of how to run a restaurant. I helped so many people open their own restaurants, but I still just felt like I didn’t get it.

And that was the one thing that was really special about that time—I had friends that would sit me down and we would just go over their P&L statements for hours. And they would go over food and labor costs with me. That was something that I really cherished. Beyond that, of course, it was [about] having that platform where I could cook food without any real boundaries, and get some honest immediate feedback about it as well.

You shared that you realized, later in your career, that you weren’t the first person in your family who had multiple side hustles—that you were part of this long lineage of women who were also using their talent in the kitchen. What’s your advice, or what are some insights, for folks in creative careers that are maybe feeling unsure about this feeling of patching together side hustles? Or, maybe, folks who aren’t feeling ready for the leap, but they have something in mind that they want to pursue?

A lot of my drive is driven by just my personality. I don’t know if this is advice, but just in describing my personality and where that drive comes from, it is because of—even your question, what advice for other creators, because there isn’t a lot of advice out there. People often feel like there’s a glass ceiling and they can’t [do it] because there aren’t a lot of examples and they don’t see a lot of people like them doing it. And that is part of what drives me and why I push myself.

So I don’t even know if that is advice necessarily, but it is something to reflect on as a creative, especially Black and Brown creatives. Sometimes what keeps me in the game is that there’s going to be a lot of people, I would hope, that look like me and can find a reflection of themselves and find hope in that. It’s easy for me to note how much fulfillment I find in my career as well. And of course, there are things about what I do that can feel thankless, but I’ve been able to find such reward in what I do. So I think just focusing on what that reward and fulfillment is for you, and going after that is probably the best bit of advice I can give. Because it’s going to be really hard, so sometimes you really do just have to stare at the finish line.

Yeah, definitely. You’ve also mentioned that, in Asheville, you’re really surrounded by a lot of writers, and makers, and artists, and how you feel really grateful for that community. I’m curious: Is community and collaboration something that also feeds your drive at this point in your career?

Yes, and part of my gratitude in living here is that there’s just so much creativity around me, and that also fuels me. I talk about that in the book—we have so many makers around us, even just from the folks that grow our iceberg lettuce for our wedge salad to the trout farmers. And the folks that mill our cornmeal 15 miles down the road. That inspires me. And when I have a really special product like that in my hand, I want to make sure that I do it its due diligence. So, I mean, even down to the ingredient and just knowing that there’s a restaurant a couple blocks away that is doing some really cool things too. There’s a really incredible chef community here that’s super tight-knit, and that certainly helps when times get tough.

I would imagine you keep very busy, but I was curious if there are any non-cooking, non-food avenues of inspiration that you find?

Yes, but it’s funny because it all ends up tying back to food. I really enjoy nature and specifically foraging, fishing. Those are things I really enjoy. And of course, I usually do something with my harvest. But, yeah, I’m starting to get into more design stuff. My wife and I just bought a house not too long ago, so that’s been a fun and very, very new undertaking. So maybe a new interest, we’ll see if it sticks.

That’s exciting, congratulations!

Thanks.

In your cookbook, there’s such a visual lushness both in the photography that you include, but also just in your writing and the way that you’re setting these scenes from your childhood to present time. Why was this an important part of your process?

So, I mean, obviously, I’m a new writer, so I think I was doing a lot of what just comes naturally to me. I talked about just going back and revisiting a lot of those places. I did that physically as well. And even my proposal was written in my childhood home—a lot of times, I was just sitting in my backyard, the first place I ever foraged. And so maybe I was cheating a little, but that made it really easy to put all of these descriptors around these places, because I was in it. And also, the memories are so vivid. I can often close my eyes and just be in them again. And of course, like you said, the photography—I was able to go back to all of these places and just instantly feel like a kid again, and [access] a lot of those memories as an adolescent just learning what food meant to me.

What are some recent or significant interactions that you’ve had with other folks who have resonated with your story?

One thing I will never forget is this little sweet girl named Marley, who I think, at the time, was in the fourth grade. It was when I was a chef at Benne on Eagle, and it was during Black History Month. She did her Black History Month project on me and did her presentation in front of the class. Her mom took pictures, and at the time, I think I wore a bandana almost every day to work. She wore a bandana and had a little chef shirt on. It was really cool. And I still have the pictures from that.

We have another little regular that comes into Good Hot Fish all the time and wrote us this letter that inspired some merchandise. And it’s just things like that that really keep me going and make me smile… Like I said, some days can feel a little thankless, and those are things I hold onto.

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Eva Recinos.

It seemed a shame, then, that a highly nutritious fern called Azolla — that green mat ducks eat on ponds — long ago made a pact with a species of cyanobacteria, an “endocyanobiont.” Living inside the fern, the microbes get shelter, and provide the plant with essential nitrogen in return. Lately, scientists have been campaigning to turn the fast-growing Azolla into a food of the future. Others envision it becoming both a sustainable biofuel and a fertilizer that captures carbon. But these ideas aren’t likely to get very far if the cyanobacteria living within end up being highly toxic.

A new paper suggests that Azolla may find its way to plates one day: An international team of researchers discovered that endocyanobiont is no typical cyanobacteria. “The cyanobacteria that lives in Azolla doesn’t produce any of these toxins, and it doesn’t even have the genes required to create those toxins,” said Daniel Winstead, a Penn State research technologist and coauthor of the paper. “So that takes one of those barriers away towards its use as food or even livestock feed.”

This is not to say that anyone should find a local pond, skim off the Azolla, and eat it by the handful. Other research groups need to confirm that Azolla is fully nontoxic and safe for consumption before an industry can develop and produce the plant for food. Winstead’s previous research found that while some species of Azolla are high in harmful polyphenols, a species native to the southeastern United States called Carolina Azolla has much lower levels that are further lowered to safe amounts by cooking. Azolla is also high in protein and nutrients like potassium, zinc, iron, and calcium. 

Azolla and the cyanobacteria it harbors have co-evolved a mutually beneficial relationship. Floating out in the open, other cyanobacteria species synthesize toxins to ward off hungry fish. “For the cyanobacteria to live within the Azolla, it can’t produce those toxins or it’d also kill the plant,” Winstead said. “So at some point, it didn’t have those genes anymore, and that’s unique among cyanobacteria.”

In return for providing the microbes housing, the Azolla gets an extremely valuable resource: nitrogen. Plants need that element to thrive, but not many species can pull it from the atmosphere themselves. So-called “nitrogen-fixers,” such as beans and clovers, rely on bacteria in their roots to process nitrogen into something the plant can use to grow. The endocyanobiont does the same for Azolla, helping supercharge the growth that allows the plant to double its biomass as quickly as every two days. 

Winstead said that some smallholder farmers already use Azolla as fertilizer, and now that the cyanobacteria are confirmed to be nontoxic, perhaps the technique can spread. With that natural source of nitrogen, farmers would be less reliant on synthetic fertilizers, whose production and use spews greenhouse gases and pollutes rivers and lakes. Azolla could also be used as livestock feed, as some farmers are already doing if they can’t afford traditional feed for cattle and poultry. 

Back in the 1980s and ‘90s, farmers in China managed to exploit Azolla for both purposes. They grew Azolla in their flooded rice paddies, added fish that fed on the plants, then ate the fish. But it was a difficult process. It was labor-intensive to grow, since farmers needed to separate the fishes before applying herbicides or pesticides. When the fields drained, crews worked the Azolla into the soils as a fertilizer, but that was labor-intensive, too. 

While Azolla can fix its own nitrogen thanks to its cyanobacteria, it needed applications of phosphorus to really get growing in rice paddies. “There is no free lunch,” said Jagdish Ladha, a soil scientist and agronomist at the University of California, Davis, who wasn’t involved in the new paper. Those farmers in China switched to using cheap synthetic fertilizers instead. But the idea behind industrializing the production of Azolla would be to produce the plant at a larger scale, then conveniently package it as fertilizer or livestock feed.

Beyond its potential in farming, Azolla could also become a biofuel, according to Winstead, much as corn has been used to make biodiesel. That fuel would be close to carbon-neutral: As the plant grows, it sequesters carbon; burning the biofuel would then release that carbon back into the atmosphere. By incorporating Azolla into soils as fertilizer, farmers would put still more carbon into the ground.

Humans might also shape Azolla like they’ve modified other crops like wheat and corn, selectively breeding the most desired traits, such as bigger grains. “There’s a lot of potential for Azolla to go through that process,” Winstead said, “whether it’s creating a variation of Azolla that tastes the best, or it’s a variation of Azolla that has the most vitamins or the most protein, or maybe the best nitrogen-fixing ability.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Ducks love to eat this climate-friendly food. Now you might, too.  on Oct 9, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Matt Simon.

The spotlight

If we get it right, the pace of life is more humane. Time that had been spent dealing with health- and flood-insurance paperwork, advocating for renewable energy, being stuck in traffic, and otherwise butting up against outdated and broken systems, is now used to grow food, prepare for extreme weather events, and care for each other. All streets, not just those in wealthier areas, are lined with trees (including fruit and nut trees), providing shade and beauty and photosynthesis (and snacks). Rain gardens and bioswales line streets, ready to absorb and divert storm waters. We linger outside, in parks and on sidewalks, with friends and neighbors. We have time to make meals at home or consume them at a cafe. “To-go” is uncommon; instead, we meet eyes as we chew. We know plastic recycling is mostly bullshit and have abandoned disposables — instead we (gasp!) wash the dishes. No longer frenzied with meaningless to-dos, we find ease amid the generational work of making our planet livable. As we spend more time outside, our appreciation for nature grows with immersion, inspiring ever more creative adaptations to our changed climate. Biophilia and biomimicry flourish in a virtuous cycle with the thriving of biodiversity. We are unrushed — chill, even.

— a DOUBLE drabble, thieved from the final chapter of
What If We Get It Right? By Ayana Elizabeth Johnson

The spotlight

Occasionally, when I’m reading an evocative book or article or other piece of literature, I’ll catch myself staring out the window, having looked up from the page involuntarily to daydream. Sure, it could be a sign of a short attention span (thanks, TikTok), but as a writer myself, I actually consider this to be one of the greatest effects a piece of writing can have. Because it’s not that my mind has wandered to unrelated topics — it’s that whatever I’m reading has inspired me in some way that sent my brain off to pause, process, and dream.

This happened to me repeatedly with What If We Get It Right?, a new book by marine biologist and climate policy expert Ayana Elizabeth Johnson (in conversation with a couple dozen other leading voices across the climate spectrum, including Bill McKibben, Rhiana Gunn-Wright, Adam McKay, and Leah Penniman). The book focuses on solutions, as well as visions of the world we could have if we implement them — and the importance of holding up those visions as something to work toward.

“These pages conjure a thriving (and quite different) world, and show us that it’s worth the effort — the overhaul — to get there, together,” Johnson writes in the book’s introduction.

On Monday, I got to hear Johnson share some of her insights on the book, climate solutions, our political moment, and hope, at a Climate Week event put on by Grist, Mother Jones, Rewiring America, and the Tishman Environment & Design Center at the New School.

The event was all about envisioning a better future. First, multidisciplinary artist Aisha Shillingford led us through a visioning exercise in which we traveled to the year 2075, witnessed an era dubbed “the Flourissance,” and returned with an artifact. (If you want to try a little visioning yourself, you might remember that Shillingford walked us through a similar exercise last year. You can do this at home!)

Then Johnson sat down in conversation with voting rights activist and former Georgia state Representative Stacey Abrams, who is now senior counsel at the electrification nonprofit Rewiring America, among many other things.

You may not be able to tell in this photo, but at this moment, Johnson and Abrams had, in fact, burst into a spontaneous singalong — to Prince’s “7,” the first track on the “Anti-Apocalypse Mixtape” that Johnson includes at the end of the book. Claire Elise Thompson

During the conversation, the two leaders discussed some of their practical visions for what we must do next to fix the climate crisis. They talked about the proliferation of climate tech, like heat pumps, and the wonderful synergies of when solutions that are good for the planet also make people’s lives better. And they confessed that they share a dislike for hope as a concept (something that Johnson makes clear in the book). “We don’t get to give up on life on Earth. I don’t need hope — I need an action item,” Johnson said.

Rather than hope or optimism, they spoke about holding up tenacity and determination as the mindsets we need to address the climate crisis. “My shorthand is, I think the glass is half full. It’s probably poisoned, though,” Abrams said, and described herself as “an ameliorist” — one who’s dedicated to making things better.

Before the event, Johnson and I spoke briefly about her approach to writing What If We Get It Right?, the power of manifesting, and some of the action items that are next on her horizon, including an exciting, and extremely unconventional, book tour. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

(Also. Just as we were parting ways after our interview, as she was getting ready to head onstage for the event, Johnson called after me, “Claire! I love your drabbles!” One of the best moments of my professional life, period.)

Q. I really strongly resonated with something you wrote in the book’s introduction: “I created this book because it’s what I’ve needed to read.” Could you talk a bit about that need that you felt, and the gap that this book fills?

A. There’s a lot of apocalyptic stuff out there in pop culture — whether that’s out of Hollywood or the way the news just covers climate disasters, if at all. And I just kept thinking, we have the solutions we need. We just need to implement them. Why is no one showing us that it’s worth the effort? And so that’s what this book is: me making the case that it’s worth the effort to get this as right as possible, even knowing it won’t be a perfect world. It’ll be a better world.

Q. Why do you think it’s important to imagine the future? Not just forecast, but actually dream of the future?

A. I’ve been asked this question a lot of times — something different is coming to mind right now, which is, that’s just the way I do things. No one was like, “You should do a climate variety show in four different cities with all the famous acquaintances you can wrangle and a dance-off and puppets and magic tricks and game shows.” No one was like, “This is what a book tour should be.” But like, why not?

Creating this book and envisioning the tour has just been another exercise in, there’s really not as many rules as we think there are. You just do the thing. You dream the thing up, and then you do the thing. And we could do the same with climate that we could do with creating a book or piece of art — we could just create the future that we want to live in, create the world that we want to live in.

People use the term a lot, “manifesting,” right? Or “words become things,” or all of that. It starts somewhere. You dream it up and then, as much as you can, make it real in the world. There’s a sense in which my whole life is a case study in that. Because there’s no reason why some Black girl from Brooklyn should actually become a marine biologist because she said it out loud when she was 5 — a lot of people say that out loud when they’re 5. But there’s something about the tenacity of it. I’ve always been enamored with this sense of possibility. But in a sort of boring, realistic way. I wasn’t good with my imagination, per se — I wanted an imaginary friend and I couldn’t quite muster it. You know, I’ve always been very, very grounded in the real world. And I think maybe that’s helpful. My dreams are just big enough to be achievable. So I think it’s only natural that I apply that to climate. Like, why would we not try to do the biggest best thing we possibly can?

The sort of more standard answer, the one that I give in the book, is if the future is just a blank slate or a void, we aren’t moving as quickly toward it as we should. We’re sort of sauntering away from the apocalypse instead of running toward something. And we have these very vague notions of what the future could be, with solar panels and electric cars. But it’s not concrete enough for people. And I don’t know that this book meets the promise of the title, but it’s enough breadcrumbs that you can piece together a path. That’s the hope anyway, that it makes these visions of climate futures feel a little more concrete and feasible.

Q. That reminds me of a question you pose in many of your interviews with other leaders throughout the book — which is basically, “What’s the least sexy, most esoteric thing we need to do to make this happen?” But then at the end, you describe “implementation” as the sexiest word in the English language. Am I picking up that maybe all the wonkiest implementation things are actually the most exciting to you?

A. I mean, transmission lines, right? Or heat pumps! Like, I get Rewiring America‘s determination to make heat pumps sexy and I’m on board with this. I had supermodel Cameron Russell walking the stage at my book launch wearing that [heat pump] costume, just saying climate solutions, in high heels, full makeup. So I’m in for trying to make these things sexy, but it’s got to sort of be a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Q. Do you want to tell me more about the tour, and how that all came together?

A. The tour got sort of out of hand. It is 20 cities, six weeks, something like 40 events. I mean, if the goal is to welcome people in, you gotta go to a bunch of places where people are. But also, the tour was designed to visit the people featured in the book. There are 20 interviews in this book, there are a few co-authored chapters, there’s poetry, there’s art. I wanted to do the book tour to the places where these people live, so I could be in conversation with them as opposed to having it be the Ayana show. It’s like the Ayana and friends extravaganza. Every single tour stop is different.

I am an introvert, and this is sort of my nightmare. So I was like, the only way I’m going to do a book tour at all is if it’s fun. It doesn’t have to be miserable. It doesn’t have to be boring. It’s a great excuse to get to travel to all the people that I love. It’s also a chance to introduce all my favorite people to each other.

Q. I did also want to talk a bit about all the voices who contributed to the book itself. Did you always envision it with that format, with all the different interviews and contributors?

A. No. I was envisioning: I read a hundred books and then I pull elements from all these other experts and distill and paraphrase and present it back. But I was like, God, I don’t want to do that project, let alone read that book. And so I guess, in my own Climate Venn Diagram way, I was like, “Well, that doesn’t bring me joy. We’re going to have to find another way to do this.”

A worksheet version of the Climate Venn Diagram, an exercise Johnson invented for finding the sweet spot of what you love to do, what you’re good at doing, and what the climate movement needs. You can download this and do it yourself! Ayana Elizabeth Johnson

But my editor actually, Chris Jackson, has come for years to this event series I do at Pioneer Works called Science & Society. I always interview two people with complimentary areas of expertise — an ocean fisherman and an ocean farmer talking about the future of seafood, or a nonprofit leader and a scientist talking about the plastic problem, or the head of Wikipedia and of the Brooklyn Public Library talking about the future of public knowledge. And it has been shocking to me that, like, you can get 300 people out in Red Hook Brooklyn on a Tuesday night to listen to this stuff. There is an appetite for it. And my editor came up to me after one of them — he was like, “This is the book.” [Editor’s note: Shoutout to editors!] I was like, “What are you talking about?” And he said, “The thing that you do that is special is tell us who to listen to and then help us understand what the heck they’re saying.”

And so I thought the interview format would maybe be more lighthearted and literally conversational, and have that ease. Especially because these are people I’ve known for years, if not a decade, and I have a certain rapport with them and we can make fun of each other, and I can make them explain things, and I know enough about their work to make sure they’re not underselling or skipping part of it. My job was really to be a guide for the reader. And then the bonus is the audiobook is all their voices.

Q. What are some of your next chapters, now that this book is out in the world?

A. Well, the tour is a very big chapter. How do we avoid the tree-that-falls-in-the-forest — you don’t spend two years making a book and then just hope, in this crazy media landscape, that it finds all the right hearts and minds and hands. It has to be very deliberate.

For the Venn diagram, we have made these note cards of it that we’re giving out and making people fill out at every stop, to actually have people think together in a room about what that could be — and then hopefully talk about it after and see who else is interested in similar things. I’m bringing the Environmental Voter Project and Lead Locally on tour with me to make this very much into a get-out-the-vote initiative for environmentalists. Because 8 million registered voters with “environment” as their number one issue did not vote in the 2020 election — so it would be absolutely irresponsible of me to do a book tour in September and October of 2024 and not be focused on that.

My dream is to be a behind-the-scenes person in 2025 and beyond. We’ll see if I can pull that off, because people want a face to associate with the ideas — but I don’t have any interest in being that face. I don’t want to host a TV show or anything like that. I love the wonky policy memo stuff and I’m excited to devote more time to building up the work there.

I just launched a Substack newsletter, and embedded within that will be a What If We Get It Right podcast. A bunch of the conversations I’m having on this tour need a home. So I hired an audio producer to work with me on that — that launch is next week.

I’ve had this dream children’s book series in my head for like five, 10 years. So that may happen. But I just want to disappear into the woods of Maine, basically. This book is sort of my offering — I hope this is enough breadcrumbs that people can sort of follow one of the paths or chart their own, and then I won’t be needed.

— Claire Elise Thompson

More exposure

• Read: the book (duh) and explore the resources on its website
• Read: All We Can Save, a 2020 anthology that Johnson co-edited, along with Katharine K. Wilkinson (and the very first book we read for the Looking Forward book club)
• Read: Our Time Is Now, a 2020 bestseller by Stacey Abrams focused on voter suppression and how to counter it
• Read: more about Johnson’s multidimensional book tour, and its list of stops (Rolling Stone)

A parting shot

Johnson’s book also includes a few visuals of what a compelling climate future might look like, created by artist Olalekan Jeyifous. The photomontages conjure up a “protopian, sustainable community in ’90s Brooklyn — a future that is, as Olalekan puts it, ‘decolonized, decarbonized, draped up, and dripped out.’” As you can see in the image below, the green and joy-filled societies that Jeyifous imagined would call themselves the Proto-Farm Communities of Upstate New York, or PFCs.

IMAGE CREDITS

Vision: Grist

Spotlight: Claire Elise Thompson; Ayana Elisabeth Johnson

Parting shot: Olalekan Jeyifous

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘What If We Get It Right?’ Preventing a climate apocalypse might start with imagining something better on Sep 25, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Claire Elise Thompson.

A new study suggests Harris might be onto something if she’s trying to convince voters torn between her and former President Donald Trump. Researchers at New York University found that framing climate action as patriotic and as necessary to preserve the American “way of life” can increase support for climate action among people across the political spectrum in the United States.

“It’s encouraging to see politicians adopting this type of language,” said Katherine Mason, a co-author of the study and a psychology researcher at New York University. Based on the study’s results, she said that this rhetoric “may bridge political divides about climate change.”

Some 70 percent of Americans already support the government taking action to address climate change, including most younger Republicans, according to a poll from CBS News earlier this year. Experts have long suggested that appealing to Americans’ sense of patriotism could activate them.

The framing has taken shape under President Joe Biden’s administration, which has pushed for policies to manufacture electric vehicles and chargers domestically “so that the great American road trip can be electrified.” Harris underscored this approach to climate and energy in Tuesday’s presidential debate with Trump, emphasizing efforts to craft “American-made” EVs and turning a question about fracking into a call for less reliance on “foreign oil.”

Mason’s new study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the largest to date on the effects of patriotic language around climate change, with almost 60,000 participants across 63 countries. Americans read a message declaring that being pro-environment would help “keep the United States as it should be,” arguing that it was “patriotic to conserve the country’s natural resources.” 

The text was illustrated by photos of the American flag blowing in the wind, picturesque national parks, and climate-related impacts, such as a flooded Houston after Hurricane Harvey and a Golden Gate Bridge shrouded in an orange haze of wildfire smoke. Reading it increased people’s level of belief in climate change, their willingness to share information about climate change on social media, and their support for policies to protect the environment, such as raising carbon taxes and expanding public transit.

The researchers wanted to test a psychological theory that people often defend the status quo, even if it’s flawed, because they want stability, not uncertainty and conflict. “This mindset presents a major barrier when it comes to tackling big problems like climate change, as it leads people to downplay the problem and resist necessary changes to protect the environment,” Mason said.

For decades, environmental advocates have called on people to make sacrifices for the greater good — to bike instead of drive, eat more vegetables instead of meat, and turn down the thermostat in the winter. Asking people to give up things can lead to backlash, said Emma Frances Bloomfield, a communication professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The framing in the study flips that on its head, she said. “It’s not asking people to sacrifice or make radical changes, but in fact, doing things for the environment will prevent the radical change of the environmental catastrophe.”

Bloomfield, who has studied how to find common ground with conservatives on climate change, wasn’t surprised the study found that appealing to patriotism worked in the United States. In other countries, however, the results were less clear — the patriotic language saw some positive effects in Brazil, France, and Israel, but backfired in other countries, including Germany, Belgium, and Russia.

Bloomfield urged caution in deploying this strategy in the real world, since it could come across as trying to manipulate conservatives by pandering to them. “Patriotism or any kind of framing message, I think, can definitely backfire if it’s not seen as an authentic connection on values,” she said.

Talking about a global environmental problem in an overly patriotic, competitive way could be another pitfall. Earlier this year, a study in the journal Environmental Communication found that a “green nationalist” framing — which pits countries against one another in terms of environmental progress — reduced people’s support for policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Natalia Bogado, the author of that study and a psychology researcher in Germany, said that the new study in PNAS makes “no reference to the key characteristics of nationalism, but only briefly mentions a patriotic duty,” which might partly explain the different results.

If executed smartly, though, appealing to regional loyalty can lead to support for environmental causes. Take the “Don’t Mess With Texas” campaign, started in the late 1980s to reduce litter along the state’s highways. Its target was the young men casually chucking beer cans out their truck windows, believing littering was a “God-given right.” Instead of challenging their identity, the campaign channeled their Texas pride, with stunning results: Litter on the roads plunged 72 percent in just four years. Today, the phrase has become synonymous with Texas swagger — so much so that many have forgotten it was initially an anti-litter message.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Kamala Harris is making climate action patriotic. It just might work. on Sep 12, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Kate Yoder.

North Korea’s national soccer team will kick off the third round of Asian qualifiers for the 2026 World Cup on Thursday, but their Chinese-made uniforms might be part of a sanctions violation, experts told Radio Free Asia.

Chinese sportswear maker Inlang Sports posted on social media last week that the North Korean team would be wearing uniforms bearing Inlang’s logo for the first time in Thursday’s match vs Uzbekistan in Tashkent.

The company in January held a ceremony to announce that they had agreed to sponsor North Korean men’s and women’s soccer, and supply uniforms, but this arrangement could be in violation of sanctions intended to deprive Pyongyang of cash and resources that could be used in its nuclear and missile programs.

“Money transfers and joint ventures would likely be a sanctions violation,” Aaron Arnold, a Senior Associate Fellow at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute’s Centre for Finance and Security, told RFA Korean. 

“You could also feasibly argue that the uniforms are prohibited under the luxury goods ban, but that could be a stretch.”

UN Security Council Resolution 2270 defines sports equipment as “luxury goods,” but Alastair Morgan, the former ambassador of the United Kingdom to North Korea, explained to RFA how the uniforms might not count.

“The PRC … might argue that a sponsorship arrangement does not necessarily involve the supply of goods though it might do so, and/or that items of clothing are not ‘recreational sporting equipment,’” he said, using an acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

“Depending on the nature of the financial transactions involved, and whether the DPRK recipient was a designated entity, there might conceivably be other violations.”

Inlang’s sponsorship of the team also could mean that the North Korean uniforms could be sold to the outside world.

Inlang did not respond to RFA queries regarding possible sanctions violations.

This is not the first time that North Korean soccer has caused sanctions concerns. 

In the 2022 Qatar World Cup Asian qualifier match between South Korea and North Korea held in Pyongyang in 2019, the South Korean national team instructed its players not to exchange uniforms after the match due to the possibility of violating sanctions against North Korea.

Should the North Korean team qualify for the World Cup, it would be Inlang’s debut at the tournament.

In the 2022 Qatar World Cup, 13 teams wore Nike kits, seven went with Adidas, and 6 wore Puma. Six different makers outfitted the remaining six teams. Nike is also the current sponsor of the Chinese national team.

In 2010, the last time North Korea qualified for the World Cup, the team wore uniforms made by Italian firm Legea. 

Translated by Claire S. Lee. Edited by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Park Jaewoo for RFA Korean.

It was not the highly visible acts of Congress but the seemingly mundane and often nontransparent actions of regulatory agencies that empowered the great transformation of the U.S. commercial banks from traditionally conservative deposit-taking and lending businesses into providers of wholesale financial risk management and intermediation services.

— Professor Saule Omarova, “The Quiet Metamorphosis, How Derivatives Changed the Business of  Banking” University of Miami Law Review, 2009

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ellen Brown.

It was not the highly visible acts of Congress but the seemingly mundane and often nontransparent actions of regulatory agencies that empowered the great transformation of the U.S. commercial banks from traditionally conservative deposit-taking and lending businesses into providers of wholesale financial risk management and intermediation services.

— Professor Saule Omarova, “The Quiet Metamorphosis, How Derivatives Changed the Business of  Banking” University of Miami Law Review, 2009

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ellen Brown.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is a partnership between ProPublica, where Pamela Colloff is a senior reporter, and The New York Times Magazine, where she is a staff writer.

Sunny Eaton never imagined herself working at the district attorney’s office. A former public defender, she once represented Nashville, Tennessee’s least powerful people, and she liked being the only person in a room willing to stand by someone when no one else would. She spent a decade building her own private practice, but in 2020, she took an unusual job as the director of the conviction-review unit in the Nashville DA’s office. Her assignment was to investigate past cases her office had prosecuted and identify convictions for which there was new evidence of innocence.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

The enormousness of the task struck her on her first day on the job, when she stood in the unit’s storage room and took in the view: Three-ring binders, each holding a case flagged for evaluation, stretched from floor to ceiling. The sheer number of cases reflected how much the world had changed over the previous 30 years. DNA analysis and scientific research had exposed the deficiencies of evidence that had, for decades, helped prosecutors win convictions. Many forensic disciplines — from hair and fiber comparison to the analysis of blood spatter, bite marks, burn patterns, shoe and tire impressions and handwriting — were revealed to lack a strong scientific foundation, with some amounting to quackery. Eyewitness identification turned out to be unreliable. Confessions could be elicited from innocent people.

Puzzling out which cases to pursue was not easy, but Eaton did her best work when she treaded into uncertain territory. Early in her career, as she learned her way around the courthouse, she felt, she says, like “an outsider in every way — a queer Puerto Rican woman with no name and no connections.” That outsider sensibility never completely left her, and it served her well at the DA’s office, where she was armed with a mandate that required her to be independent of any institutional loyalties. She saw her job as a chance to change the system from within. Beneath the water-stained ceiling of her new office, she hung a framed Toni Morrison quote on the wall: “The function of freedom is to free someone else.”

If Eaton concluded that a conviction was no longer supported by the evidence, she was expected to go back to court and try to undo that conviction. The advent of DNA analysis, and the revelations that followed, did not automatically free people who were convicted on debunked evidence or discredited forensics. Many remain locked up, stuck in a system that gives them limited grounds for appeal. In the absence of any broad, national effort to rectify these convictions, the work of unwinding them has fallen to a patchwork of law-school clinics, innocence projects and, increasingly, conviction-review units in reform-minded offices like Nashville’s. Working with only one other full-time attorney, Anna Hamilton, Eaton proceeded at a ferocious pace, recruiting law students and cajoling a rotating cast of colleagues to help her.

By early 2023, her team had persuaded local judges to overturn five murder convictions. Still, each case they took on was a gamble; a full reinvestigation of a single innocence claim could span years, with no guarantee of clarity at the end — or any certainty, even if she found exculpatory evidence, that she could spur the courts to act. One afternoon, as she weighed the risks of delving into a case she had spent months poring over, State of Tennessee v. Russell Lee Maze, she reached for a document that Hamilton wanted her to read: a copy of the journal that the defendant’s wife, Kaye Maze, wrote about the events at the heart of the case.

The journal began a quarter-century earlier with Kaye’s unexpected but much wanted pregnancy in the fall of 1998. Then 34 and the manager of the jewelry department at a local Walmart, Kaye had been unable to conceive in a previous marriage, and she was elated to be pregnant. Her husband, who shared in her excitement, accompanied her to every prenatal visit. But early on, there were signs of trouble, and Kaye was told she might miscarry. “I found out at four weeks that I was pregnant,” she wrote. “I was in the hospital two days later with cramping and bleeding.” The bleeding continued intermittently throughout her pregnancy, and she suffered from intense, at times unrelenting nausea and vomiting. She was put on bed rest, and Russell cared for her while also working the overnight shift at a trucking company. For the next six months, they hoped and waited, while Kaye remained in a state of suspended animation.

Eaton noted dates and details as she read. “After developing gestational diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension and having low amniotic fluid, it was decided to induce labor at 34 weeks,” Kaye wrote. When she gave birth to her son, Alex, on March 25, 1999, he weighed 3 pounds, 12 ounces.

Alex spent the first 13 days of his life in the neonatal intensive care unit. Kaye and Russell roomed with him before he was discharged, taking classes on preemie care and infant CPR. Because he had been diagnosed with supraventricular tachycardia, or an unusually rapid heart rhythm, they were provided a heart monitor and taught to count his heart rate. The Mazes were attentive parents, Eaton could see. In the three weeks that followed his release from the hospital, they took him to doctors and medical facilities seven different times. When they took him to an after-hours clinic on April 18 to report that he was grunting and seemed to be struggling to breathe, a physician dismissed their concerns. “We were told that as long as we were able to console Alex, there was nothing wrong with him, except he was spoiled,” Kaye wrote. The doctor advised them, she continued, “that we, as new and anxious parents, needed to learn what was normal.”

It was the admonition — that they were too vigilant — that discouraged them from seeking medical attention when a bruise emerged on their son’s left temple and then his right temple. Another bruise appeared on his stomach. Russell worried that the tummy massage he had given his son to relieve a bout of painful constipation was to blame. “We are concerned,” Kaye wrote, “but trying not to jump at shadows.”

On May 3, Kaye left their apartment to buy formula. Half an hour later, Russell placed a frantic phone call to 911 to report that Alex had stopped breathing. He performed CPR until paramedics arrived. The baby was rushed to the hospital, where doctors discovered he had a subdural hematoma and retinal hemorrhaging; blood had collected under the membrane that encased his brain and behind his eyes. Preliminary medical tests turned up no obvious signs of infection or illness. With bruising visible on both his forehead and his abdomen, suspicion quickly fell on the Mazes. “We were told Alex had injuries that you only see with shaken baby syndrome,” Kaye wrote. A doctor who was called in to examine the 5-week-old for signs of abuse “told me she thought Russell hurt Alex.”

Eaton read the journal knowing that in the years since the infant was taken to the emergency room, shaken baby syndrome has come under increasing scrutiny. A growing body of research has demonstrated that the triad of symptoms doctors traditionally used to diagnose the syndrome — brain swelling and bleeding around the brain and behind the eyes — are not necessarily produced by shaking; a range of natural and accidental causes can generate the same symptoms. Nevertheless, shaken baby syndrome and its presumption of abuse have served, and continue to serve, as the rationale for separating children from their parents and for sending mothers, fathers and caretakers to prison. It’s impossible to quantify the total number of Americans convicted on the basis of the diagnosis — only the slim fraction of cases that meet the legal bar to appeal and lead to a published appellate decision. Still, an analysis of these rulings from 2008 to 2018 found 1,431 such criminal convictions.

When Alex was discharged from the hospital three weeks later, he had been removed from his parents’ custody and placed in special-needs foster care. The DA’s office charged Russell with aggravated child abuse. He was jailed that June and found guilty by a jury the following February.

Alex’s health continued to deteriorate, and on Oct. 25, 2000, over the Mazes’ emphatic objections, he was taken off life support. When Russell’s conviction was later vacated on a technicality, prosecutors charged him again, this time with murder. He was found guilty in 2004 and sentenced to life in prison. By the time Eaton examined the case, he had been behind bars for nearly a quarter-century.

She turned to the journal’s final entry. “My beautiful baby took 20 minutes to leave us,” Kaye wrote about the day of Alex’s death, when she was permitted to cradle him in the presence of his foster parents. “I held him in my arms, rocked him and sang him into Heaven. This is the most horrific thing for any mother to have to endure. The agony that my husband felt at not being allowed to be there is an agony no father should have to endure. What the state of Tennessee has taken from us can never be replaced or forgiven.”

Eaton understood that if she decided to take on the Maze case and concluded that Russell did not abuse his son, she was still looking at long odds. She would have to go before the original trial judge — a defendant with an innocence claim typically starts with the court where the case was first heard — to argue that the police, prosecutors and jurors got it wrong. That judge, Steve Dozier, was a no-nonsense former prosecutor and the son of a veteran police officer, who might be disinclined to disturb the jury’s verdict. But it was still early in Eaton’s investigation, and she did not know what she would find — only that she needed to first understand what persuaded jurors of Russell’s guilt.

That evidence included testimony from the diagnosing doctor, Suzanne Starling, who told jurors that the bleeding around Alex’s brain and eyes indicated that he endured a ferocious act of violence by shaking. “You would be appalled at what this looked like,” she testified at Russell’s first trial. So forceful was the shaking, she added, that “children who fall from three or four floors onto concrete will get a similar brain injury.” Eaton also needed to make sense of a set of X-rays suggesting that Alex’s left clavicle had been fractured and a recording of an interrogation that prosecutors characterized as an admission of guilt.

When Eaton listened to the scratchy audio of Russell’s interrogation, she could hear the insistent voice of a police detective, Ron Carter, posing a series of increasingly combative questions. The investigator’s confrontational style had been considered good police work, Eaton recognized, but she observed that Carter would not take no for an answer when Russell denied hurting his child. Carter was mirroring what Starling told investigators; informed that the baby had been shaken, Carter predicated his questions on that seemingly incontrovertible fact. “You had to have shaken the child,” he told Russell. “That’s the only way it could’ve happened.” The detective repeated this idea more than a dozen times. Russell was already in a state of distress; he had just withstood four previous rounds of questioning at the hospital — from the treating physicians, Starling, another detective and a child welfare investigator — and he did not know if his son was going to live or die.

As Eaton studied the interview, she could see that Russell consistently denied harming his son. But he never asked for an attorney, and in unguarded comments, he sought to help the detective fill in the blanks of a situation that he himself did not seem to understand. He agreed that it was “possible” that while picking up Alex or putting Alex in a car seat, he had accidentally jostled the baby. “But as far as physically shaking him to the point of causing injury, no,” he said. Carter warned him that he was getting “deeper and deeper and deeper in trouble” and that his baby boy was “lying up there, and it’s for something that you caused.” The detective continued to insist that Russell was not telling the truth and that only he or Kaye could be to blame because they were Alex’s sole caretakers. Worn down, Russell finally hypothesized that he might have jostled, or even shaken, his son to try to revive him after finding him unresponsive. “I guess I could,” Russell said, sounding bewildered. “It’s possible.”

To Eaton’s ears, this did not amount to a confession. As she understood it, Russell was pressured to either accept blame or point the finger at his wife. He had remained steadfast that he did nothing to cause Alex to become unresponsive but found the baby that way.

The case did not look like the abuse cases she saw as a public defender; rather than hiding their son away, the Mazes put him in front of doctors again and again. But Eaton knew that once investigators and then prosecutors settle on the theory of a case, the state’s narrative calcifies, and DAs will go to great lengths to defend it. DA’s offices often reflexively reject innocence claims and even block defendants’ efforts to have the courts consider potentially exonerating evidence. Their faith in the underlying police work, and their certainty about a defendant’s guilt, can make prosecutors resist acknowledging a mistake. So, too, can the political pressure to protect the office’s record and to appear tough on crime. “It’s ingrained in some prosecutors to fight for the sake of fighting,” says Jason Gichner, the Tennessee Innocence Project’s deputy director, who now represents Russell Maze.

When Nashville created a conviction-review unit to try to disrupt this prosecutorial mindset, it was following the earlier lead of another reform-minded DA’s office. In 2007, Dallas’ newly elected district attorney, Craig Watkins, established what he called the conviction-integrity unit. The office he inherited had a long and ugly history of tipping the scales of justice against Black citizens, and Watkins wanted to harness the power of an innovative technology, DNA analysis, to see if he could undo some of the harms of that legacy. The unit reviewed hundreds of convictions in which defendants’ requests for testing had been denied. “When a plane crashes, we investigate,” Watkins told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2012 when he testified about wrongful convictions. “We do not pretend that it did not happen; we do not falsely promise that it will not happen again; but we learn from it, and we make necessary adjustments so it won’t happen again.” By the time he left office in 2015, his conviction-integrity unit had exonerated 24 people, nearly all of them Black men. Since then the office has secured nine more exonerations.

Watkins’ vision for changing the system from inside inspired prosecutors in cities across the country to form their own conviction-review units. But because unraveling complex, long-ago criminal cases is labor-intensive, conviction-review units are unheard-of in the smaller, resource-strapped DA’s offices that dot rural America. Of some 2,300 prosecutors’ offices nationwide, just around 100 have them. In jurisdictions that have the funding and the political will for them — and where they are staffed not with career prosecutors but with attorneys who have defense experience — they can be powerful tools. According to data collected by the National Registry of Exonerations, these units have helped clear more than 750 people. Last year, they played a role in nearly 40% of the nation’s exonerations.

In the years that followed Russell’s murder conviction, doctors who challenged the notion that shaken baby syndrome’s symptoms were always evidence of abuse faced resistance from prosecutors. Brian Holmgren, who led the Nashville DA office’s child-abuse unit until 2015, and who tried the Maze case, built a national profile as one of the most strident critics. While a prosecutor, he served on the international advisory board for the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome, a nonprofit advocacy group, and he lectured around the country about how to conduct shaken baby prosecutions. He also was a co-author of two 2013 law-review articles, which lambasted doctors who testified for the defense in such cases as unethical and mercenary, suggesting that they were willing to offer unscientific testimony for the right price.

Holmgren made no secret of his disdain for these doctors when he delivered a keynote presentation at a National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome conference in Atlanta in 2010. Standing before an image of Pinocchio, he read from the testimony of physicians who had refuted shaken baby diagnoses, the puppet’s nose growing longer with each quote. He concluded his talk by inviting a guitar-playing pediatrician to lead the audience in a sing-along to the tune of “If I Only Had a Brain” from “The Wizard of Oz”:

I will say there is no basis for the claims in shaking cases,

My opinion’s in demand.

Though my theories are outrageous, I’ll work hard to earn my wages

If I only get 10 grand.

Holmgren’s impassioned advocacy on behalf of child victims made him a polarizing figure in Nashville. In 2015, The Tennessean ran a front-page article revealing that he told a public defender he would not offer a plea deal in a child-neglect case unless her client, who was mentally ill (she had stabbed herself in the stomach during one pregnancy), agreed to be sterilized.

His dismissal soon after was part of a sea change at the DA’s office that began in 2014, when voters elected Glenn Funk, a longtime defense lawyer, to be the city’s top prosecutor. As a sign of his commitment to reform, Funk created the conviction-review unit in late 2016, when CRUs were virtually nonexistent in the South. But for the first three years, it was by all measures a failure. Hamstrung by its own bureaucratic rules — a panel of seven prosecutors had to agree before any formal investigation could occur — the unit had yet to reopen a case. In 2020, Funk persuaded Eaton to come run the unit with assurances that she would not have to contend with the panel of prosecutors and that she would answer only to him.

Eaton needed qualified medical experts to evaluate the evidence in the Maze case, but she thought the public vilification of doctors might still give pause to one she wanted to talk to: Dr. Michael Laposata, who previously served as chief pathologist at Vanderbilt University Hospital in Nashville.

Laposata had spent much of his career recommending that physicians rigorously search for underlying diseases when evaluating children who are bruised or bleeding internally, rather than leaping to a determination of abuse. His body of work has shown that the symptoms of certain blood disorders can mimic — and be almost indistinguishable from — those of trauma. In 2005, he and a co-author wrote a seminal paper for The American Journal of Clinical Pathology, which acknowledged at the outset that child abuse too often goes undetected. But the fear among clinicians that they might inadvertently overlook a child’s suffering “has produced a high zeal for identifying cases of child abuse,” and that zeal, the paper argued, combined with a lack of expertise in blood disorders, had led to catastrophic mistakes. “It is very easy for a health care worker to presume that bruising and bleeding is associated with trauma because the coagulopathies” — disorders of blood coagulation — “that may explain the findings are often poorly understood.” Such a misinterpretation, the paper cautioned, could result in the false conclusion that a child had been abused.

Now the chief of pathology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Laposata was initially guarded when the conviction-review unit asked if he would assess the Maze case, explaining that he was already overcommitted. He agreed to look at Alex’s lab reports and Kaye’s prenatal and birth records, but he made no promises that he could do more. His hesitance fell away after he reviewed the material. One fact leapt out at him immediately: Alex’s blood work was not normal. The infant’s hematocrit, or concentration of red blood cells, was not only extremely low; the size and shape of those cells were also atypical. This suggested a problem with red blood cell production that would have taken time to evolve, making it inconsistent with acute trauma. He put this into simpler language when he spoke with Eaton and her team, and she wrote down and underlined his words: “Abnormal red blood cells are not created from child abuse.” These abnormalities raised the suspicion of an undiagnosed blood disorder.

The pathologist also zeroed in on Kaye’s prenatal history. In addition to the health issues she enumerated in her journal, Laposata noticed a positive result for an antinuclear antibody test, commonly associated with an autoimmune disorder. Pregnant women with such disorders often develop antibodies and can pass them to the fetus, he explained. Those antibodies can remain in their infants’ systems for months and may lead to the formation of blood clots. He could see that the treating physicians did not conduct all the necessary tests to determine if Alex carried antibodies that would have predisposed him to clotting abnormalities. “It is surprising that these tests were never performed on the child given the extreme circumstances and the clinical implications of having a clot in the brain,” Laposata later wrote.

The likelihood that Alex suffered from an undiagnosed health condition raised serious questions about the prosecution’s case, and from that point on, Eaton did not look back; this was the conviction on which her team would focus. That there was a plausible medical explanation for Alex’s bruises also had profound implications for Kaye. Prosecutors had pointed to them as evidence that Kaye should have known her husband was abusing their son, and for failing to protect him, they charged her in June 1999 with aggravated assault. After she was told that having an open criminal case would make it harder to regain custody, Kaye took an Alford plea to a reduced felony charge — a plea that allows defendants to accept punishment while maintaining their innocence. She received a two-year suspended sentence and never regained her parental rights.

Eaton often thought about Kaye as she sifted through the case file. If Kaye had been willing to testify against her husband, she might have won back custody of her son, and in return for her cooperation, her criminal charge could have been reduced or dropped. Yet she always stood by Russell. She was unequivocal when she testified at his murder trial, insisting that he was not capable of hurting their child. She moved to rural East Tennessee after he was incarcerated there, so she could visit him as often as possible. She never abandoned their marriage. Eaton knew that such loyalty was rare; long prison sentences often lead to divorce, and the more time a person remains locked up, the more likely the marriage is to fall apart. Kaye’s resolute belief in her husband was not the kind of hard evidence Eaton was seeking, but she filed it away, another data point to consider.

Eaton had noticed a detail in the trial transcripts that she found telling: A police officer named Robert Anderson testified that when he arrived at the apartment as paramedics worked to revive Alex, he saw Russell looking on, impassive. He was acting “rather calmly, just kind of watching,” Anderson told the jury. “He didn’t appear upset, no, not from the outside.” The inference was that Russell was callous, even cold-blooded.

Eaton, having followed the emerging research on trauma, saw something different in his emotionlessness. The encounter with police came just after Russell struggled to resuscitate his son, who had turned blue and gone into cardiac arrest. She was struck by how little the investigators who first interacted with the Mazes understood acute stress and how much that lack of knowledge shaped the investigation that followed.

Eaton had educated herself about the effects of trauma because it had altered not only the lives of her defense clients but also her own. She arrived in Nashville during a tumultuous adolescence, after running away from home in Clarksville, Tennessee, at the age of 16. “I’d experienced a significant trauma, and I didn’t know how to ask for help,” she told me. She was from a peripatetic military family that was not equipped to give her the intensive support she needed. In a Nashville phone booth, Eaton spotted a sticker that read, IF YOU ARE A TEENAGER AND YOU NEED HELP, CALL THIS NUMBER. She dialed the number and, weeping into the receiver, said she had nowhere else to turn.

That phone call, Eaton believes, saved her life. It led her to an emergency shelter for teenagers, where she found counselors who were trained in crisis intervention, and after receiving daily therapy, she returned to Clarksville to finish high school. From that point forward, she knew she wanted to go into a helping profession — a journey that led her first to psychology and then to the law. She was drawn to representing defendants, whom she saw as survivors of trauma too. “No 5-year-old dreams of growing up to become a felon,” she told me. She joined the public defender’s office in 2007, and squaring off against the DA’s office day after day, she proved to be both quick on her feet and tenacious. Three years later, she started her own private practice.

Funk, the district attorney, had always regarded her as one of the brightest stars in Nashville’s criminal defense bar, and as his conviction-review unit foundered, he began talking to her in 2019 about taking the helm. He knew that if he wanted to make the unit effective, he had to put someone with her singular focus and defense experience in charge. Nashville’s CRU was not the only one to fall short of expectations; many conviction-review units have not produced an exoneration. Some are simply overburdened and underfunded, while others have met resistance from local judges. But underperforming conviction-review units have also given rise to suspicion, among defense attorneys, that there is a more cynical calculus at work; they see DAs who want to signal their commitment to justice reform without actually doing the hard work of challenging fellow prosecutors and local police officers.

“The C.R.U., as presently constituted, is a complete and utter sham,” the defense lawyer Daniel Horwitz wrote in 2018, when the Nashville DA’s office declined to act on new information that his client, convicted of murder, was the wrong man.

In Funk’s willingness to try to do better, Eaton saw an opportunity to give defendants with credible innocence claims a fair hearing, while using the resources of the state to investigate. The first case she took on, in the summer of 2020, was Horwitz’s client, Joseph Webster. Tennessee law does not give prosecutors any clear mechanism to get back into court if they uncover a potential wrongful conviction. Eaton coordinated with Horwitz, who had already obtained DNA testing of the murder weapon and tracked down eyewitnesses to the killing whom the police had ignored. After conducting her own independent investigation, which built on two years of work by her predecessor, she went to court to jointly argue with the defense that Webster should walk free. His conviction was vacated, and he was released, having served nearly 15 years of a life sentence.

This became the template for how Eaton worked. Conducting her own parallel investigations alongside the Tennessee Innocence Project, she probed more troubled cases. Of the five convictions she helped undo, three relied on forensic findings that are now seen as flawed.

One of those defendants, Claude Garrett, had already spent nearly 28 years in prison when Eaton began looking at his case in 2020. He survived a 1992 house fire only to be charged with murder after fire investigators determined that the blaze, which claimed the life of his fiancée, was intentionally set. He was locked up when his daughter was 5 years old. In the intervening years, many once-accepted tenets of arson science were debunked. The “pour patterns,” or burn marks, that arson investigators saw as proof that someone poured an accelerant around the house had come to be understood as a natural byproduct of fast-burning fires. Several nationally recognized fire experts who reviewed the case testified that there was no evidence the fire was intentionally set. “When stripped of demonstrably unreliable testimony, faulty investigative methods and baseless speculation,” Eaton wrote to the court, “the case against Garrett is nonexistent.”

Garrett’s conviction was vacated, and he was released in May 2022 at the age of 65. He died suddenly, five months later, of heart failure. “When we have advancements in science, why don’t we look at every single case in which that science convicted someone and see whether the evidence still stands up?” his daughter, Deana Watson, says. “People are going to die in prison who don’t belong there — human beings who literally have no reason to be there, who are stuck there based on what we thought was true 30 years ago.”

Claude Garrett’s death would always hang over Eaton — a nagging reminder, as she worked on the Maze case, that there was no time to spare. She and Hamilton, who was a former federal defender, threw themselves into their reinvestigation. The lawyers learned about blood disorders and genetic diseases, poring over medical journals and buttonholing doctors. They spoke to experts about police interrogation techniques and the effects of emotional trauma on suspects. They visited the Mazes’ former apartment complex to visualize the sequence of events. They conferred with lawyers at the Tennessee Innocence Project, who were talking to other medical experts around the country. Still, the question remained: What had happened to Alex?

Eaton wanted to stay focused on the specifics of Alex’s case and not get lost in the controversy over shaken baby syndrome. While there is no disagreement that the violent shaking of an infant causes harm, there is fierce dissent over whether the symptoms associated with the diagnosis can be taken as proof that abuse has occurred. (“Few pediatric diagnoses have engendered as much debate,” the American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledged in a 2020 policy statement.) This has left both doctors and the courts divided. Over the past four years, according to the National Registry of Exonerations, nine people whose convictions rested on the diagnosis — five parents and four caregivers — have been exonerated. Last year, a New Jersey appellate court backed a lower-court judge who pronounced the diagnosis “akin to junk science.” But appellate judges in recent years have also upheld shaken baby convictions, including that of a man on death row in Texas, Robert Roberson, whose execution date is set for October.

Eaton reached out to experts in the fields of pathology, radiology, neonatology, genetics and ophthalmology, and over the spring and summer and then fall of 2023, physicians who looked at the medical records independently of one another came to the same conclusion: Alex’s symptoms were not consistent with abuse. They observed that the bleeding in his brain and around his eyes continued to progress during his hospitalization. Such ongoing hemorrhaging “suggests a mechanism other than abusive trauma,” explained Dr. Franco Recchia, an ophthalmology specialist. So, too, did the increased bleeding around Alex’s brain. The doctors were in agreement: This progression of symptoms pointed to an undiagnosed, underlying condition — like a metabolic disease or blood disorder — which most likely resulted in a stroke. After reviewing the autopsy slides and other medical records, Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan, the chief medical examiner in Knox and Anderson counties, determined that Alex “had a systemic disorder that was never properly worked up due to the early fixation on the alleged nonaccidental head trauma.”

The doctors noted the absence of obvious evidence of violence; Alex had no neck injuries, broken ribs, limb fractures or skull trauma. They also zeroed in on what Eaton and Hamilton found noteworthy in Alex’s hospital records: Starling rendered her diagnosis within hours of Alex’s arrival at the ER, before receiving all the results of blood work and other testing. And she did not consult his pediatrician’s records, which documented a sudden increase in his head circumference weeks before he arrived at the emergency room. (Starling did not respond to requests for comment.)

But it was the analysis of one last piece of evidence, a set of X-rays known as a skeletal survey, that helped Eaton understand something that she had been trying to make sense of, but that had remained stubbornly perplexing: the clavicle fracture. A close examination of the medical records showed that chest X-rays, performed when Alex was first admitted to the emergency room, did not detect any breaks. Only after he was diagnosed with shaken baby syndrome was a fracture identified on the skeletal survey, on his second day in the hospital.

Interpreting radiological images like a skeletal survey can be subjective, and when evaluating a curved bone like the clavicle, radiologists may disagree about whether a tiny abnormality is a fracture or not. When Dr. Julie Mack, a Harvard-trained radiologist, reviewed the images last fall for the Tennessee Innocence Project, she said she saw no evidence of a bone break. She left open the possibility that a slender hairline fracture was present, which she could not detect in her copy of the original images. But, she explained, “He underwent CPR, which, if a clavicle fracture was present, is a sufficient explanation for such a fracture.” Mack’s review of the records, which included several CT scans and an MRI of Alex’s brain, led her to conclude that the infant had suffered not from abuse but rather from “an ongoing, abnormal, natural disease process.”

In coordination with the conviction-review unit, Russell’s attorneys filed a motion in state court in December, seeking to reopen State of Tennessee v. Russell Lee Maze. “Physicians who suspect abusive head trauma can no longer stop their analysis with the identification of the shaken baby syndrome triad,” it read. “Instead, they must seriously consider all other etiologies that may plausibly explain the constellation of symptoms and eliminate them as causes.” Horwitz — the attorney who once called the CRU a sham — and one of his law partners, Melissa Dix, also filed a motion on behalf of Kaye, petitioning the court to vacate her felony conviction. The decision about whether to reopen the case was in the hands of the judge, Dozier; he had been on the bench since 1997, having won reelection or run unopposed in every election since his appointment.

Eaton walked over to the courthouse that day with Hamilton to file the unit’s 71-page report, which detailed their investigation. Eaton and her team wrote a report each time they went before a judge to ask that a conviction be overturned. It was imperative, she believed, to establish trust with judges before asking them to take the weighty, and sometimes politically perilous, step of tossing out a jury’s verdict, and to signal that they had the full backing of the DA’s office. “While it was reasonable for the treating doctors to consider abuse,” the report read, “every other medical possibility was either overlooked or completely ignored. Law-enforcement officers blindly followed the course set out by Dr. Starling and failed to consider any other explanation for Alex’s condition. After an investigation comprised of a hasty medical determination, an interrogation of traumatized parents and little else, the case was considered closed.”

The lawyers recommended that the court vacate Russell’s and Kaye’s convictions. “The tragedies in this case cannot be overstated,” they concluded. “What every single expert the C.R.U. consulted with agrees upon is that Alex Maze did not die from abuse.”

Shortly after they filed their report, Dozier agreed to set a hearing so that he could evaluate the findings from the state’s and defense’s expert witnesses.

When Russell was led in handcuffs into the courtroom on a drizzly morning this past March, he bore little resemblance to the ruddy-cheeked new father paramedics found in 1999, struggling to revive his infant son. At 58, his careworn face was framed by thick, prison-issued glasses. He walked with a cane, which he had to maneuver with both hands manacled together, and as he took his seat at the defense table, he winced. Beside him sat Kaye, her expression guarded, her shoulder-length hair shot through with gray. The husband and wife, who last lived together when Bill Clinton was president, were instructed not to have physical contact. Wordlessly, they gazed out at the courtroom and waited for the hearing to begin.

Eaton had not slept well. She knew that the experts who were slated to testify would be good witnesses, but she worried that their testimony would not be enough to satisfy Dozier. It was Dozier who signed off on Kaye’s plea deal and Dozier who presided over not only Russell’s trials but also his appeals and postconviction proceedings. It was Dozier who sentenced Russell to life in prison.

She studied him as he sat on the dais before them, quietly conferring with his clerk, and tried to read his mood. Eaton appeared before him when she was a public defender, and she was well aware of how tough he could be. But some of her biggest victories came in his courtroom, including the Joseph Webster case, her first exoneration. That case had included the persuasive power of DNA evidence, something she was painfully aware, at that moment, that the Maze case lacked.

The state’s opening statement would be delivered by Funk. District attorneys seldom appear in court to throw their weight behind their prosecutors, but both Funk and Eaton thought it would send the right message to Dozier. Funk struck a note of deference as he underscored his support of the CRU’s findings, playing not to the local TV news cameras in the courtroom but to an audience of one. “Every single medical expert, using current science, confirms that Russell and Kaye Maze are actually innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted,” he told the judge. “It is my duty as district attorney to ask the court to vacate these convictions.”

But Dozier appeared unreceptive from the start. When Russell’s lead attorney, Jason Gichner, gave his opening statement outlining the defense experts’ findings, Dozier grew impatient, interjecting, “Do they factor in that there’s a history of a statement that the child was jostled?” When it was time for the physicians to testify, he remained obstinate. He grilled them about granular aspects of their testimony, repeatedly breaking in to interrogate them and questioning whether their opinions were grounded in any kind of new scientific thinking. He wondered aloud if different experts, evaluating the same evidence, might reach a completely different conclusion. Even when he said nothing, he radiated disapproval; he arched his eyebrows, pursed his lips and shot exasperated glares at whoever was sitting in the witness box. He grew more skeptical as the hearing went on, accusing Russell’s attorneys of only presenting experts who had been “picked and chosen” to best suit the defense’s narrative.

During breaks, the lawyers conferred with one another, unsure how to interpret the judge’s intransigence. Dozier was always prickly, and in the absence of an adversarial party, he seemed to have decided to take on the role of adversary himself. Perhaps the judge was just putting them through their paces, pushing back on them to elicit answers that would only strengthen their arguments. Or maybe, Eaton feared, they had lost him. For months, her team worried that Dozier would balk at the fact that their experts had not coalesced around a single diagnosis that could explain all of Alex’s symptoms, and yet without new blood and tissue samples to test, it was all but impossible to agree upon a definitive cause of death. When she called Dr. Carla Sandler-Wilson, a neonatologist, to the stand on the second day of the hearing, she had the doctor inform the court that newborn screening tests — which can identify genetic, blood and metabolic abnormalities — were so limited at the time of Alex’s birth that he was screened for just four disorders. “There are over 50 tests on the Tennessee State Newborn Screen now,” Sandler-Wilson explained.

The Mazes remained composed throughout hours of graphic testimony about the condition of their son’s body and the details of his autopsy. All told, seven experts from around the country took the stand to attest to the fact that Alex’s symptoms resulted from natural causes, not trauma.

In the weeks leading up to the hearing, Eaton had written and rewritten her closing argument. She paced her house for hours, practicing until she could recite it from memory. She rehearsed it in the shower, and in her car, and in the quiet of her home office. She delivered it for friends and colleagues so she could gauge whether the most important lines were resonating, and she recited it to her therapist. Her closing argument was a very different narrative from the one prosecutors presented at trial. “If Alex Maze could speak to us,” the argument she had prepared began, “he would tell us his parents loved him, cared for him and, to his last breath, did not give up on him.”

As Eaton watched Gichner deliver his closing argument, which Dozier cut into with rapid-fire questions, she realized that she needed to change course. An emotional plea was not going to win the judge over. She set aside the speech she knew by heart. She would have to improvise.

When her turn came to speak, Eaton rose and walked across the courtroom to face the judge. Gripping the lectern, her face rigid with concentration, she tried to find the right words. “Our office receives hundreds of applications for review per year,” she began. “Out of those hundreds, we take on less than 5%. And of that 5%, sometimes we have to ask experts to review the information in the case.” She continued: “We’ve had experts look at cases and tell us, ‘No, you got this right — this was trauma, this was abuse.’ And we turn down those cases. But sometimes, your honor, a case is different.”

She spoke quickly, as if by racing forward, she could prevent the judge from interrupting her. “Over the last two years, this unit has analyzed every detail of this case,” she said. “We’ve read every record. Every line of testimony. We’ve consulted expert after expert. And we did not just rely on the petitioner’s experts. We got baby Alex his own independent experts, including the chief medical examiner for Knox and Anderson county, who more typically testifies for the state. Including a local practitioner trained at Vanderbilt, who we trust with our babies every single day. Including the former chief pathologist for Vanderbilt University. And one by one, expert after expert, told us this was not abuse —”

Dozier leaned forward in his high-backed chair. He wanted to know about the doctor who had diagnosed Alex with shaken baby syndrome, Starling, and whether she had been consulted. “But she wasn’t?” he asked sharply.

Eaton was startled by the question because it showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the work that the conviction-review unit did. Her duty was not to double-down on the state’s original trial theory but rather to investigate whether there was new evidence to consider, and whether that evidence was consequential enough that it should change the outcome of the case. Just as she did not ask the original prosecutors to evaluate the soundness of the conviction, so she did not ask Starling to review the accuracy of her diagnosis. Eaton had sought out physicians who did not have a record to defend.

“No, she was not,” Eaton said. “But we consulted experts in every possible field that could be relevant to this case. And one by one, they told us that the science presented to this court was outdated. One by one, they told us that our understanding of things has changed. And one by one, they told us that Russell and Kaye Maze did not abuse their son, and they did not cause his death.” She looked directly at the Mazes as she spoke. Then she turned to the judge and raised her voice to signal the importance of the point she wanted to make, drawing out each word: “The state got this wrong.”

When she finished, Dozier offered no reaction as he looked down from the dais. “All right,” he said flatly. “I will take this under advisement.” Court was adjourned for an indeterminate period of time — as long as it took for him to make his ruling. There was nothing more to do but wait.

A few days after the conclusion of the hearing, the two prosecutors who originally tried the case wrote to the court voicing their opposition to the effort to clear Russell Maze. Brian Holmgren and Katrin Miller expressed outrage that they had learned of the hearing only from local media coverage, and they pushed back against the notion that the science behind shaken baby syndrome had grown weaker in recent years. That idea had been promulgated, they asserted, by a “small cadre of medical witnesses” and shaken baby “denialists.” They went on to suggest that the push to exonerate Russell was part of a concerted, nationwide campaign to discredit the diagnosis. The hearing, they wrote, had given “denialist medical witnesses another opportunity to publicize their false scientific claims.”

Dozier informed the two lawyers that they could not insert themselves into the proceeding, and he denied them the opportunity to file a brief with the court that would have formalized their opposition. He did not, however, hand down his ruling. One week passed, then two. A third week came and went without any word. As the days dragged on, Eaton had trouble focusing. Briefly, she entertained a bit of magical thinking; maybe the judge was drafting such a sweeping ruling in the Mazes’ favor that it was just taking him a little extra time. She stared at her phone, checking her messages again and again. “I’m worried,” she told me on April 23. “I’m worried for Russell. I’m worried for Kaye. I’m worried for the morale of my team and worried that if we lose this case, it will make it a million times more difficult to help anyone else.”

Two days later, Eaton was working on her laptop when she spotted an email from the court. She could see that it landed in her inbox a half-hour earlier. The silence of her phone — no calls, no texts — signaled bad news.

The decision leaned heavily on the findings at Russell’s preceding trials. “Substantial evidence presented at two trials is not sufficiently overridden by the new scientific evidence,” it read. Dozier did not give the witnesses’ testimony at the hearing any more weight than the original testimony of witnesses like Starling. The present-day testimony did not represent a new scientific consensus; in the judge’s estimation, it was nothing more than “new ammunition in a ‘battle of the experts.’” He went on to find fault with the hearing itself, which he criticized for lacking “the adversarial role of the prosecutor” — a weakness, in his eyes, that rendered experts’ testimony less credible. With no opposing counsel to cross-examine the witnesses, he argued, “fresh opinions were offered but not probed.” Ultimately, Dozier wrote, “The court does not find an injustice nor that the petitioner is actually innocent based on new scientific evidence.”

Bewildered, Eaton tried to grasp what she had just read: The judge was penalizing them because everyone — the state, the defense, the witnesses — agreed that the Mazes committed no crime. As she wrestled with the implications of the ruling over the days that followed, she began to ask herself increasingly absurd questions. By the judge’s logic, should she have been performatively combative with the defense’s witnesses? Would Russell have stood a better chance if the DA’s office had fought the defense’s efforts to prove his innocence? Did the “adversarial role of the prosecutor” leave no room for the state to right a wrong — or worse, did it require prosecutors to uphold a bad conviction? Dozier’s ruling went to the heart of what a conviction-review unit is supposed to do, and it seemed to eviscerate it.

Never had there been a day, since taking on the Maze case, when Eaton did not know that losing was a possibility. But the implications of Dozier’s ruling made her worry for the future — both for the chilling effect it might have on other judges at the courthouse and, more broadly, for the system as a whole. Her own office filed the original criminal charges against the Mazes, but the same office could not undo them. If the DA’s office could not fix this, who could?

Russell remains one of many defendants who have been behind bars for decades based on the testimony of expert witnesses who believed in the inviolability of shaken baby syndrome. In April, Starling — who, by her own account, has testified in court more than 100 times — was a state witness at a hearing for a case in Atlanta that was similar to Russell’s. Danyel Smith, who was convicted in 2003 of the shaking death of his 2-month-old son, was asking for a new trial, asserting that the infant died from trauma sustained during childbirth. Starling, who was not involved in the original prosecution, testified that the only explanation for the baby’s symptoms was abuse. During cross-examination, Starling was asked about Tennessee v. Maze. “I’m not familiar with this case,” she told Smith’s attorney. The lawyer then produced hundreds of pages of testimony bearing her name. “That does prove that I was there,” she allowed. But the facts of the case had escaped her, she said. “If you say he was convicted, then I will take you at your word.”

“He has served 25 years in prison?” the lawyer pressed.

“Again, not in my personal knowledge,” she replied.

Russell’s case is currently before the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, which must decide whether to grant him permission to appeal the ruling. “The Tennessee Innocence Project fully believes in Russell’s innocence, and we will not stop fighting until he is released from prison,” Gichner told me. (Kaye’s appeal to vacate her felony conviction will proceed separately.) The case now faces a new challenge: Lawyers working for Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, a conservative Republican, are handling the appeal. That office is often at odds with Funk’s; in late June, it called on the appellate court to deny Russell permission to appeal.

Russell is now back at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center, a notoriously rough private prison northeast of Nashville, where five men were stabbed in the course of three weeks earlier this year. Kaye has returned to her home in the mountains of East Tennessee, where she moved when Russell was incarcerated nearby, before his transfer to Trousdale. She lives alone, her brief time with her son preserved in photos that stand alongside her collection of framed family portraits. Her, beaming, with Alex in her arms; him, wearing tiny overalls, his gaze unfocused.

Eaton’s powerlessness, as an assistant DA, to rectify what she sees as a wrongful conviction felt more crushing than any failure, as a public defender, to prevent a client from facing an unjust punishment. “The weight is heavier because we did this,” she says. She wakes up in the night thinking about the Mazes — of how Kaye stepped out one afternoon to buy baby formula and returned home to find her life irrevocably broken. Of how Russell, as of this June, has endured 25 years of imprisonment. Of how the Mazes lost their son and then each other. And she agonizes over whether her decision to take on the case caused them harm. “We gave them a whole fresh set of trauma, and I’m haunted by that,” she says. “Before we got involved, I imagine Russell was trying to make peace with his situation and live the best life he could behind bars. He and Kaye had their visits together. And then we came along and disrupted all that. Teams of lawyers! Doctors! The elected DA! More than losing, what is weighing on me is that we gave them hope.”

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Pamela Colloff, photography by Stacy Kranitz.

Along with earthworms, rocks, and the occasional skeleton, there’s a massive battery right under your feet. Unlike a flammable lithium ion battery, though, this one is perfectly stable, free to use, and ripe for sustainable exploitation: the Earth itself. 

While temperatures above-ground fluctuate throughout the year, the ground stays a stable temperature, meaning it’s humming with geothermal energy that engineers can exploit. “Every building sits on a thermal asset,” said Cameron Best, director of business development at Brightcore Energy in New York, which deploys geothermal systems. “I really don’t think there’s any more efficient or better way to heat and cool our homes.”

At the start of June, Eversource Energy commissioned the United States’ first networked geothermal neighborhood operated by a utility, in Framingham, Massachusetts. Pipes run down boreholes 600 to 700 feet deep, where the temperature of the rock is consistently 55 degrees Fahrenheit. A mixture of water and propylene glycol (a food additive that works here as an antifreeze) pumps through the piping, absorbing that geothermal energy, then flows to 31 residential and five commercial buildings, where fully electric heat pumps use the liquid to either heat or cool a space. If deployed across the country, these geothermal systems could go a long way in helping decarbonize buildings, which are responsible for about a third of total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. 

Once a system is in place, buildings can draw heat from water pumped from below their foundations, instead of burning natural gas piped in from afar. Utilities use the same equipment to deploy networked geothermal as they do for gas lines, and even the same kind of pipes — they’re just circulating fluid instead of gas. The networks don’t need special geology to operate, so they can be set up pretty much anywhere. The project in Framingham, then, could be the start of something big.

In Massachusetts, commercial buildings tend to be more cooling-heavy, meaning that they cool more than heat over the course of a year, whereas residential homes tend to be more heating-heavy. Lots of different structures, with different heating and cooling needs, share one loop of piping in a geothermal network. “When you combine them onto the same loop, you keep the ground temperature stable,” said Eric Bosworth, manager of clean technologies at Eversource Energy. “You’re not putting energy in or out of the ground when you add all of the loads up.” 

To scale up, a geothermal loop like Framingham’s might connect to an adjacent neighborhood, and that one to another. “In the end, what we would like is if the gas utilities become thermal utilities,” said Audrey Schulman, executive director of the nonprofit climate-solutions incubator HEETlabs. (A spinoff of the climate nonprofit HEET, which began pitching the idea to Eversource and other utilities in 2017.) “Each individual, shared loop can be interconnected, like Lego blocks, to grow bigger and bigger.”

That goal may not be far off as utilities face increasing regulatory pressure to phase out gas. So Eversource Energy and two dozen other utilities, representing 47 percent of the country’s natural gas customers, have joined into an information-sharing coalition called the Utility Networked Geothermal Collaborative. “We’ve made a point to think about: Are we really a gas company, or are we a thermal energy delivery company?” said Holly Braun, business development and innovation manager at the Oregon utility NW Natural, which co-founded the coalition. 

These geothermal systems hinge on the humble heat pump. For most homes, an “air source” heat pump is currently the best option: Using an outdoor unit, it extracts warmth from even chilly winter air and pumps it inside. It then reverses in the summer to act like an air conditioner. 

The heat pumps in a geothermal system work the same way, only instead of extracting heat from air, the appliance extracts it from the water that’s been coursing underground. In the summer, the heat pump cools a space by injecting indoor heat into the water, which is then pumped back into the earth. That helps warm up the ground, recharging the subterranean battery so there’s plenty of energy to extract in the winter. 

A networked geothermal system is extremely efficient. It scores a “coefficient of performance,” or COP, of 6, meaning for every one unit of energy going in, you get six units of heat out. By contrast, gas furnaces have a COP of less than 1.

These heat pumps are exploiting water moving through rock that’s consistently 55 degrees. An air-source heat pump in the same neighborhood might have to run when it’s 10 degrees out, meaning it’ll have to work harder to provide the same amount of heat. Accordingly, its COP of 2 or 3 would still far outpace a gas furnace, but not approach geothermal’s COP of 6. “That means you have a higher efficiency with a ground-source system, which, of course, helps then with running costs,” said Jan Rosenow, who studies heat pumps at the Regulatory Assistance Project, a global energy NGO.

That kind of efficiency will be critical if the U.S. is going to wean itself off fossil fuels. The more gas furnaces people replace with electric heat pumps, the more demand on the electrical grid. But the more efficient that engineers can make heating and cooling systems, the less capacity utilities will have to add to the grid. “Ground-source heat pumps, and particularly those community networked shallow geothermal, take the lowest electricity draw on that coldest day in winter,” said Tamsin Lishman, CEO of Kensa Group, which is pioneering networked geothermal in the United Kingdom. “It supports a substantial saving in the upgrade needed in the grid.”

But if a utility has perfectly good infrastructure already in the ground to deliver gas, and it’s making good money doing so, why would it invest in a new kind of geothermal infrastructure? The reality is that a lot of that gas infrastructure isn’t particularly good, and is downright dangerous if it’s leaking an explosive gas. A utility might use networked geothermal to just swap in water for gas. “If you’re in a situation where you’re going to need to upgrade your pipe anyway, or replace it, you maybe think about: Do I replace it instead with a pipe that doesn’t require fuel, and it’s naturally replenishing energy from the ground?” Braun said.

At the same time, utilities are under mounting pressure to phase out natural gas: Last year, New York became the first state to ban it in most new buildings. Utilities are also staring at mandates in states like California, Vermont, and Colorado to slash their overall carbon emissions, and they can’t do that if they keep delivering the same amount of natural gas. “If you’re in a jurisdiction that says ‘no new gas,’ well, you don’t put in new gas,” Braun said. “You got to have something else, or you just keep shrinking your business.”

For new housing developments in particular — especially where recent ordinances have limited the amount of new buildings that can be connected to gas — they can drill the boreholes and lay the piping for buildings, and the homes will be ready to go fully electric. “We could lose those customers — we could just take ourselves out of the game — or we could present them with a new, decarbonized option that utilizes our existing strengths,” said Morgan Hood, manager of innovative products and services at Vermont Gas Systems, which co-founded the Utility Networked Geothermal Collaborative. “That’s what geothermal does.”

Though networked geothermal is vastly more efficient than burning gas in a furnace, it’s still unclear how it would impact a customer’s energy bill. Because utilities are still experimenting with these systems, they haven’t settled on a rate structure. One option may be a flat monthly rate to tap into the geothermal network, depending on how much water a given structure needs to provide adequate heating and cooling. It’s a relatively new technology, so the costs to install are still high: Eversource says its budget for the Framingham project was around $18 million for those 36 residential and commercial buildings. But as with any technology, costs will come down as the technique matures.

If the United States is going to properly decarbonize, the home of tomorrow could ditch natural gas and instead use a heat pump to tap into the air or the earth itself as a natural battery. The energy’s there — it’s always been there — now it’s just a matter of realizing its full potential.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The secret to decarbonizing buildings might be right under your feet on Jun 27, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Matt Simon.

NOAA now predicts a 65 percent chance of La Niña, which is favorable for cyclones, developing between July and September, when such events are most common. (La Niña is a band of cool water forming in contrast to El Niño’s warm band.) At the same time, sea surface temperatures remain extraordinarily high in the Atlantic — the kind of conditions that power monster storms.

The Atlantic is primed for a brutal hurricane season. But these cyclones aren’t just made of devastating winds and rains — they’re full of invaluable data that scientists will use to improve forecasting, giving everyone from local meteorologists to federal emergency planners better information to save lives.

Such insights would be particularly critical if, for instance, a hurricane rapidly intensifies — defined as an increase in sustained wind speeds of at least 35 mph in 24 hours — just before it reaches shore and mutates from a manageable crisis into a deadly one. “Those cases right before landfall, where people are most vulnerable, is the nightmare scenario,” said Christopher Rozoff, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who models hurricanes. “That’s why it’s of such great interest to improve this, and yet it’s been a huge forecasting challenge until somewhat recently.” (Which is not to say weaker storms can’t also be catastrophic — for instance, they might stall over a city and dump torrential rain.)

For such calamitous phenomena, hurricanes feed on a certain level of atmospheric boringness. El Niño suppresses the development of these storms by encouraging vertical wind shear, or winds moving at different speeds and directions at different elevations. That messiness tilts the vortex, interfering with a hurricane’s ability to spin up uniformly. The La Niña that could form this summer, on the other hand, decreases that wind shear in the Atlantic, providing ideal conditions for cyclones. 

On the ocean’s surface, extremely high temperatures have already turned the Atlantic into a vast pool of fuel for hurricanes to start forming. When this water evaporates, the vapor is ingested by the storm, forming buoyant clouds that release heat and lower the atmospheric pressure. This draws in air to create wind, which spins up into a vortex.

If the sea is warm enough, and vertical wind shear is low enough, a hurricane has the potential for rapid intensification. “The atmosphere usually drives the bus when it comes to rapid intensification — it is definitely something that is on my mind this hurricane season,” said Eric Blake, a senior hurricane specialist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Hurricane Center. “When you have extremely warm waters, it just increases the chances that it can occur in areas that maybe it wouldn’t normally occur in.”

Last year, several hurricanes quickly strengthened, including Hurricane Idalia, which tore into communities along the Florida coast. Over in the Pacific, Hurricane Otis evolved into a monster with stunning speed before devastating Acapulco, Mexico. “That storm intensified from a tropical storm to a Category 5 in just over a 24-hour period,” said Rozoff. (For context, a Category 1 hurricane has sustained winds of at least 74 mph, while Category 5 is at least 157 mph.) “We’ve seen improvements in forecasting and our ability to capture these events, but that particular forecast still fails, unfortunately, by the numerical models. None of them were foreseeing this intensification to such an extreme storm that would be so damaging.”

Because blistering strengthening involves highly complicated interactions between the sea and the sky, it’s notoriously hard to predict. As the planet warms, hotter oceans provide more energy for hurricanes, and complex ripple effects across the atmosphere might also reduce wind shear along the Atlantic coast going forward. Indeed, a paper published last year found an explosion in the number of rapid intensification events close to shore in recent decades. 

Not only are scientists trying to parse why a particular hurricane would quickly intensify in 2024, they have to figure out what to expect as the oceans get hotter and hotter, providing more and more cyclone fuel. It’s a moving target, one made of torrential rain and 160 mph winds. “We have a great database of weather that happens now, and we don’t necessarily have a great database of weather that will happen in the future,” said Sarah Gille, a physical oceanographer at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “So extreme storms are one window into that, that can help us get a better picture of what we might see.”

As hurricanes spin across the Atlantic this summer, scientists will be ready. They can fly “Hurricane Hunter” aircraft into the cyclones while collecting oodles of data like wind speed, pressure, and humidity. (That’s another factor in major hurricanes: They love humidity but hate dry air.) They’ll then feed this data into models that try to predict rapid intensification. Increasingly, scientists are using artificial intelligence to supercharge these algorithms, for instance training an AI to recognize patterns in satellite images of a hurricane, or precipitation in the core of the storm, to predict whether it will rapidly intensify or not. 

Whether from an aircraft or satellite, every new observation of these cyclones feeds into models that are getting better at understanding why hurricanes behave the way they do. That means better information for coastal cities to decide who to evacuate and when. “We’ve gotten a lot of good data at a time when the technology is improving, so I think that’s why we’ve made so much progress,” said Rozoff. “Every case of rapid intensification before landfall—whether forecasted well or not—is a tragedy or at least a serious challenge for humanity. But it has provided us some good data as well.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How this summer’s brutal hurricanes might one day save lives on Jun 20, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Matt Simon.

Forecasts suggest that this year’s upcoming “danger season” has its own catastrophes in store. On May 23, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season could be the most prolific yet. A week earlier, they released a seasonal map predicting blistering temperatures across almost the entire country. 

One driving force behind these projections are the alternating Pacific Ocean climate patterns known as El Niño and La Niña, which can create huge shifts in temperature and precipitation across the North and South American continents. After almost a year of El Niño, La Niña is expected to take the reins sometime during the upcoming summer months. As climate change cooks the planet and the Pacific shifts between these two cyclical forces, experts say the conditions could be ripe for more extreme weather events.

“We’ve always had this pattern of El Niño, La Niña. Now it’s happening on top of a warmer world,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, an environmental data science nonprofit. “We need to be ready for the types of extremes that have not been tested in the past.”

During an El Niño, shifting trade winds allow a thick layer of warm surface water to form in the Pacific Ocean, which, in turn, transfers a huge amount of heat into the atmosphere. La Niña, the opposite cycle, brings back cooler ocean waters. But swinging between the two can also raise thermostats: Summers between the phases have higher than average temperatures. According to Hausfather, a single year of El Niño brings the same heat that roughly a decade of human-caused warming can permanently add to the planet. “I think it gives us a little sneak peek of what’s in store,” he said.

Since the World Meteorological Organization declared the start of the current El Niño on July 4, 2023, it’s been almost a year straight of record-breaking temperatures. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, there’s a 61 percent chance that this year could be even hotter than the last, spelling danger for areas prone to deadly heat waves during the summer months. An estimated 2,300 people in the U.S. died due to heat-related illnesses in 2023, and researchers say the real number is probably higher.

All this heat has also settled into the oceans, creating more than a year of super-hot surface temperatures and bleaching more than half of the planet’s coral reefs. It also provides potential fuel for hurricanes, which form as energy is sucked up vertically into the atmosphere. Normally, trade winds scatter heat and humidity across the water’s surface and prevent these forces from building up in one place. But during La Niña, cooler temperatures in the Pacific Ocean weaken high-altitude winds in the Atlantic that would normally break up storms, allowing hurricanes to more readily form. 

“When that pattern in the Pacific sets up, it changes wind patterns around the world,” said Matthew Rosencrans, a lead forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. “When it’s strong, it can be the dominant signal on the entire planet.”

This year’s forecast is especially dangerous, as a likely swift midsummer transition to La Niña could combine with all that simmering ocean water. NOAA forecasters expect these conditions to brew at least 17 storms big enough to get a name, roughly half of which could be hurricanes. Even a hurricane with relatively low wind speeds can dump enough water to cause catastrophic flooding hundreds of miles inland.

“It’s important to think of climate change as making things worse,” said Andrew Dessler, climate scientist at Texas A&M University. Although human-caused warming won’t directly increase the frequency of hurricanes, he said, it can make them more destructive. “It’s a question of how much worse it’s going to get,” he said. 

Over the past 10 months, El Niño helped create blistering temperatures in some parts of the United States, drying out the land. Drought-stricken areas are more vulnerable to severe flooding, as periods without precipitation mean rainfall is likely to be more intense when it finally arrives, and soils may be too dry to soak up water. As desiccated land and soaring temperatures dry out vegetation, the stage is set for wildfires.

While the National Interagency Fire Center expects lower than average odds of a big blaze in California this year, in part due to El Niño bringing unusually high rainfall to the state, other places may not be so lucky. The agency’s seasonal wildfire risk map highlights Hawaiʻi, which suffered the country’s deadliest inferno partly as a result of a persistent drought in Maui last August. Canada, which also experienced its worst fire season last summer, could be in for more trouble following its warmest ever winter. This May, smoke from hundreds of wildfires in Alberta and British Columbia had already begun to seep across the Canadian border into Midwestern states. 

“We are exiting the climate of the 20th century, and we’re entering a new climate of the 21st century,” Dessler said. Unfortunately, our cities were built for a range of temperatures and weather conditions that don’t exist anymore.

To get ready for hurricanes, Rosencrans said people who live in states along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Ocean should go to government disaster preparedness websites to find disaster kit checklists and advice about forming an emergency plan. “Thinking about it now, rather than when the storm is bearing down on you, is going to save you a ton of time, energy, and stress,” he said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why this summer might bring the wildest weather yet on Jun 3, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Sachi Kitajima Mulkey.

The EPA’s new power sector rules have been widely scrutinized for their potential impact on the country’s electric utilities, which have lately been drawing up plans to expand natural gas capacity in response to the growing electricity demand promised by new industrial facilities, AI-supporting data centers, and electric vehicle adoption. However, last week’s rules also contained substantial new controls on the pollution generated by the nation’s aging fleet of coal-fired power plants — as well as the toxins left behind by the many that have already shuttered — including a proposal that closes a longstanding loophole in federal regulations governing the cleanup of coal ash, a toxic waste byproduct of the coal-fired power process.

The new rule builds on a landmark 2015 rule prohibiting coal ash from being permanently stored in places where it comes into contact with groundwater. This was meant to reform the widespread practice of creating so-called coal ash ponds where the toxin is stored in a wet slurry. While at that time the EPA only applied the rule to coal plants in active use, the new rule will require the cleanup of hundreds of “legacy” coal ash ponds.

“EPA’s new rule is aimed at cleaning up coal plants once and for all,” said Lisa Evans, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, in a press briefing last week. “Coal plants will have to monitor each of these toxic dumps, stop the leaking of hazardous chemicals, and clean up groundwater when contamination is found. This is a watershed moment. For decades, utilities fought coal ash regulation every step of the way with legislation, lawsuits, and lobbying.”

Chris Bowers, an attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, noted that coal ash cleanup is an important environmental justice issue, in part because coal plants have been disproportionately located near poor communities and people of color; some 78 percent of all Black Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant.

“Coal ash continues to be one of the largest, if not the largest, by-volume sources of industrial solid waste that is generated annually. Massive amounts are generated because we’re still burning coal for energy,” said Bowers.

But whether or not the new coal ash regulation brings relief to communities grappling with groundwater contamination may well depend on political will and the agency’s appetite for enforcing its own rules — especially when it means overriding the authority of states that have their own ideas about how strict the rules actually are.

Environmental advocates say that the enforcement of the earlier coal ash rule established a concerning precedent: Rather than implementing the 2015 rule, some states and utilities are effectively waiting out the clock on the Biden administration in the hopes that a potential Trump administration will be friendlier to the power industry. Some utilities are suing the EPA in federal court over interpretations of the rule, while in Georgia and Alabama state regulators have issued permits that the EPA says are in plain violation of the requirement — leaving the Biden EPA a limited window within which to decisively establish where utilities are allowed to dump coal ash.

“It’s been a pitched battle among the power industry to try to close the chapter on this and do as little as possible,” said Bowers.

Coal plants are usually built near bodies of water because they use turbines powered with steam that must be continuously cooled. For decades, power plants across America dumped coal ash in pits conveniently dug between the plant and a nearby river or lake. Frank Holleman, coordinator of the Southern Environmental Law Center’s regional coal ash initiative, told Grist that this storage method would normally be impermissible for any other kind of waste. Had the 2015 rules been imposed earlier, the ash would have had to be moved to a landfill that was lined to prevent the waste from leaking into its surroundings.

“That’s the way all kinds of other waste, including municipal garbage, is stored, but instead of doing that, these utilities — which have tremendous financial resources and tremendous engineering expertise — dug unlined pits between their coal-fired plants and the neighboring water body,” said Holleman.

“When you dig a hole next to a river or lake, you will quickly hit the water table,” Holleman added. That means the water becomes at risk of being contaminated by various toxins, because coal ash contains high concentrations of elements like arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium, which are hazardous to human and animal health.

Research had long established these dangers to groundwater, but it took two disastrous spills — one at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil coal plant in 2008, and a second at Duke Energy’s Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina in 2014 — for the EPA to issue its landmark 2015 rule. That rule gave the EPA control of the permitting process for coal ash disposal, but it also allowed individual states to apply for delegated authority to administer their own coal ash programs, on the condition that their standards for the cleanup be at least as restrictive as the federal rule.

The 2015 rule went largely unchallenged by utilities until the EPA, under President Biden, ramped up enforcement. Now, in Georgia and Alabama, the federal government is at loggerheads with state agencies over its interpretation of the 2015 rule — leaving environmental advocates concerned that last week’s extension of that rule to cover legacy ponds could suffer the same fate. Meanwhile, a group of utilities is suing the EPA in the D.C. Circuit court over its heightened enforcement of the 2015 rule, which the utilities say amounts to an actual change to the rule itself.

Georgia was among a handful of states to be granted its own permitting program. Fletcher Sams, executive director of the Altamaha Riverkeeper, a conservation organization in Georgia, has spent the last five years advocating for residents of the town of Juliette, which is home to what was once the nation’s largest coal plant. The state’s dominant utility company plans to close a massive coal ash pond that has come into contact with groundwater there; residents allege that the pond previously contaminated drinking water drawn from wells in the town, sickening locals.

Sams told Grist that he is “very excited about new rules for legacy ponds that would regulate them the same as 2015 ponds. However, if they’re going to enforce them in Georgia like they’re enforcing the 2015 rule, they’re not worth the paper they’re printed on.”

Georgia’s state environmental agency recently approved a pond closure plan at another coal plant in northwest Georgia, where 1.1 million tons of coal ash will be stored permanently in an unlined pit. The EPA issued a letter in February declaring that this plan violated the federal standard, but the agency has not yet directly intervened to contravene the state’s authority.

In Alabama, however, the EPA took the more drastic step last summer of proposing to deny the state’s request for a delegated program similar to Georgia’s, due to the state’s planned approval of coal ash permits that violate the 2015 rule. (A spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management said that the EPA’s denial was “unwarranted” and that the state has complied and continues to comply with federal requirements in its coal ash permitting, which it says is “protective of human health and the environment.”)

The debate between the EPA and the utilities opposing it — as well as the state of Georgia — hinges on the definition of the word “infiltration.” The EPA and environmental advocates argue that the 2015 rule prohibits a coal ash storage site from being infiltrated by water in any direction, while utilities and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division say the word “infiltration” refers only to rainwater seeping into coal ash from above, rather than groundwater from below.

At sites where coal ash is in direct contact with groundwater, the EPA expects utilities to dig it up and install a liner separating it from the water table underneath. But many utilities only want to put a “cap” above the ash ponds to prevent rainwater infiltration — and nothing below.

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline EPA finally takes on abandoned coal ash ponds — but it might be too late on May 1, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Gautama Mehta.

When Henri Kunz was growing up in West Germany in the 1980s, he used to drink an instant coffee substitute called Caro, a blend of barley, chicory root, and rye roasted to approximate the deep color and invigorating flavor of real coffee. “We kids drank it,” Kunz remembered recently. “It had no caffeine, but it tasted like coffee.”

As an adult, Kunz loves real coffee. But he also believes its days are numbered. Climate change is expected to shift the areas where coffee can grow, with some researchers estimating that the most suitable land for coffee will shrink by more than half by 2050, and hotter temperatures will make the plants more vulnerable to pests, blight, and other threats. At the same time, demand for coffee is growing, as upwardly mobile people in traditionally tea-drinking countries in Asia develop a taste for java. 

“The difference between demand and supply will go like that,” Kunz put it during a Zoom interview, crossing his arms in front of his chest to form an X, like the “no good” emoji. Small farmers could face crop failures just as millions of new people develop a daily habit, potentially sending coffee prices soaring to levels that only the wealthy will be able to afford. 

To stave off the looming threats, some agricultural scientists are hard at work breeding climate-resilient, high-yield varieties of coffee. Kunz, the founder and chair of a “flavor engineering” company called Stem, thinks he can solve many of these problems by growing coffee cells in a laboratory instead of on a tree. A number of other entrepreneurs are taking a look at coffee substitutes of yore, like the barley beverage Kunz grew up drinking, with the aim of using sustainable ingredients to solve coffee’s environmental problems — and adding caffeine to reproduce its signature jolt.

A crop of startups, with names like Atomo, Northern Wonder, and Prefer, is calling this category of throwbacks “beanless coffee,” even though in some cases their products contain legumes. Beanless coffee “gives you that legendary coffee taste and all the morning pick-me-up you crave, while also leaving you proud that you’re doing your part to help unf–k the planet,” as the San-Francisco based beanless coffee company Minus puts it. But it’s unclear whether coffee drinkers — deeply attached to the drink’s particular, ineffable taste and aroma — will embrace beanless varieties voluntarily, or only after the coming climate-induced coffee apocalypse forces their hand.

Coffea arabica — the plant species most commonly cultivated for drinking — has been likened to Goldilocks. It thrives in shady environments with consistent, moderate rainfall and in temperatures between 64 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit, conditions often found in the highlands of tropical countries like Guatemala, Ethiopia, and Indonesia. Although coffee plantations can be sustainably integrated into tropical forests, growing coffee leads to environmental destruction more often than not. Farmers cut down trees both to make room for coffee plants and to fuel wood-burning dryers used to process the beans, making coffee one of the top six agricultural drivers of deforestation. When all of a coffee tree’s finicky needs are met, it can produce harvestable beans after three to five years of growth, and eventually yields 1 to 2 pounds of green coffee beans per year. 

If arabica is Goldilocks, climate change is an angry bear. For some 200 years, humans have been burning fossil fuels, spewing planet-warming carbon dioxide into the air. The resulting floods, droughts, and heatwaves, as well as the climate-driven proliferation of coffee borer beetles and fungal infections, are all predicted to make many of today’s coffee-growing areas inhospitable to the crop, destroy coffee farmers’ razor-thin profit margins, and sow chaos in the world’s coffee markets. That shift is already underway: Extreme weather in Brazil sent commodity coffee prices to an 11-year high of $2.58 per pound in 2022. And as coffee growers venture into new regions, they’ll tear down more trees, threatening biodiversity and transforming even more forests from carbon sinks into carbon sources.

At many times in the past, coffee has been out of reach for most people, so they found cheaper, albeit caffeine-free, alternatives. Caro and other quaint instant beverage mixes, like Postum in the U.S. and caffè d’orzo in Italy, were popular during World War II and in the following years, when coffee was rationed or otherwise hard to come by. But the practice of brewing non-caffeinated, ersatz coffee out of other plants is even older than that. In the Middle East, people have used date seeds to brew a hot, dark drink for hundreds or perhaps thousands of years. In pre-Columbian Central America, Mayans drank a similar beverage made from the seeds of ramón trees found in the rainforest. In Europe and Western Asia, drinks have been made out of chicory, chickpeas, dandelion root, figs, grains, lupin beans, and soybeans. These ingredients have historically been more accessible than coffee, and sometimes confer purported health benefits.

Today’s beanless-coffee startups are attempting to put a modern spin on these time-honored, low-tech coffee substitutes. Northern Wonder, based in the Netherlands, makes its product primarily out of lupin beans — also known as lupini — along with chickpeas and chicory. Atomo, headquartered in Seattle, infuses date seeds with a proprietary marinade that produces “the same 28 compounds” as coffee, Atomo boasts.  Singapore-based Prefer makes its brew out of a byproduct of soymilk, surplus bread, and spent barley from beer breweries, which are then fermented with microbes. Minus also uses fermentation to bring coffee-like flavors out of “upcycled pits, roots, and seeds.” All these brands add caffeine to at least some of their blends, aiming to offer consumers the same energizing effects they get from the real deal. 

“We’ve tried all of the coffee alternatives,” said Maricel Saenz, the CEO of Minus. “And what we realize is that they give us some resemblance to coffee, but it ultimately ends up tasting like toasted grains more than it tastes like coffee.”

In trying to explain what makes today’s beanless coffees different from the oldfangled kind, David Klingen, Northern Wonder’s CEO, compared the relationship to the one between modern meat substitutes and more traditional soybean products like tofu and tempeh. Many plant-based meats contain soybeans, but they’re highly processed and combined with other ingredients to create a convincing meat-like texture and flavor. So it is with beanless coffee, relative to Caro-style grain beverages. Klingen emphasized that he and his colleagues mapped out the attributes of various ingredients — bitterness, sweetness, smokiness, the ability to form a foam similar to the crema that crowns a shot of espresso — and tried to combine them in a way that produced a well-rounded coffee facsimile, then added caffeine. 

By contrast, traditional coffee alternatives like chicory and barley brews have nothing to offer a caffeine addict; Atomo, Minus, Northern Wonder, and Prefer are promising a reliable daily fix. 

“Coffee is a ritual and it’s a result,” said Andy Kleitsch, the CEO of Atomo. “And that’s what we’re replicating.” 

Each of these new beanless coffee companies has a slightly different definition of sustainability. Northern Wonder’s guiding light is non-tropical ingredients, “because we want to make a claim that our product is 100 percent deforestation free,” Klingen said. Almost all its ingredients are annual crops from Belgium, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Turkey, countries whose forests are not at substantial risk of destruction from agriculture. Annual crops grow more efficiently than coffee trees, which require years of growth before they begin producing beans. A life cycle analysis of Northern Wonder’s environmental impacts, paid for by the company, shows that its beanless coffee uses approximately a twentieth of the water, generates less than a quarter of the carbon emissions, and requires about a third of the land area associated with real coffee agriculture.

Michael Hoffmann, professor emeritus at Cornell University and the coauthor of Our Changing Menu: Climate Change and the Foods We Love and Need, said he was impressed with Northern Wonder’s life cycle analysis, which he described as nuanced and transparent about the limitations of its data. He praised the idea of using efficient crops, saying that some of those used by beanless coffee companies “yield far more per unit area than coffee, which is also a big plus.”

But there are trade-offs associated with higher yields. Daniel El Chami, an agricultural engineer who is the head of sustainability research and innovation for the Italian subsidiary of the fertilizer and plant nutrition company Timac Agro International, pointed out that higher-yield crops tend to use more fertilizer, which is manufactured using fossil fuels in a process that emits carbon. Crops that use land and other resources efficiently can require several times more fertilizer than sustainably grown coffee, he said. For this reason, El Chami just didn’t see how Northern Wonder could wind up emitting less than a quarter of coffee’s emissions.

Other beanless coffee companies are staking their sustainability pitch on their repurposing of agricultural waste. Atomo’s green cred is premised on the fact that its central ingredients, date seeds, are “upcycled” from farms in California’s Coachella Valley. Whereas date farmers typically throw seeds away after pitting, Atomo pays farmers to store the pits in food-safe tote bags that get picked up daily. Atomo’s current recipe also includes crops from farther afield, like ramón seeds from Guatemala and caffeine derived from green tea grown in India, but Kleitsch said they’re looking to add even more upcycled ingredients.

Food waste is a major contributor to climate change, and Hoffmann, the Cornell professor, said repurposing it for beanless coffee is “a very good approach.” Minus, which also uses upcycled date pits, claims its first product, a canned beanless cold brew (which is not yet available in stores), uses 94 percent less water and produces 86 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than the real thing. Those numbers are based on a life cycle analysis that Saenz, Minus’ CEO, declined to share with Grist because it was being updated. 

(Atomo expects to release a life cycle analysis this spring, and Prefer is planning to conduct a study sometime this year.) 

Despite beanless coffee companies’ impressive sustainability claims, not everyone is convinced that building an alternative coffee industry from scratch is better than trying to make the existing coffee industry more sustainable — by, for instance, helping farmers grow coffee interspersed with native trees, or dry their beans using renewable energy. 

Read Next

Who’s behind the destruction of Brazil’s Cerrado?

Sarah Sax & Maurício Angelo

El Chami thinks the conclusion that coffee supply will dwindle in an overheating world is uncertain: A review of the research he coauthored found that modelers have reached contradictory conclusions about how climate change will change the amount of land suitable for growing coffee. Although rising temperatures are certainly affecting agriculture, “climate change pressures are overblown from a marketing point of view by private interests seeking to create new needs with higher profit margins,” El Chami said. He added that the multinational companies that buy coffee from small farmers need to help their suppliers implement sustainable practices — and he hoped beanless coffee companies would do the same. 

Whether demand for beanless coffee will increase depends a great deal on how much consumers like the taste. 

I, for one, enjoyed the $5 Atomo latte that I tried at the Midtown Manhattan location of an Australian cafe chain called Gumption Coffee — the only place on Earth where Atomo is being sold. The pale, frothy concoction tasted slightly sweet and very smooth. Atomo describes its espresso blend as having notes of “dark chocolate, dried fruit, and graham cracker.” If I hadn’t known it was made with date seeds instead of coffee beans, I would have said it was a regular latte with a dash of caramel syrup added. 

The Northern Wonder filter blend that I ordered from the Netherlands (about $12 for a little more than a pound of grounds, plus about $27 for international shipping) had to overcome a tougher test: I wanted to drink it black, the way I do my regular morning coffee. I brewed it in my pour-over Chemex carafe, and the dark liquid dripping through the filter certainly looked like coffee. But the aroma was closer to chickpeas roasting in the oven — not an unpleasant smell, just miles away from the transcendent scent of arabica beans. The flavor was also off, though I couldn’t quite put my finger on what was wrong. Was it a lack of acidity, or a lack of sweetness? It wasn’t too bitter, and it left a convincing tannic aftertaste in my mouth. After a few sips, I found myself warming up to it, even though it obviously wasn’t coffee. My Grist colleague Jake Bittle had a similar experience with Northern Wonder, describing the flavor it settled into as “weird Folgers.” If real coffee suddenly became scarce or exorbitantly priced, I could see myself drinking Northern Wonder or something like it. It would certainly be better than forgoing coffee’s flavor and caffeine entirely by drinking nothing at all in the morning, or acclimating to the entirely different ritual and taste of tea. 

Klingen concedes that the aroma of beanless coffee needs work. Northern Wonder is developing a bean-like product that, when put through a coffee grinder, releases volatile compounds similar to those that give real coffee its powerful fragrance, like various aldehydes and pyrazines. But beanless coffee could win over some fans even if it doesn’t mimic coffee’s every attribute. Klingen said drinkers often rate his product higher for how much they like it than for how similar it is to coffee. “With Oatly, oat milks or [other] alt milks, there you see the same,” he said. When you ask consumers if oat milk tastes like milk, they say, “‘Eh, I don’t know.’ But is it tasty? ‘Yes.’”  

Just as the dairy industry has tried to prevent alternative milk companies from calling their products “milk,” some people raise an eyebrow at the term “beanless coffee.” Kunz — the German entrepreneur who grew up drinking Caro and is now trying to grow coffee bean cells in a lab — takes issue with using the word coffee to describe products made out of grains, fruits, and legumes. “What we do — taking a coffee plant part, specifically a leaf from a coffee tree — it is coffee, because it’s the cell origin of coffee,” Kunz said. Drinks made from anything else,  he insists, shouldn’t use the word. Kunz’s cell-cultured coffee product hasn’t been finalized yet and, much like lab-grown meat, faces fairly steep regulatory hurdles before it can be sold in Europe or the United States.

The specter of plant-based meat and dairy looms large over the nascent beanless coffee industry. A slew of startups like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods hit the scene in the mid-2010s with products that they touted as convincing enough to be able to put animal agriculture out of business. But in recent years, these companies have faced declining sales in the face of concerns about health, taste, and price.

Jake Berber, the CEO and cofounder of Prefer, fears something similar could happen to beanless coffee businesses. “My hope for everyone in the industry is to keep pushing out really delicious products that people enjoy so that the whole industry of beanless coffee, bean-free coffee, can profit from that, and we can sort of help each other out,” he said.

Different beanless coffee companies are staking out different markets, with some positioning themselves as premium brands. Saenz wouldn’t say how much Minus wants to charge for its canned cold brew, but she said it will be comparable to the “high-end side of coffee, because we believe we compete there in terms of quality.” Atomo is putting the finishing touches on a factory in Seattle with plans to sell its beanless espresso to coffee shops for $20.99 per pound — comparable to a specialty roast. 

“The best way to enjoy coffee is to go to a coffee shop and have a barista make you your own lovingly made product,” Kleitsch said. Atomo is aiming to give consumers a “great experience that they can’t get at home.”

In contrast, Northern Wonder and Prefer are targeting the mass market. Northern Wonder is sold in 534 grocery stores in the Netherlands and recently became available at a leading supermarket in Switzerland. Prefer, meanwhile, is selling its blend to coffee houses, restaurants, hotels, and other clients in Singapore with a promise to beat the price of their cheapest arabica beans. Berber predicts that proposition will get more and more appealing to buyers and consumers in the coming years as the cost of even a no-frills, mediocre espresso drink approaches, and then surpasses, $10. A warming planet will help turn coffee beans into a luxury product, and middle-class customers will get priced out. Then, Prefer’s bet on a climate-proof coffee replacement will pay off. 

“We will, in the future, be the commodity of coffee,” Berber said. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The best coffee for the planet might not be coffee at all on Apr 10, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by L.V. Anderson.

Across nearly every segment tracked by Rhodium Group and its collaborators at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, investments have not only increased since President Joe Biden signed the legislation, the rate of growth has quickened, too. In the 12 months from October 2022 through September 2023, $220 billion poured into everything from battery factories to solar farms to emerging technologies like hydrogen, including $34 billion in federal spending, mostly in the form of tax credits.

The report shows, among other things, the scale of investments that the government can spur with a clear commitment to a specific course of action. Both figures reveal a substantive increase in the financial pressure building behind the transition to a clean economy, and testify to the role progressive policies play in pushing that economic transformation forward. 

“It’s proving the value of the federal government taking the lead, putting in place policy that says, ‘This is the direction that we’re headed: supporting decarbonization, supporting clean energy,'” Hannah Hess, an associate director of climate and energy at Rhodium Group who co-authored the report, said.

By taking that lead, many billions more have flowed into the clean economy. In 2023, the sector as a whole logged new records for yet another year. Utility-scale solar and storage grew more than 50 percent compared to 2022 to a total of $53 billion. Investment in the entire EV supply chain hit $42 billion — up 115 percent over the previous year. Meanwhile, retail spending by businesses and households on things like EVs, heat pumps, and rooftop solar came in at $118 billion, all told.

Nonetheless, several economists and analysts said that, while impressive, the rate of investment revealed in the Clean Investment Monitor still isn’t enough for the U.S. to achieve its climate goals. We can certainly cut emissions by 40 percent, as stated in the IRA, but we’re still far from the 50 percent reduction needed by 2030 to meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement.

“We have more work to do,” said Catherine Wolfram, a professor of energy economics at MIT. While not involved with the Clean Investment Monitor, much of Wolfram’s work at MIT has studied the expected economic impacts of the IRA. Though she doesn’t see the level of investment as yet being sufficient to achieve that ambitious goal, she underscored that the IRA remains a big win, especially as a symbol of America’s commitment to climate action.

Read Next

Why John Podesta thinks the Inflation Reduction Act is the next Obamacare

Zoya Teirstein & Jake Bittle

By holding a torch to the path the nation’s economy can take toward a future in which excess emissions fade into myths and fables, the government has garnered investments in projects that won’t receive federal support for years to come. In particular, Hess pointed out that more than one-fifth of the $239 billion spent in the 2023 calendar year on clean investments went toward manufacturing, particularly in all things EV. In many cases, companies are spending tens, sometimes hundreds, of millions of dollars to build factories on the promise that they will receive tax credits once batteries, solar panels, and other products start coming off the assembly line.

This reality has some investors keeping a keen eye on Congress.

Bob Keefe, executive director of the nonpartisan advocacy group E2, said that the dozens of attempts by Republican members of Congress to repeal or otherwise roll back provisions and funding sources in the IRA is making some investors squeamish. 

“Nobody’s going to want to invest in something if the policies that [are] driving it are under threat,” Keefe said. “I mean, just the mention of threat is enough to spook people.”

Even with those policy scares and a looming election whose outcome may jeopardize the IRA’s various funding streams, E2 has nonetheless tracked announcements for hundreds of clean energy projects across 41 states since the legislation passed, with $4 billion worth of investments announced in February alone.

As long as the government doesn’t “screw it up,” Keefe said, “We are quite literally on the cusp of the biggest economic revolution we’ve seen in this country in generations.”

The trends for this have crystallized. Yes, the wind industry stumbled on land and at sea, according to the report, but it’s poised to find its footing again. But every other sector saw substantial, even startling, growth — particularly emerging technologies like hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel. That broad category saw a tenfold increase in spending in 2023, hitting $9.1 billion.

Federal investments are already exceeding the Biden administration’s own estimates, and this spending, as Hess pointed out, will only increase. Barring unexpected obstructions, the government is on track to inject, not the oft cited figure of $369 billion, but perhaps as much as $1 trillion or more into the clean economy through IRA-related spending alone according to estimates by Wolfram and her colleagues.

Wherever the final dollar figure falls, the report from Rhodium Group emphasizes the energy and enthusiasm there is behind this economic transition. To those who aren’t forehead deep in economic forecasting, the outpouring has been so expansive as to be wholly unexpected.

“Nobody could have ever predicted that we would see this type of investment, this type of job creation,” Keefe said. “It’s absolutely incredible.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The IRA has injected $240 billion into clean energy. It might not be enough. on Mar 12, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Syris Valentine.

In the annual State of the Union address, Biden came out swinging from the get-go against Putin and Trump -- whom he called "my predecessor" without mentioning him by name -- and on behalf of Ukraine, as he sought to win over undecided voters ahead of November’s election.

The March 7 address to a joint session of Congress this year carried greater significance for the 81-year-old Biden as he faces a tough reelection in November, mostly likely against Trump. The president, who is dogged by questions about his physical and mental fitness for the job, showed a more feisty side during his hourlong speech, drawing a sharp contrast between himself and Trump on a host of key foreign and domestic issues.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Biden denounced Trump for recent remarks about NATO, the U.S.-led defense alliance that will mark its 75th anniversary this year, and compared him unfavorably to former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

"Bowing down to a Russian leader, it is outrageous, dangerous, and unacceptable," Biden said, referring to Trump, as he recalled how Reagan -- who is fondly remembered by older Republicans -- stood up to the Kremlin during the Cold War.

At a campaign rally last month, Trump said that while serving in office he warned a NATO ally he "would encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to alliance members who are "delinquent" in meeting defense-spending goals.

The remark raised fears that Trump could try to pull the United States out of NATO should he win the election in November.

Biden described NATO as "stronger than ever" as he recognized Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson in the audience. Earlier in the day, Sweden officially became the 32nd member of NATO, ending 200 years of nonalignment. Sweden applied to join the defense alliance after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Finland became a NATO member last year.

Biden called on Congress to pass a Ukraine aid bill to help the country fend off a two-year-old Russian invasion. He warned that should Russia win, Putin will not stop at Ukraine's border with NATO.

A group of right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives have for months been holding up a bill that would allocate some $60 billion in critical military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine as it defends its territory from Russian invaders.

The gridlock in Washington has starved Ukrainian forces of U.S. ammunition and weapons, allowing Russia to regain the initiative in the war. Russia last month seized the eastern city of Avdiyivka, its first victory in more than a year.

"Ukraine can stop Putin if we stand with Ukraine and provide the weapons it needs to defend itself," Biden said.

"My message to President Putin...is simple. We will not walk away. We will not bow down. I will not bow down," Biden said.

Trump, who has expressed admiration for Putin, has questioned U.S. aid to Ukraine, though he recently supported the idea of loans to the country.

Biden also criticized Trump for the former president's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election, saying those efforts had posed a grave threat to democracy at home.

"You can't love your country only when you win," he said, referring not just to Trump but Republicans in Congress who back the former president's claim that the 2020 election was rigged.

Biden "really strove to distinguish his policies from those of Donald Trump," said Kathryn Stoner, a political-science professor at Stanford University and director of its Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law.

By referencing Reagan, Biden was seeking "to appeal to moderate Republicans and independents to remind them that this is what your party was -- standing up to Russia," she told RFE/RL.

The State of the Union address may be the biggest opportunity Biden has to reach American voters before the election. More than 27 million people watched Biden’s speech last year, equivalent to about 17 percent of eligible voters.

Biden's address this year carries greater importance as he faces reelection in November, most likely against Trump. The speech may be the biggest opportunity he has to reach American voters before the election.

Trump won 14 of 15 primary races on March 5, all but wrapping up the Republican nomination for president. Biden beat Trump in 2020 but faces a tough reelection bid amid low ratings.

A Pew Research poll published in January showed that just 33 percent of Americans approve of Biden's job performance, while 65 percent disapprove. Biden's job-approval rating has remained below 40 percent over the past two years as Americans feel the pinch of high inflation and interest rates.

Biden, the oldest U.S. president in history, has been dogged by worries over his age. Two thirds of voters say he is too old to effectively serve another term, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll.

Last month, a special counsel report raised questions about his memory, intensifying concerns over his mental capacity to run the country for four more years.

As a result, Biden's physical performance during the address was under close watch. Biden was animated during the speech and avoided any major gaffes.

"I thought he sounded really strong, very determined and very clear," Stoner said.

Instead of avoiding the subject of his age, Biden took it head on, saying the issue facing our nation "isn’t how old we are, it’s how old our ideas are."

He warned Trump was trying to take the country back to a darker period.

"Some other people my age see a different story: an American story of resentment, revenge, and retribution," Biden said, referring to the 77-year-old Trump.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

The same kinds of complicated motivations and expectations can sour relations between big donors and the institutions they support.

This dynamic has been playing out in a very public fashion lately with some high-profile donors to prestigious U.S. universities. At issue for these donors is the schools’ response to debates and demonstrations on their campuses after Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel and the Israeli government’s military campaign in Gaza that followed.

Disappointed donors

Notably, hedge fund manager Bill Ackman has complained that Harvard University officials, including President Claudine Gay, have not “heeded his advice on a variety of topics,” including Harvard’s handling of antisemitism and how it should invest his donations.

Ross Stevens, another financier, threatened on Dec. 7, 2023, to take back the US$100 million he gave the University of Pennsylvania through a complex transaction in 2017 “absent a change in leadership and values at Penn.”

In a letter Stevens released to the media, he alleged that Liz Magill, who was serving as the university’s president, had “enabled and encouraged antisemitism and a climate of fear and harassment at Penn.”

Magill, also on Dec. 7, defended herself from those accusations and related criticism from members of Congress, saying: “A call for genocide of Jewish people is … evil, plain and simple.” She resigned on Dec. 9.

Other high-profile donors who have also voiced their dissatisfaction regarding Penn include Jon Huntsman Jr., a former U.S. ambassador to China and Utah governor, and cosmetics tycoon Ronald S. Lauder.

As scholars of how the law governs nonprofits, we think these developments suggest that now is a good time to review what donors do and don’t have a right to demand.

What restrictions apply

All donations to a charity must support its overall purposes. That is, a hospital can’t take the money it receives from donors and give it to, say, an animal shelter operating 500 miles away.

Donors may request specific restrictions on the use of their charitable gifts in an agreement negotiated before the donation is made. And when gifts are solicited through a specific fundraising campaign, such as a bid to raise money for a new building or for scholarships, that money must be spent accordingly.

State attorneys general and, ultimately, the courts have the power to regulate charities. But donors have some tools to police adherence to the restriction they placed on their gifts.

One way they can do this is by threatening to withhold gifts that they had planned to make unless the charity they have been funding changes course. Depending on the state laws that apply to charities, donors may be able to sue for enforcement or reserve the right to do so in gift agreements.

Some donors include in their gift agreements a “gift-over.” This kind of provision redirects the gift to another charity of the donor’s choice if the original recipient violates specified terms.

Promises of future donations from past donors have always allowed donors to informally exercise some degree of influence.

But in the current wrangling between donors and universities over claims of antisemitism on campus, threats to forgo future donations have been explicitly tied to all sorts of university actions, such as the statements universities either make or do not make regarding international relations.

The threats have become angrier and more public than in the past. Some of the regret and dissatisfaction is being expressed via op-eds and open letters. And the lengths donors have taken to assert leverage have grown more extreme.

What charities can do

Charities can take some solace in the law.

When donors make charitable gifts, they must irrevocably transfer that property to the charity receiving it. Except in very rare exceptions, disappointed donors can’t get their assets back.

In 1995, for example, Yale returned a $20 million gift to Lee Bass, an heir to a Texas oil fortune. Bass objected to the way the university was using that donation, which was supposed to support the study of Western civilization. He reached an impasse with Yale after surprising the school’s leaders with a demand they refused to accommodate: that he would personally get to approve four new professors.

And if a donor attaches too many strings to a gift, that can render it ineligible for the charitable deduction, missing out on a tax break. Just as with personal gifts, gifts with too many strings aren’t really gifts at all.

Although donors who have negotiated special conditions in a gift agreement may assert their rights to sue over a charity’s broken promises, that can take a lot of time and energy, while squandering money on legal costs. This process can also anger other donors, causing the benefactor to ultimately lose influence with the charity.

A few tips

In the University of Pennsylvania case, about two months after the donors began their public pressure campaign, Penn’s president and the chair of its board of trustees had stepped down. They resigned in the wake of a contentious congressional hearing.

In this case, some of the disappointed donors got their wish – with an assist from conservative lawmakers. Congress doesn’t usually get involved in these disputes, and with good reason. Nonprofits are private institutions using private assets, even if the assets are meant to advance purposes that are, ultimately, in the public interest.

So here is our practical advice for donors and the institutions that rely on them.

Donors shouldn’t try to control a charity through their gifts after the fact. The time to establish limits is before you’ve signed off on those gifts.

Charities should reject gifts that are offered with strings attached that they aren’t happy about. If gifts have restrictions, charities should be aware of that and adhere to them.

We fear that the failure on either side in the controversy now affecting several prestigious schools to abide by this basic guidance can potentially harm not only the freedom and academic integrity of a university, as many observers have noted, but also the freedom and integrity of the entire nonprofit sector.

The best charitable gifts, like the best personal gifts, are not meant as a means to control the recipients.

Ellen P. Aprill, Professor of Tax Law Emerita, Loyola Law School Los Angeles and Jill Horwitz, Professor of Law and Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post What Do Universities Owe Their Big Donors? Less Than You Might Think appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ellen P. Aprill – Jill Horwitz.

Image by Austin Crick.

Netanyahu, the Main Obstacle

In an opinion article published in the Washington Post November 18, President Biden described how far his ambitions stretch beyond the four-day pause in fighting just agreed upon.

“Our goal should not be simply to stop the war for today,” he wrote. “It should be to end the war forever, break the cycle of unceasing violence, and build something stronger in Gaza and across the Middle East so that history does not keep repeating itself.”

Now the four-day pause, or cease-fire, has been extended two days, and optimists hope for an indefinite extension that will lead not only to the release of all hostages but also to a lasting solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

That’s very unlikely to happen, and the principal obstruction is Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He has short- and long-term goals, only a few of which accord with Biden’s. Netanyahu announced three short-term goals on November 26 while meeting with soldiers in Gaza:

“Eliminate Hamas, return all of our hostages and ensure that Gaza will not go back to being a threat to the State of Israel. I am here to tell the soldiers, who all tell me the same thing, and I repeat it to you, citizens of Israel: We are continuing until the end – until victory. Nothing will stop us, and we are convinced that we have the force, the strength, the will and the determination to achieve all of our goals for the war, and this is what we will do.”

Motivations in Plain Sight

But Netanyahu’s long-term goals are more ambitious, and more troubling: to remain in power and prevent a two-state solution. He sees the war as an exit from the battle over judicial reform that consumed Israel prior to October 7 and threatened his hold on power.

The far right’s proposals to gut the essential powers of Israel’s supreme court were under daily assault from Israeli society across the board, including military reservists. Then came the Hamas atrocities and an opportunity to again be a wartime leader.

Netanyahu knows full well from opinion polls that the great majority of Israelis want him to step down after the war. He has every reason to postpone that day, and the improbable war aims he has set—the elimination of Hamas and the release of all the hostages, which includes about 70 soldiers—provide justification for staying in office for some time to come.

Then there is Netanyahu’s characterization of the war—as an epoch struggle for Israel’s very existence. He is using language borrowed from George W. Bush after the 9/11 attack: The war is not just against terrorists, it is to preserve civilization itself.

Netanyahu first made that argument in a meeting with the Netherlands prime minister, saying “we are in a battle of civilization against barbarism.” In a commentary for the Wall Street Journal on October 30 entitled “The Battle for Civilization,” Netanyahu expanded on the point, insisting that unless Hamas and Iran are defeated, America will be next. Bush used 9/11 to conduct a “war on terror” that engulfed the US in Middle East conflicts for years after.

Netanyahu’s purpose seems to be to solidify his rule and bring the US, the European Union, and others around to the view that Israel’s fight is theirs, requiring political and military support well into the future.

The Blocked Road to Peace

In a cruel sense, Netanyahu’s goals coincide with those of Hamas: long-term warfare to gain one’s objectives of eradicating the enemy. As I have noted before, Hamas leaders see this war as just one cycle of several to eliminate Israel.

They, like Netanyahu, don’t want the war to end in a way that ensures their irrelevancy. With two adversaries each seeking an all-or-nothing solution to the fighting, a long-term cease-fire seems out of the question. (Israel reportedly has put a limit of 10 days on any cease-fire.)

And so long as that is so, any discussion of a new approach to Gaza’s political future cannot begin. That suits Netanyahu just fine; he has long favored keeping the West Bank and Gaza divided.

Thus, when talking these days about postwar Gaza, Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials are vague. First, they say, Hamas must be defeated; only then might a “reconstructed civilian authority” (Netanyahu) or an international “coalition or joint forces” (Israeli president Isaac Herzog) be installed.

No one in Tel Aviv wants to accept the Biden-Blinken idea of having the Palestinian Authority preside over Gaza, since giving the PA that new authority might be the prelude to Palestinian statehood. (The American idea is a bad one anyway, given the PA’s corruption and unpopularity.)

So while we celebrate every day that’s added to the rolling cease-fire and to the list of freed hostages, we also need to reflect on the realities of this war. Both Israel and Hamas have given every indication that the cease-fire is temporary while the fighting is permanent.

The Gaza death toll stands at around 13,000, about half the buildings there have either been badly damaged or destroyed, and some 40 hostages are apparently being held by forces other than Hamas. Many of the young men in Gaza who have lived through Israel’s attack will be recruited into a revived Hamas.

And in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu is still in command, blocking roads to peace.

The post When Will It End? Some Might Prefer It Didn’t appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Mel Gurtov.

Some are headed to “climate havens,” the places experts say will be relatively pleasant to live in as the world heats up, like Duluth, Minnesota; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Burlington, Vermont. Researchers have pointed to the Great Lakes region, and Michigan in particular, as a destination for people seeking to escape the storm-ravaged Southeast or the parched Southwest. The Midwest holds special appeal with its abundant fresh water, cooler summers, and comparatively little risk from hurricanes and wildfires.

But as the federal government’s comprehensive Fifth National Climate Assessment detailed last week, there’s nowhere you can truly hide from climate change. This summer, historic wildfires in Canada sent unhealthy smoke swirling into the Midwest and Northeast, bringing apocalyptic skies from Minneapolis to Buffalo, New York, and all the supposed refuges in between. Heavy rain in July caused devastating flash floods in Vermont. Three years earlier, a ProPublica analysis had identified the hardest-hit place in the state, Lamoille County, as the safest county in the U.S. “It’s time to put the idea of climate safe havens to rest,” the climate news site Heatmap declared this summer.

Still, the new assessment demonstrates that some places are safer than others. The report says that moving away from more dangerous spots to less precarious ones is a solution that’s already happening — not only in coastal areas in the Southeast, but also in flood zones in the Midwest. The assessment also makes it clear that vulnerability is often created by city planning choices. Climate havens may not be something nature hands us, but something we have to build ourselves. And finding refuge doesn’t necessarily entail moving across the country; given the right preparations, it could be closer to home than you think.

“While the climate is going to change, how we respond as a species, as a society, as individuals, I think will really determine what is a ‘refuge’ for us and what isn’t,” said Vivek Shandas, a professor at Portland State University whose research focuses on how cities can adapt to climate change. Shandas, who worked on the Northwest chapter of the report, says that it points to how human choices — policies and urban design decisions — have either put people more in harm’s way or brought them greater safety. 

Tulsa, Oklahoma, was once the country’s most frequently flooded city, according to the assessment. After a disaster in 1984 submerged 7,000 homes and killed 14 people, the city came together to fix the problem with an aggressive flood-control plan. They constructed a network of drainage systems, created green spaces to soak up water, and put strict rules on where new homes could be built. Over the last three decades, Tulsa has also cleared roughly 1,000 buildings out of flood zones through a buyout program. Officials say the effort has saved the city millions of dollars, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency gave Tulsa its top risk-reduction rating last year.

That’s the kind of tough work that lies ahead of any Midwest city aiming to protect its residents. With dam failures and overflows from combined sewer and stormwater systems common, the region is unprepared to handle the volume of water now coursing in. “Just being more sheltered from certain dangers does not make you a haven,” said Julie Arbit, who researches equity and the environment at the University of Michigan. And flooding isn’t the only problem. Purported climate havens like Minneapolis, Duluth, Ann Arbor, and Madison, Wisconsin, will see some of the greatest temperature increases in the country in the coming decades. Residents of Michigan and Wisconsin face some of the longest power outages in the country.

The idea that any city could be a climate haven traces back to Jesse Keenan, a professor of urban planning at Tulane University — though he suspects the phrase itself was invented by journalists. “People often associate me with coining that concept, but I don’t think I’ve ever used that phrase in any of my talks or writing,” Keenan said (though he did come up with “climate-proof Duluth.”) In 2018, the journalist Oliver Milman wrote an article for The Guardian looking at the parts of the U.S. that might be less miserable as the climate changes, calling Duluth and Buffalo “safe havens.” That framing took off the following year, making the headlines in Reuters, Yale Climate Connections, and Bloomberg.

Keenan said he probably wouldn’t have used the phrase “climate havens,” though he does take credit for the proposition behind it. “The general idea is that there are places that people are going to move to, whether we like it or not, whether we plan for it or not,” he said. “We need to help those places and guide those places to prepare.”

The idea of climate havens caught on, in part, because it was a hopeful message for post-industrial cities in the Great Lakes region, raising the prospect of filling vacant homes and revitalizing sluggish economies. Over the last two decades, more than 400,000 people left the Midwest for other regions of the United States. In 2019, Buffalo’s mayor called his city a “climate refuge.” The title is still embraced by some city planners: The 2023 Green Cincinnati Plan names the city a “climate haven.”

The reality of climate change has weakened the phrase’s charm. Another factor that could be dampening enthusiasm for havens, according to Shandas, is that researchers aren’t getting much federal funding for their proposals to identify the role climate change plays in propelling migration patterns. The National Climate Assessment, for instance, points out that there’s yet not enough data to “make a strong statement” on how climate change might drive migration to the Midwest.

Beth Gibbons, an author of the Midwest chapter of the report and the national resilience lead with the consulting group Farallon Strategies, says she’s heard many anecdotes of people moving to the Great Lakes in search of a less hostile climate. Most locals, however, don’t share politicians’ enthusiasm for a wave of climate migration to the Midwest. Interviews across Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Western New York have found that people are nervous about the prospect, Gibbons said. 

“By and large, the sense in communities is that we have a lot of challenges as it is,” Gibbons said, “and they’re not sure that this sounds like something that is really an opportunity, but rather something else that they may have to be dealing with.” Environmental justice advocates also worry that “the idea of being a climate haven is going to become a distraction from caring for people who are already here.”

The “climate havens” conversation has largely revolved around the Midwest, but new research suggests that other parts of the country might be getting overlooked. The Climate Vulnerability Index, released by the Environmental Defense Fund and Texas A&M University last month, maps out risk across the United States on a neighborhood level, measuring environmental dangers alongside factors that make it harder for people to deal with hazards, such as income levels and access to health care. According to data provided to Grist, the least vulnerable counties are mostly rural and scattered across the northern part of the country, from Nantucket County, Massachusetts, to Juneau County, Alaska. The only Midwest spot to make the top 10 was Oneida County in Wisconsin. And the only place with a large population (numbering 600,000 people) on the list was Washington County, Oregon, which includes the east side of Portland. 

Portland has been named as a potential climate haven before, but the idea has recently fallen out of favor after the Pacific Northwest was struck by an off-the-charts heat dome in June 2021. It brought 116-degree temperatures to Portland, melting streetcar power cables and buckling pavement. In a region largely unaccustomed to owning air-conditioning units, roughly 1,000 people died across Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. “‘Nowhere is safe’: Heat shatters vision of Pacific Northwest as climate refuge,” read a headline in The Guardian at the time.

Two years later, Portland and Seattle are more prepared for heat. “The Northwest went bananas with distributing heat pumps and AC units all over the place,” Shandas said. One bad disaster doesn’t necessarily cross a given place off the “havens” list; people can learn from past events and work to better survive the next disaster.

And the reality is that most people are unlikely to pack up their belongings and move across the country to find refuge. There’s “no doubt that most people will be moving relatively locally,” Keenan said. He says that climate migration, even at a more local level, presents another opportunity to get it right when it comes to urban development. “We can either recreate crap suburban sprawl and high-carbon sprawl, or we can try to do it the right way. But we will branch into new cities in America, and those may be closer to home than we realize.”

“Local refuges” might provide a better framework for discussing how to escape the worst of climate change, Shandas said. He borrowed the concept from the field of ecology, where the Latin “refugia” refers to areas where the climate conditions stay relatively safe over time, despite change happening around them. A local refuge could be a community center with air conditioning during a heat wave. Or it could mean moving out of a wildfire danger zone, or up the hill to escape frequent flooding. 

“For me, that’s a wonderful thought,” Shandas said, “because it allows humans to actually not be the victim of, like, ‘Oh my God, no matter where we go, we’re going to be crushed by this climate.’ And it’s like, ‘No, actually, there are things we can do.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why ‘climate havens’ might be closer to home than you’d think on Nov 20, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Kate Yoder.

Image by Luke White.

I write as we watch the news of Palestinian fighters from the besieged and starved Gaza strip having seized the initiatives from the Israeli daily incursions on Palestinian camps, and towns murdering civilians. Israeli murders this year have reached more than 250 Palestinians, including 47 children. This is in addition to the desecration of Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem and other occupied Palestinian communities.

Gaza has endured a harsh economic blockade for more than 18 years. Palestinians are lynched at the hand of the illegal ultra-Jewish colonizers in cities like Hawara and Hebron. The burning of Palestinian cars, homes, and business, under the official protection of the Israeli occupying army and direct support from Israeli racist ministers have become a daily occurrence.

Additionally, more than 5,000 Palestinians continue to languish in Israeli jails. The racist Israeli government has introduced new harsh measures, including extended isolation, limited family contact, restricted access to medical treatment, etc. This does not even account for the 1,200 individuals held under administrative detention, which means imprisoned without charge.

The international community’s silence has granted Israel impunity and has perpetuated the normalization of the Israeli apartheid occupation, imposing a way of life that Palestinians are forced to endure and tolerate.

This background sets the stage for Palestinians to, for perhaps the first time, to grab the initiative from the Israeli occupation forces by raiding the prison posts that kept Gaza under blockade, in the world’s largest open-air prison, for nearly two decades.

Keeping that in mind, it is disheartening to witness the biased coverage by American TV networks and their one-sided pundits, rendering FOX, CNN, and MSNBC indistinguishable in their hypocritical handling of today’s events as well as the 75-year Israeli occupation and the dispossession of Palestinian land.

Alas, American/Western media and political pundits won’t hesitate describing the Palestinian retaliation against the Gaza economic blockade, the murdering of Palestinians, the defilement of holly sites, the building of Jewish only colonies on illegally occupied land, as merely a “terrorist” attack, and Israeli prisoners taken to Gaza as “hostages.”

Meanwhile, the same media industrial complex never ascribed the term hostage for Palestinian, men, women and children taken half naked in the middle of the night from their bedrooms by the Israeli army. The pundits in CNN, FOX, and MSNBC never called the 1200 non charged Palestinians held indefinitely (under 6 months renewable sentence) as hostages.

This blatant double standard becomes evident when comparing the Gaza coverage with Ukraine. If residential towers and homes filled with sleeping families were to be targeted in Kiev, instead of Gaza, we would undoubtedly witness relentless headlines, slow-motion replays of the implosions, and listen to lectures on “Russian brutality” against civilians. However, since it happened in Gaza, with Palestinian victims instead of white Europeans, and the weapons destroying the towers and homes were most likely American-made rockets rather than Russian ones, it is conveniently accepted as “collateral damage” that Western media neither acknowledges nor discusses.

Israel had described its daily incursions in the West Bank camps and towns, and earlier wars on Gaza as “mowing the lawn.” The Palestinian lawn, however, has grown back stronger, resisting the Israeli lawnmower and rejecting its Palestinian Authority lawn agents.

The Israeli prime minister’s threat of severe vengeance adds nothing new, as vengeance has been an integral part of the Zionist philosophy. Palestinians have tragically experienced this vengeance in Deir Yassin and numerous other unknown villages in 1948, during the defenseless camp massacres in Beirut in 1982, and in the continuous “lawn mowing” in Gaza and the West Bank.

Palestinians are well aware that their actions against the Israeli guard posts of the largest open-air prison might come at a significant cost. They face the greatest technology by the most rudimentary weapon system. Palestinians realize they have no match to the American supplied Israeli military might. However, the latest battle has also demonstrated the unmatched bravery of the Palestinian fighters who went fishing for Israeli soldiers hiding inside the most expensive, and most sophisticated military tanks.

The post Gaza Seized the Initiative: Might vs Willpower appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Jamal Kanj.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Prem Thakker.

To develop the proposal, the county tapped the Community Flood Preparedness Fund, a state program that makes hundreds of millions of dollars available for disaster risk analysis and mitigation. They were among the first to do so after money for such things became available in 2021 through proceeds from a carbon-offset program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. But those plans, and the fund, are now in doubt because Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin wants to withdraw from the initiative despite the fact it has provided $657 million for flood preparedness and energy efficiency programs and reduced the state’s carbon emissions by almost 17 percent.

Critics of such a move say that, beyond curtailing the significant emissions reductions RGGI has already incurred, pulling out will reduce the funding available to help communities prepare for increasingly common extreme weather. It is, they say, a huge mistake and, what’s more, illegal. A group of four Southern environmental nonprofits, led by the Southern Environmental Law Center, filed suit on August 21 to stop it.  

“Repealing this regulation is just outside of their authority,” said Nate Belforado, a senior attorney with the center. “If they disagree with it, they have to take it to the General Assembly, and they’ve tried to do that and it hasn’t been successful.”

RGGI, often pronounced “Reggie,” is a collaborative cap-and-invest effort that links 12 states stretching from Maine to Virginia. Power plants in those states must acquire one carbon-emission allowance for every ton of CO2 emitted, with the permissible level of emissions declining over time. Ninety percent of the allowances are sold through quarterly auctions, generating money states can invest as they choose. The program reportedly has slashed power plant emissions in participating states by half and raised nearly $6 billion.  

Virginia joined the program two years ago, following the legislature’s 53-45 vote to require participation. Of the $657 million Old Dominion has raised, 45 percent has gone toward the Community Flood Preparedness Fund to help communities with resilience planning and municipal projects. (At least a quarter of the fund’s annual allocations go to low-income communities.) The remainder has financed home weatherization for low-income residents, reducing their utility bills through simple, but often expensive, home improvements.  

But Youngkin says the rate increases utilities instituted to cover the costs of participation in the initiative create a financial burden for low-income Virginians. “RGGI remains a regressive tax which does not do anything to incentivize the reduction of emissions in Virginia,” his office told 13th News NOW. (The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) “Virginians will see a lower energy bill in due time because we are withdrawing from RGGI through a regulatory process.”

The appointed Air Pollution Control Board, of which four of seven members were personally named by Youngkin, voted in June to withdraw from the program by repealing the Community Flood Preparedness Act that made Virginia a part of it in 2020. If the decision stands, the move would take effect Dec. 30. Environmental groups said the proper procedure would have been to introduce a legislative bill and have lawmakers decide. One poll found that 66 percent of Virginians support staying in RGGI; to go against them, Youngkin’s critics argue, is a fundamentally anti-democratic move. A comment period for the withdrawal remains open until Wednesday.

Beyond that criticism, Benforado calls Youngkin’s move frustrating given the progress made under the initiative. “Virginia’s monopoly utilities are required to zero out their carbon by 2050,” he said. “RGGI is the tool that will help us get there.”

Municipalities all over Virginia have used the flood resiliency funds to shore up infrastructure, draft evacuation plans, and restore blighted wetlands. “Local governments are on the frontlines of the climate crisis,” said Mary-Carson Stiff, the executive director of the nonprofit Wetlands Water Watch, which worked with Buchanan County on its flood resiliency plan. “And they are on their own, to come up with resources to come up with plans and to fund strategies to protect against losses.”

In a 2020 report, the organization noted that most of the state’s rural communities do not have any flooding or other climate resilience plans to speak of. Proponents of RGGI say that before Virginia joined, there was almost no money for disaster preparation and planning, which can be time- and labor-intensive, and requires hiring specialists and conducting environmental studies.

Stiff says Virginia’s use of funds raised through the initiative has been fairly forward-thinking. “We’re unique in the other participating RGGI states where our auction proceeds are being spent on grant programs that are actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.  

Youngkin’s claim that Virginia ratepayers underwrite the cap-and-invest effort echoes an argument Dominion Energy, the state’s biggest utility, has made. It has said in public comments that the costs it had incurred under RGGI made it necessary to raise rates. It has proposed a rider of $2.29 on top of recent increases caused by fluctuating natural gas prices.

Mayor Justin Wilson of Alexandria, which has benefited from RGGI-funded flood resiliency projects such as a redesigned downtown waterfront and storm drain expansion, says people were already paying dearly for the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, and that the Community Flood Preparedness Fund has been a godsend. Flooding costs Virginians $400 million per year, according to some estimates.

“I’ve stood in the homes of residents that have seen their livelihoods destroyed,” said Wilson. “The impacts of these storm events are a tax on the community.”

Youngkin has promised alternative sources of funding for flood preparedness and weatherization, and has proposed a $200 million revolving loan fund with a similar purpose. Wilson said he’ll believe there’s a contingency plan when he sees it. All the while, small floods that would have been unusual a couple of decades ago are happening with greater frequency, and the city struggles to keep up. “We have billions of dollars of investment we are gonna have to make,” the mayor said.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the state, Buchanan County’s flood resilience planning may be complete, but officials must find money for the improvements it outlines. On the anniversary of last summer’s inundation, flood survivors were still fixing up their homes, mourning the woman who had died, wondering where the next resources for them were going to come from, and nervously looking at silt-filled and waste-dammed creeks as summer rain began to fall. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Virginia is bailing on a carbon cap-and-invest program. Activists say that might be illegal. on Aug 28, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by kmyers.

Even if you’ve never heard “Serial,” the true crime podcast that went viral in 2014, you’ve probably heard about the case it made famous. Adnan Syed was 17 years old when he was arrested in 1999 for killing 18-year-old Hae Min Lee, his ex-girlfriend in Baltimore. A jury found Syed guilty the following year, and he was sentenced to life in prison.

After “Serial” premiered in 2014 and raised questions about the case, a Maryland court heard Syed’s appeal and he was awarded a new trial. Holes in the original prosecution were established, new suspects were identified, and DNA evidence was newly tested. After a long fight, his conviction was overturned last year, and the charges against him were officially dropped in October 2022.

In March of this year, though, Syed’s conviction was reinstated. Lee’s family had filed an appeal and argued that the state’s attorney — what the state of Maryland calls its local prosecutors — hadn’t given adequate notice for them to attend the September hearing to vacate Syed’s conviction, though Lee’s brother did attend the hearing on Zoom. Nonetheless, a panel of three appellate judges ruled 2-to-1 in the family’s favor and reinstated the conviction and ordered a new hearing.

It may be tempting to chalk up the back and forth of Syed’s case to the vicissitudes of the court system, but the rollercoaster story also speaks to clashes of political personalities exacerbated by Maryland’s shifting tides on criminal justice reforms. The airing of “Serial” and the revival of Syed’s case came in tandem with a push for criminal justice reforms in Maryland that boosted Syed’s appeal — a push that became bound up with animosity between elected officials amid the pressure cooker of state politics. Now, as the dust settles over the infighting, Syed could be sent back to prison.

The interpersonal disputes surrounding the Syed case could now lead Maryland to reshape how victims influence the legal system, said David Jaros, a law professor at University of Baltimore who runs the Center for Criminal Justice Reform.

“There are just a variety of unique strands of interpersonal issues as well as a highly publicized case that received unusual amounts of media attention,” he said. “One of the things that’s troubling is that those factors may be playing a role in creating the precedent and establishing policy on what the role of victims are within this process.”

“It is troubling that perhaps there will be the shadow, at least, hanging over this case that the result is not based on sound legal reasoning or policy, but rather these other political factors,” Jaros said. “This is not the case that we want shaping and deciding the very complex question of the role that the victim’s family should play in the court room.” 

Amy Berg, Susan Simpson, Asia McClain, and Rabia Chaudry of the television show “The Case Against Adnan Syed” speak during an event in Pasadena, Calif., on Feb. 8, 2019.

Photo: Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images

Marilyn Mosby v. Brian Frosh

At the center of the wrangling over the Syed case was a long-standing feud between the former Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and the former State’s Attorney for Baltimore Marilyn Mosby. Mosby, who handled the review of the Syed case, had been pushing a slew of criminal justice reforms in the background as Syed pursued his high-profile appeal. Mosby, however, was in the limelight herself, facing federal trial for perjury and fraud related to mortgage applications to purchase a home and condo in Florida. In a September television interview, Frosh suggested that Mosby had timed a motion to vacate Syed’s conviction to distract from her own legal woes.

For Mosby, comments like Frosh’s revealed that more than a push for justice was at work in Syed’s appeal. Evidence of guilt, she said, was not driving Frosh’s support for putting Syed back behind bars, but rather interpersonal and political disputes. She told The Intercept, “There was definitely a personal animus from Frosh when he went into court and said the case wasn’t sustainable based on victim’s rights.” Frosh, for his part, told The Intercept that political disagreements with Mosby were unrelated to how his office handled Syed’s appeal: “Politics played absolutely no part in our office’s work on the case.”

The pressure on Mosby’s office was not unique. A movement to address inequities in the criminal justice system and hold police misconduct to account helped sweep dozens of reform prosecutors into office since the mid-2010s. As the prosecutors moved to divert resources to violent crimes over low-level offenses, open wrongful conviction units, and prosecute police misconduct, the backlash was swift. Opponents of reform have been quick to blame these prosecutors for the rise in particular crimes that accompanied the coronavirus pandemic.

In states from California to Pennsylvania, reform prosecutors have faced increasing scrutiny and political attacks, with conservative officials and police unions leading the charge. At least17 states have introduced legislation to limit the authority of reform prosecutors since 2017, and reform prosecutors are facing increasingly aggressiverecall attempts. There are parallels between Mosby’s clashes with Frosh and reform prosecutors fighting with state-level officials in other places, but the interpersonal dimensions of the Syed case make it more complex than other disputes.

“What strikes me as very unusual about this is this kind of internecine battle between Mosby’s office and the AG’s office on it,” said Daniel Medwed, a professor at Northeastern University School of Law who studies wrongful convictions. “That’s what makes this more complicated.”  

“What strikes me as very unusual about this is this kind of internecine battle between Mosby’s office and the AG’s office on it.”

In Maryland, Mosby didn’t fall neatly into the reform prosecutor mold, but she became the target of attacks by Frosh and other politicians who blamed her policies for rising crime in Baltimore. In 2019, Maryland’s Republican Gov. Larry Hogan called on Frosh, a Democrat, to take violent crime cases away from Mosby, claiming that her office repeatedly released people without charges. Frosh said his office would do anything it could to cooperate with the governor. Last year, Hogan blamed Mosby’s office for a spike in homicides.

In late September, Frosh explicitly linked the Syed case to his soft-on-crime attacks on Mosby. After her office filed the motion to vacate Syed’s conviction, Frosh told reporters she should have worked harder to prosecute murder suspects. “If state’s attorney Mosby were concentrating as hard on trying murder cases and putting murderers behind bars as she has on this case,” Frosh said, referring to the Syed case, “I think our state would be quite a bit safer.”

A tribute to Hae Min Lee in a Woodlawn High School yearbook. Lee was abducted and killed in 1999.

Photo: Hayes Gardner/The Baltimore Sun/Tribune News Service via Getty Image

Attorney General’s Involvement

The fight between Mosby and Frosh over Syed’s case came to a head last March. Mosby’s office and Syed’s defense team had agreed to new DNA testing. Mosby filed a motion to vacate Syed’s conviction in September, saying her office had found evidence of Brady violations — failures to hand over potentially exculpatory evidence — by the attorney general’s office. At the time, Mosby said Frosh made a “willful decision” to withhold the evidence. Mosby’s office officially dropped charges against Syed in October.

It was around the time that the motion to vacate was filed that a former associate of Frosh’s intervened. Kathleen Murphy had first prosecuted the Syed case in 1999 in her past role in the state’s attorney’s office. From there, she went on to direct the criminal division in Frosh’s office, where she again worked on Syed’s case, handling the attorney general’s involvement. Last September, Hogan appointed Murphy to be a judge at the Baltimore County District Court.

After the appointment, but before she joined the bench, Murphy became involved again in the Syed case, but not in her official capacity: She placed a call to Steve Silverman, a partner at the private law firm Silverman Thompson, to ask for an attorney to represent Lee’s family, according to Mosby, Silverman’s partner Brian Thompson, and another person with knowledge of the case who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a pending case.

Silverman had been involved with the case and was planning to represent the family, according to Thompson. Instead, Steve Kelly, an alum of Silverman Thompson who worked at a separate firm when Murphy placed her call, took on the case instead. Kelly changed firms in June and is no longer listed on the case. (Silverman declined to comment, and Kelly did not respond to a request for comment. Attorneys for Young Lee, Hae Min Lee’s brother, declined to comment for this story while the case is pending.)

“It’s not unprecedented for prosecutors to try to assist victims,” said Medwed, the law professor. “I’m not aware of situations where they’ve called private lawyers.”

“It’s not unprecedented for prosecutors to try to assist victims. I’m not aware of situations where they’ve called private lawyers.”

Skirmishes between Frosh and Mosby continued to shape the legal fight between Syed and Lee’s family. In criminal appeals in Maryland, the attorney general is supposed to represent the state’s attorney. In the Syed case, however, Frosh frequently disparaged Mosby’s handling of the case in the press. Eventually, he supported the family’s appeal against Syed’s release, blasting Mosby in court for giving inadequate notice to Lee’s family to attend the hearing to vacate his conviction.

Frosh also criticized Mosby’s office for requesting new DNA testing in the case. He later told The Intercept in an interview that his attorney general’s office had already tested the DNA evidence, though Mosby said the evidence had not yet been tested.

One other wrinkle in the handling of the case by the attorney general’s office hangs over the Syed appeal. Thiru Vignarajah had worked the case from the attorney general’s office but was asked to leave his position in 2016 after an internal investigation into conduct toward his subordinates, several of whom claimed he harassed and abused them. When Vignarajah left for a private firm, though, he asked to take the Syed case with him.

It is common for the attorney general to hire outside counsel, which is what Vignarajah’s pro bono work on the Syed case was, Frosh said. “There was no compensation, it was just him finishing up work that he had been doing when he was in the office,” Frosh said. “It was not an unusual thing to do.” Jaros, the law professor, told The Intercept that attorneys typically do not transfer cases to private firms.

As a relatively new prosecutor with a heavy caseload, Mosby’s office welcomed the move. Frosh gave the green light and assigned Vignarajah to the case.

Marilyn Mosby, Maryland state attorney for Baltimore city, speaks during a news conference pertaining to a case against Adnan Syed on Oct. 11, 2022, in Baltimore.

Photo: Julio Cortez/AP

Maryland Supreme Court

Syed’s appeal remains in limbo while attorneys for Lee’s family fight to keep his conviction intact. The outcome of the case is now up to the Maryland Supreme Court. A decision by the court, which agreed to take the case in June, is expected by the end of this year. (Syed’s defense attorney declined to comment while the case is pending.)

Mosby said it was untrue that her move to vacate Syed’s conviction was motivated by politics. She said Syed had applied as early as 2021 to have his case evaluated by a unit created by her office after Maryland passed a law allowing review of juvenile sentencing. She would not, however, have a chance to see the case through. Embattled by her indictment for perjury and fraud, Mosby lost reelection last year.

The new state’s attorney, Ivan Bates, quickly reversed some of her criminal justice reforms. While Bates previously said he would drop charges against Syed, he has since expressed concern with the handling of the case.

Frosh’s office framed the decision to reinstate Syed’s conviction as a win for victim’s rights, and the Lee family’s attorneys applauded it. Mosby maintains that Lee’s family knew about the hearing and agreed to attend on Zoom.

“Crime victims have never had a weak voice in the process, so I think that’s a hard argument to make,” said Jaros, the University of Baltimore law professor, speaking of Frosh’s framing of the case. “We’re seeing an unusual willingness to involve the system in this case and reverse decisions and potentially create new precedent based on circumstances that are really somewhat unique to this case.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Akela Lacy.

President Joe Biden was unequivocal when asked, during an interview with the Weather Channel last week, if he was “prepared to declare a national emergency with respect to climate change.”

“I’ve already done that,” he answered without hesitation. 

But the president has not, in fact, declared a national emergency for climate change, despite claiming that he’s “practically” done so. Activists, several Democratic lawmakers, and climate scientists have in recent weeks renewed calls for Biden to take that very step, an act that would unlock sweeping executive authorities to halt fossil fuel production and ramp up manufacturing of clean energy technologies.

Though such calls have been made since the day Biden took office, the hottest June and July in history has prompted frustration bordering on outrage with his administration’s response to deadly heat and the climate change driving it. Environmental advocates say that although the president acknowledges the climate crisis in his rhetoric, his administration continues to expand fossil fuel production.

“As long as we are producing and exporting these fossil fuels, the planet will continue to cook,” Jean Su, a senior attorney and energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Grist. 

Su and other environmental lawyers say declaring a climate emergency would be fairly straightforward. Under the National Emergencies Act, Biden could issue a declaration that would activate provisions in existing laws to take drastic measures to address climate change. The president could, for example, halt crude oil exports by reinstating a ban that Congress lifted in 2015. He also could suspend offshore oil and gas drilling in over 11 million acres of federal waters, owing to a clause in those leases that allows the president to suspend operation during a national emergency. 

Some energy analysts warn that a sudden curtailing of fossil fuel exports and production could raise gasoline prices and deepen a European energy crisis sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Environmental advocates counter that despite record-high domestic oil production, gas prices remain stubbornly high. They point to other reasons for volatile oil markets, including oil-producing countries choosing to cut supplies to raise oil prices, and say a climate emergency declaration could help fulfill energy needs by accelerating development of renewable power generation. 

For example, once a climate emergency is declared, Biden could divert billions of dollars from the military toward constructing renewable energy projects. Under the Defense Production Act, a law invoked by the Trump administration to boost the supply of Covid-19 medical supplies, Biden could order businesses to manufacture more clean energy and transportation technologies. He also could extend loan guarantees to industries crucial to decarbonizing the electrical grid and transportation sector, further boosting the supply of renewable power. 

Biden would, of course, face considerable blowback. Dan Farber, an environmental law professor at UC Berkeley, told Grist that a climate emergency declaration could prompt legal challenges that might land before a conservative Supreme Court. He noted that in the last few years, the court has struck down broad measures taken by the Biden administration to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic, including a vaccination mandate for large employers and a moratorium on evictions. 

“I think that makes it iffy whether the Supreme Court really would allow sweeping use of any of these emergency powers in a climate emergency,” Farber said.

Su noted that while litigation always is a potential response to any policy, the powers invoked by an emergency declaration would be easily defended in court. “We’re not looking at somersaults and breathing creative definitions into words. These are really straightforward statutory language questions,” Su said. 

The Supreme Court has never overturned a presidential emergency declaration, but there are hurdles beyond that arena, including backlash from Congress, which might threaten the chances of passing future climate legislation. Voters might balk as well, making any declaration a potentially risky move as Biden seeks re-election next year.

But the biggest obstacle to a climate emergency declaration may be the Biden administration itself. Declaring an emergency — and invoking all its potential authorities — sits in direct opposition to its stance on fossil fuels, which so far has fostered the industry’s growth. It has in just the past year approved new oil drilling in Alaska, supported a booming liquified natural gas export industry along the Gulf Coast, and fast-tracked completion of the Mountain Valley methane pipeline in West Virginia. 

“This administration claims to be climate champions, and yet they have constantly approved things like the Mountain Valley Pipeline,” said Roishetta Sibley Ozane, founder and director of the Vessel Project, a mutual aid and environmental justice organization in Louisiana. “If you’re going to be a climate champion, you can no longer be approving new fossil fuel infrastructure.” 

Given these challenges, Biden might have an easier time — and provide more immediate relief for communities — by declaring an emergency for heat rather than climate change. He could do so under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988. The law authorizes the federal government to provide financial and other forms of assistance to states, tribes, territories, and cities when the president declares a natural disaster or emergency. 

While the Stafford Act doesn’t explicitly name heat as a disaster covered under the law, Farber and Su say there’s nothing in the statute that prevents extreme heat from qualifying. Much like declaring a disaster for, say, a hurricane, doing so for heat could enable the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to provide relief funding for supplies like power generators and emergency responses like medical care or repairing heat-stressed power grids.  

But the challenges with declaring heat as a disaster might be more administrative than legal. To receive assistance, cities, tribes, and states need to prove that an emergency exceeds their current funding and resource capacity. It can be difficult to tally up the costs of extreme heat, which is less likely to destroy property and more likely to take a toll on public health and productivity. As heat continues to strain electrical systems and send people to hospitals, however, those costs are only becoming more tangible.

Environmental activists say it’s a reminder that the crisis of extreme heat will only get worse until President Biden takes decisive action. 

“We absolutely need emergency funding to deal with people dying on the streets right now,” Su said. “But we also need to deal with the root of the crisis, which is fossil fuels.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What it might look like if President Biden really declared a climate emergency on Aug 14, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Akielly Hu.

The Guardian (7/25/23) notes that scientists have said a collapse of the AMOC “must be avoided ‘at all costs.’”

When a new peer-reviewed study (Nature Communications, 7/25/23) announces that a crucial Atlantic Ocean circulation system, a cornerstone of the global climate, may collapse as quickly as two years from now, you’d think news outlets might want to put that on the front page.

The AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) moves warmer water from the tropics to the North Atlantic, where it cools, sinks and returns down the US East Coast. Its collapse would be a “climate tipping point” with, as the British Guardian (7/25/23) explained,

disastrous consequences around the world, severely disrupting the rains that billions of people depend on for food in India, South America and West Africa. It would increase storms and drop temperatures in Europe, and lead to a rising sea level on the eastern coast of North America. It would also further endanger the Amazon rainforest and Antarctic ice sheets.

The study, published by an open-access affiliate of the prestigious scientific journal Nature, used new statistical methods, rather than new observations, to make its prediction, which contradicts the IPCC’s latest assessment. The IPCC (6/14/19) deemed a full collapse this century “very unlikely,” but it relied on data that only went back to 2004. The new study, the Guardian reported, “used sea surface temperature data stretching back to 1870 as a proxy for the change in strength of AMOC currents over time.” The study projected the collapse of the ocean system between 2025 and 2095, with 2050 the most likely date, without sharp reductions in global carbon emissions.

Some climate scientists are cautious about the new study, suggesting that more observational data is needed to say the collapse could happen so imminently (Grist, 7/26/23). But as climate scientist Jonathan Foley argued (Twitter, 7/27/23), though the study doesn’t offer certainty, the consequences are so dire that “the only prudent reaction to this is to work to address climate change, as quickly as possible, to avoid these kinds of impacts.”

“I really wish that journalists and editors took this as seriously as scientists do, and reported it loudly and accurately, taking the time to get the facts right,” Foley wrote. “The planet is in trouble, and we need to have the best possible information.”

Unfortunately for the planet and those who inhabit it, corporate media would rather look the other way, at worst, and offer scary clickbait headlines with few connections to actionable policy at best.

‘Try all that we can’

What the Wall Street Journal (7/25/23) was reporting instead.

At the Washington Post, editors put the news on page 12 (7/26/23). That’s nearly the same place it put news of the last dire report about the AMOC two years ago (8/6/21), which didn’t put a timeline on the collapse, but suggested it was much closer to a tipping point than previously expected. In the Post‘s 2021 report, the study author was quoted: “It’s one of those events that should not happen, and we should try all that we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.” Yet the lack of urgency evinced by news media make that kind of swift and dramatic action next to impossible.

The Wall Street Journal, the favored newspaper of the business crowd, didn’t even bother to cover the report, despite the massive economic implications of an AMOC collapse. It did, however, find room on its front page that day for a story headlined “The Manpri Summer: How Men’s Shorts Got So Long.”

NPR (7/27/23) focused more on the importance of the timing of the collapse than on the collapse itself, under the headline “Why It’s So Important to Figure Out When a Vital Atlantic Ocean Current Might Collapse.” The article presented the story as primarily a debate over the timing of the collapse, with the upshot being that “crucial tipping points in the climate system are incredibly hard to predict.” NPR applied the term “urgent” twice to the idea of doing more climate research, with “rapid action to limit how much the planet warms” added the second time, almost as an afterthought.

‘Plausible we’ve fallen off a cliff’

The New York Times (7/26/23) was the only leading paper to put the AMOC study on its front page—though not in the top right corner reserved for the most important story of the day; that was “Legacy Admission at Harvard Faces Federal Inquiry” (7/26/23).

The New York Times (7/26/23) was one of the only major outlets to put the news on its front page, with a well-reported piece by Raymond Zhong. It also did better than many, mentioning “human-driven warming” in the second paragraph, and paraphrasing a scientist that “uncertainty about the timing of an AMOC collapse shouldn’t be taken as an excuse for not reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to try to avoid it.” That scientist, Hali Kilbourne, was given the last word:

“It is very plausible that we’ve fallen off a cliff already and don’t know it,” Dr. Kilbourne said. “I fear, honestly, that by the time any of this is settled science, it’s way too late to act.”

Yet even here, no connections were made to concrete policy options, and no policy experts or activists were quoted to offer them.

The only other front-page US newspaper mention FAIR could find in the Nexis database was in the Charleston Post & Courier (7/25/23), which similarly made no connections to policy.

In the context of a summer of extreme climate events, including unprecedented heatwaves, ocean temperatures and wildfires, we desperately need a media system that treats the climate crisis like the five-alarm fire that it is, and demands accountability from the politicians and industries—not least the fossil fuel industry—driving us off the cliff.

Featured Image: The Guardian‘s depiction (7/25/23) of the AMOC system.

The post Humans Might Be About to Break the Ocean? Don’t Stop the Presses appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Julie Hollar.

Gordon didn’t know it when she was growing up in the late 1980s, but the pollutants that gathered in the folds of the workers’ clothing was in the air all over Gary, the majority-Black city in northern Indiana where she was raised. Today, the stretch of towns along the state’s border with Illinois is home to four of the country’s highest-polluting steel mills, which together account for 90 percent of the industry’s emissions, dumping hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic heavy metals like lead and chromium into the air each year.

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules for steel mills, aiming to cut toxic emissions by 79 tons per year, a 15 percent reduction from current levels, and requiring that U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs, the only two companies operating the country’s 11 steel mills, measure concentrations of cancer-causing chromium along the borders of their sites. The EPA estimates that the new rules would also cut particulate pollution by 500 tons per year. 

It’s the first step that the agency has ever taken to reduce emissions from leaks and equipment malfunctions at steel mills and comes after three separate lawsuits over 20 years. Local advocates that Grist spoke to said that the proposed measures, while welcome, are not nearly enough to keep their communities safe. Gary leads the nation in the amount of toxic industrial emissions per square mile.

“The EPA could have done better because we’re in a crisis,” said Gordon, who serves as the director of Brown Faces Green Spaces, a local environmental organization. “This 15 percent reduction means nothing to the people of Gary. Our needle is all the way past the red.”

The city of Gary was built around the steel industry. Once a quiet stretch of dunes on the lower rim of Lake Michigan, the area was transformed over the course of the early 20th century into a bustling mill town. U.S. Steel was the engine of this transformation, leveling hundreds of square miles of dunes and woods to erect mazes of furnaces and industrial ovens that belched black smoke into the air. After the Second World War, many white families moved to the suburbs and factory jobs declined, sowing the seeds of the city’s decline. Today, the population of Gary is 68,000, less than half its 1960 high of 178,000, and nearly a third of residents live in poverty, according to U.S. Census data. The toxic emissions remain.  

Producing steel is a highly polluting enterprise that involves burning coal and combining the product, known as petroleum coke, with iron ore in a furnace before melting it all down into liquid steel. The chemicals released from this process include heavy metals like lead and arsenic, as well as fine particles that can get lodged inside lungs when inhaled. These pollutants have been linked to different cancers and chronic diseases, and numerous studies have made connections between steel mill emissions and impaired heart and lung function. 

Advocates sued the agency after it proposed the first standards for steel mills in 2003, arguing that those rules failed to control the release of carcinogens from several highly polluting types of equipment in facilities. In response, the agency agreed to revisit its proposal, but after years went by without any sign of a revised rule, advocates sued again in 2015. When the EPA produced a new rule in 2020, many residents were disappointed to find that it still did not control for many of the cancer-causing pollutants released by steel mills. They filed a third lawsuit later that year. James Pew, a senior attorney at the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice who litigated all three of these cases, told Grist in an interview that the successive delays in regulation have enabled pollution to pile up in communities near mills, since heavy metals released into the air fall to the earth and accumulate in the soil, exposing residents, generation after generation.

“Their neglect over the last two to three decades has caused enormous harm,” Pew said. “Gary, Indiana has 100 years of lead buildup because the EPA has never done anything about it.” 

The EPA previously said it’s not required to develop new emissions standards for unregulated steel mill pollutants, an assertion that was shot down by a federal circuit court in 2020. In an email, an agency spokesperson, Shayla Powell, told Grist that the newly proposed amendments would address regulatory gaps exposed by that court decision. 

The rule that the agency proposed on July 12 would limit pollution from five previously unregulated sources within steel mills, like the open pits where the toxic by-products of smelting ore are dumped and the valves through which contaminated air is released to depressurize equipment. Once implemented, the regulations are projected to reduce toxic emissions by 15 percent, from 520 tons per year to 440 tons per year. Pew told Grist that this figure is particularly disappointing because the EPA’s own research indicates that much larger emissions reductions are possible, at a minimal cost to operators.

The EPA projects that the toxic emissions reductions in the proposed rule will cost these two corporations approximately $2.8 million each year to implement, an amount local advocates like Gordon consider paltry. U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs made a combined $44 billion in sales last year. 

Amanda Malkowski, a spokesperson for U.S. Steel told Grist in an email that the company was disappointed with the proposal, which would have “exorbitant costs for implementation and provide very little, if any, environmental benefit,” she said. “U.S. Steel is committed to environmental compliance and working with EPA to have regulations that are technologically and economically feasible, while providing an environmental benefit.”

Cleveland Cliffs did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Roughly half of the emissions from steel production are directed into tall industrial chimneys, while the rest are released at the ground level through pressure valves and cracks in equipment. In a 2019 memo, the EPA estimated that operators could slash 65 percent of this latter set of emissions—190 tons per year in total—simply by implementing more stringent work practice standards. For example, the document cited a century-old protocol that could be used to prevent “slips,” a term referring to the situation in which raw materials fail to descend smoothly into furnaces, leading to high pressure conditions that cause valves to fly open, releasing toxic “dust clouds” into the air. Although the agency determined that slips should not occur more than four times every month, data submitted by mill operators indicates that some plants are averaging more than double that amount.

The proposed rule would require mill operators to set up monitors to measure levels of the toxic heavy metal chromium on the borders of their sites. If concentrations exceed the regulatory “action level,” operations would be required to submit an analysis identifying the cause. Advocates from mill towns told Grist that they appreciated the data collection requirement, but pointed out that steel mills emit over a dozen different toxic chemicals, principally lead, and wondered why the agency was limiting its monitoring efforts to one metal.

“There’s a bunch of things [in the proposal] where it’s like, ‘Oh, you guys did great,’ but there’s so many more chemicals that we’re being exposed to,” said Qiyam Ansari, an environmental advocate in Clairton, Pennsylvania, a small city in the Monongahela River Valley where U.S. Steel operates a mill and a separate petroleum coke plant. Since he moved to the valley, he said he’s suffered from asthma attacks that make it difficult to spend time outdoors.

Powell, the EPA spokesperson, told Grist that the agency had collected air samples at four steel mills over a six-month period, and found that lead concentrations were well below the national standard of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter of air. 

The EPA’s own analysis indicates that 27 percent of people living within 3 miles of the country’s operating steel mills are Black, making the pollution an issue of environmental justice, a term that refers to the disproportionate pollution borne by low income people and communities of color across the country. The proportion of Black residents in Gary and Clairton are 78 percent and 41 percent, respectively, much higher than the roughly 14 percent share of the U.S. population. 

It could take years before the proposed rule takes effect. Once it’s posted in the Federal Register, the EPA will accept written comments from the public for 60 days. The agency is then required to consider the comments and update the rules based on feedback before finalizing them. Along the way, it may face legal challenges from advocates or industry groups.

In May, Adam Ortiz, the EPA administrator for the mid-Atlantic region, which includes Pennsylvania, traveled to Clairton to listen to residents’ concerns about pollution from steel production. Ansari said that after reviewing the details of the agency’s newly proposed standards, he believes that little will come of Ortiz’s visit. 

“I’m continuously disappointed and lose my faith in our regulators the more I do this work,” he said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EPA is cracking down on steel mill pollution. In Gary, Indiana, it might not be enough. on Jul 21, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Lylla Younes.

Gordon didn’t know it when she was growing up in the late 1980s, but the pollutants that gathered in the folds of the workers’ clothing was in the air all over Gary, the majority-Black city in northern Indiana where she was raised. Today, the stretch of towns along the state’s border with Illinois is home to four of the country’s highest-polluting steel mills, which together account for 90 percent of the industry’s emissions, dumping hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic heavy metals like lead and chromium into the air each year.

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules for steel mills, aiming to cut toxic emissions by 79 tons per year, a 15 percent reduction from current levels, and requiring that U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs, the only two companies operating the country’s 11 steel mills, measure concentrations of cancer-causing chromium along the borders of their sites. The EPA estimates that the new rules would also cut particulate pollution by 500 tons per year. 

It’s the first step that the agency has ever taken to reduce emissions from leaks and equipment malfunctions at steel mills and comes after three separate lawsuits over 20 years. Local advocates that Grist spoke to said that the proposed measures, while welcome, are not nearly enough to keep their communities safe. Gary leads the nation in the amount of toxic industrial emissions per square mile.

“The EPA could have done better because we’re in a crisis,” said Gordon, who serves as the director of Brown Faces Green Spaces, a local environmental organization. “This 15 percent reduction means nothing to the people of Gary. Our needle is all the way past the red.”

The city of Gary was built around the steel industry. Once a quiet stretch of dunes on the lower rim of Lake Michigan, the area was transformed over the course of the early 20th century into a bustling mill town. U.S. Steel was the engine of this transformation, leveling hundreds of square miles of dunes and woods to erect mazes of furnaces and industrial ovens that belched black smoke into the air. After the Second World War, many white families moved to the suburbs and factory jobs declined, sowing the seeds of the city’s decline. Today, the population of Gary is 68,000, less than half its 1960 high of 178,000, and nearly a third of residents live in poverty, according to U.S. Census data. The toxic emissions remain.  

Producing steel is a highly polluting enterprise that involves burning coal and combining the product, known as petroleum coke, with iron ore in a furnace before melting it all down into liquid steel. The chemicals released from this process include heavy metals like lead and arsenic, as well as fine particles that can get lodged inside lungs when inhaled. These pollutants have been linked to different cancers and chronic diseases, and numerous studies have made connections between steel mill emissions and impaired heart and lung function. 

Advocates sued the agency after it proposed the first standards for steel mills in 2003, arguing that those rules failed to control the release of carcinogens from several highly polluting types of equipment in facilities. In response, the agency agreed to revisit its proposal, but after years went by without any sign of a revised rule, advocates sued again in 2015. When the EPA produced a new rule in 2020, many residents were disappointed to find that it still did not control for many of the cancer-causing pollutants released by steel mills. They filed a third lawsuit later that year. James Pew, a senior attorney at the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice who litigated all three of these cases, told Grist in an interview that the successive delays in regulation have enabled pollution to pile up in communities near mills, since heavy metals released into the air fall to the earth and accumulate in the soil, exposing residents, generation after generation.

“Their neglect over the last two to three decades has caused enormous harm,” Pew said. “Gary, Indiana has 100 years of lead buildup because the EPA has never done anything about it.” 

The EPA previously said it’s not required to develop new emissions standards for unregulated steel mill pollutants, an assertion that was shot down by a federal circuit court in 2020. In an email, an agency spokesperson, Shayla Powell, told Grist that the newly proposed amendments would address regulatory gaps exposed by that court decision. 

The rule that the agency proposed on July 12 would limit pollution from five previously unregulated sources within steel mills, like the open pits where the toxic by-products of smelting ore are dumped and the valves through which contaminated air is released to depressurize equipment. Once implemented, the regulations are projected to reduce toxic emissions by 15 percent, from 520 tons per year to 440 tons per year. Pew told Grist that this figure is particularly disappointing because the EPA’s own research indicates that much larger emissions reductions are possible, at a minimal cost to operators.

The EPA projects that the toxic emissions reductions in the proposed rule will cost these two corporations approximately $2.8 million each year to implement, an amount local advocates like Gordon consider paltry. U.S. Steel and Cleveland Cliffs made a combined $44 billion in sales last year. 

Amanda Malkowski, a spokesperson for U.S. Steel told Grist in an email that the company was disappointed with the proposal, which would have “exorbitant costs for implementation and provide very little, if any, environmental benefit,” she said. “U.S. Steel is committed to environmental compliance and working with EPA to have regulations that are technologically and economically feasible, while providing an environmental benefit.”

Cleveland Cliffs did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Roughly half of the emissions from steel production are directed into tall industrial chimneys, while the rest are released at the ground level through pressure valves and cracks in equipment. In a 2019 memo, the EPA estimated that operators could slash 65 percent of this latter set of emissions—190 tons per year in total—simply by implementing more stringent work practice standards. For example, the document cited a century-old protocol that could be used to prevent “slips,” a term referring to the situation in which raw materials fail to descend smoothly into furnaces, leading to high pressure conditions that cause valves to fly open, releasing toxic “dust clouds” into the air. Although the agency determined that slips should not occur more than four times every month, data submitted by mill operators indicates that some plants are averaging more than double that amount.

The proposed rule would require mill operators to set up monitors to measure levels of the toxic heavy metal chromium on the borders of their sites. If concentrations exceed the regulatory “action level,” operations would be required to submit an analysis identifying the cause. Advocates from mill towns told Grist that they appreciated the data collection requirement, but pointed out that steel mills emit over a dozen different toxic chemicals, principally lead, and wondered why the agency was limiting its monitoring efforts to one metal.

“There’s a bunch of things [in the proposal] where it’s like, ‘Oh, you guys did great,’ but there’s so many more chemicals that we’re being exposed to,” said Qiyam Ansari, an environmental advocate in Clairton, Pennsylvania, a small city in the Monongahela River Valley where U.S. Steel operates a mill and a separate petroleum coke plant. Since he moved to the valley, he said he’s suffered from asthma attacks that make it difficult to spend time outdoors.

Powell, the EPA spokesperson, told Grist that the agency had collected air samples at four steel mills over a six-month period, and found that lead concentrations were well below the national standard of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter of air. 

The EPA’s own analysis indicates that 27 percent of people living within 3 miles of the country’s operating steel mills are Black, making the pollution an issue of environmental justice, a term that refers to the disproportionate pollution borne by low income people and communities of color across the country. The proportion of Black residents in Gary and Clairton are 78 percent and 41 percent, respectively, much higher than the roughly 14 percent share of the U.S. population. 

It could take years before the proposed rule takes effect. Once it’s posted in the Federal Register, the EPA will accept written comments from the public for 60 days. The agency is then required to consider the comments and update the rules based on feedback before finalizing them. Along the way, it may face legal challenges from advocates or industry groups.

In May, Adam Ortiz, the EPA administrator for the mid-Atlantic region, which includes Pennsylvania, traveled to Clairton to listen to residents’ concerns about pollution from steel production. Ansari said that after reviewing the details of the agency’s newly proposed standards, he believes that little will come of Ortiz’s visit. 

“I’m continuously disappointed and lose my faith in our regulators the more I do this work,” he said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The EPA is cracking down on steel mill pollution. In Gary, Indiana, it might not be enough. on Jul 21, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Lylla Younes.

While the city of Jenin, and the camp in particular, have been the subject of countless Israeli army raids over the past year targeting Palestinian resistance groups, the events of the past few weeks have witnessed a clear change in Israel’s military strategy in the city.

On June 19, Israeli forces deployed helicopters during a deadly raid on the camp and fired rockets towards a building in the refugee camp, marking the first use of helicopters in Jenin in more than 20 years. Just two days later, on the 21st of June, three Palestinian fighters were assassinated in a targeted airstrike on their vehicle outside Jenin. At the time, the use of helicopters and drone strikes caused alarm among Palestinians in Jenin, who feared it could mark a return to Israel’s military tactics of the Second Intifada, and the 2002 Battle of Jenin, when more than 50 Palestinians were killed inside the camp.

Just over two weeks later, on Monday July 3, the camp’s fears were realized. Over the course of the two-day invasion, Israel deployed everything from helicopters, drones, bulldozers, and thousands of ground troops. Residents also reported electricity and water outages.

Though Israeli military officials have tried to downplay the scale of the operation, the most recent raid marked a clear departure in Israel’s military strategy when it comes to raiding West Bank cities like Jenin, which usually features raids that last a few hours and are conducted by special forces on the ground. Many Palestinians and political analysts likened the events of the past few days to the way Israel operates in Gaza – a total siege, the constant humming of drones, and using airstrikes as its primary mode of destruction and killing.

And though the raid ended with both sides claiming victory, Israel has made it clear that this is not the end of its operations in Jenin, with Israeli media saying the next raid could happen in as little as just a few days.

So, is Israel moving towards a Gaza-type model in Jenin? And what will future raids look like in the city?

‘Mowing the lawn’

You’ve likely heard the term “mowing the lawn” or “mowing the grass,” most commonly associated with Israel’s military strategy in the Gaza Strip. The idea is that every few years, or months, Israel “weeds out” the growing capabilities of Palestinian militant groups in the strip. When military capabilities of groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are viewed as becoming too strong, or in many cases Israel needs to score a political win, it goes into Gaza, drops some bombs, and “mows the lawn.”

Amjad Iraqi, a member of the Palestinian think tank Al-Shabaka and senior editor at +972 magazine, says that this is the same policy Israel seems to be employing in Jenin.

“Israel doesn’t really have a full solution of what to do with Palestinian resistance. The only thing it can rely on is this doctrine of what it describes as ‘mowing the lawn’ or ‘mowing the grass’,” Iraqi told Mondoweiss on the second day of the army’s operation in Jenin.

“It’s this idea of just trying to constantly undercut or put a lid on Palestine militant groups when they get exceptionally active, as we’ve been seeing in the past few months especially,” he continued. “And that’s like you’re ‘cutting the grass’, just to keep stopping it from getting too long. And this is the only real strategy that they currently have in these West Bank cities.”

The post Israel might try to make Jenin the new Gaza appeared first on Al-Shabaka.

This content originally appeared on Al-Shabaka and was authored by Amjad Iraqi.

While the city of Jenin, and the camp in particular, have been the subject of countless Israeli army raids over the past year targeting Palestinian resistance groups, the events of the past few weeks have witnessed a clear change in Israel’s military strategy in the city.

On June 19, Israeli forces deployed helicopters during a deadly raid on the camp and fired rockets towards a building in the refugee camp, marking the first use of helicopters in Jenin in more than 20 years. Just two days later, on the 21st of June, three Palestinian fighters were assassinated in a targeted airstrike on their vehicle outside Jenin. At the time, the use of helicopters and drone strikes caused alarm among Palestinians in Jenin, who feared it could mark a return to Israel’s military tactics of the Second Intifada, and the 2002 Battle of Jenin, when more than 50 Palestinians were killed inside the camp.

Just over two weeks later, on Monday July 3, the camp’s fears were realized. Over the course of the two-day invasion, Israel deployed everything from helicopters, drones, bulldozers, and thousands of ground troops. Residents also reported electricity and water outages.

Though Israeli military officials have tried to downplay the scale of the operation, the most recent raid marked a clear departure in Israel’s military strategy when it comes to raiding West Bank cities like Jenin, which usually features raids that last a few hours and are conducted by special forces on the ground. Many Palestinians and political analysts likened the events of the past few days to the way Israel operates in Gaza – a total siege, the constant humming of drones, and using airstrikes as its primary mode of destruction and killing.

And though the raid ended with both sides claiming victory, Israel has made it clear that this is not the end of its operations in Jenin, with Israeli media saying the next raid could happen in as little as just a few days.

So, is Israel moving towards a Gaza-type model in Jenin? And what will future raids look like in the city?

‘Mowing the lawn’

You’ve likely heard the term “mowing the lawn” or “mowing the grass,” most commonly associated with Israel’s military strategy in the Gaza Strip. The idea is that every few years, or months, Israel “weeds out” the growing capabilities of Palestinian militant groups in the strip. When military capabilities of groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are viewed as becoming too strong, or in many cases Israel needs to score a political win, it goes into Gaza, drops some bombs, and “mows the lawn.”

Amjad Iraqi, a member of the Palestinian think tank Al-Shabaka and senior editor at +972 magazine, says that this is the same policy Israel seems to be employing in Jenin.

“Israel doesn’t really have a full solution of what to do with Palestinian resistance. The only thing it can rely on is this doctrine of what it describes as ‘mowing the lawn’ or ‘mowing the grass’,” Iraqi told Mondoweiss on the second day of the army’s operation in Jenin.

“It’s this idea of just trying to constantly undercut or put a lid on Palestine militant groups when they get exceptionally active, as we’ve been seeing in the past few months especially,” he continued. “And that’s like you’re ‘cutting the grass’, just to keep stopping it from getting too long. And this is the only real strategy that they currently have in these West Bank cities.”

The post Israel might try to make Jenin the new Gaza appeared first on Al-Shabaka.

This content originally appeared on Al-Shabaka and was authored by Amjad Iraqi.

After years of pilot projects, utilities and battery companies now have networks with thousands of participants in California, Utah, and Vermont, among others.

The batteries in virtual power plants add megawatts of capacity to the grid when electricity demand is at its highest. And most of the electricity from the batteries is generated by rooftop solar.

This combination of renewable energy and groups of batteries is “a recipe for the grid of the future,” said Blake Richetta, CEO of U.S. operations for the battery maker sonnen.

Yes, sonnen has a lowercase “s,” the kind of frustrating—at least for copy editors—branding that seems appropriate for virtual power plants, a concept whose name does little to explain what it is.

So what is it? A virtual power plant is like a swarm of bees or the Power Rangers’ Megazord or any other group of parts that join forces to do big things, which in this case means stabilizing the grid.

I’ve been following sonnen for a while and in 2019 had a tour of its global headquarters in Wildpoldsried, a village in Germany. The resulting story had a lot about Wildpoldsried and made only a brief mention of sonnen. But the company made an impression on me because of its entrepreneurial nature and its vision of how batteries can reduce the need for conventional power plants.

Since its founding in 2010, the company has been a leader in emphasizing how batteries can serve a larger function than just backup power, and it has developed software to manage groups of batteries. The company is among the market leaders in home-based energy storage in Europe but is a smaller player in the United States. Its rivals include Tesla and LG Chem.

Last week, I spoke with Richetta to get his view of a moment in which sonnen is part of several major initiatives that are helping to popularize virtual power plants.

The purpose of a home-based battery shouldn’t be to just “sit there all year until there’s a power outage,” Richetta said. Instead, that battery can be a building block for serving the entire grid.

Here are some specifics on how this idea translates into action:

Rocky Mountain Power, the utility serving parts of Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, is working with sonnen on a virtual power plant in which the utility provides a rebate to encourage customers to participate.

So far, about 3,500 customers have signed up. They have purchased a sonnen battery system, which starts at about $10,000, and received rebates that start at $1,920.

Then, at times when electricity demand is highest, the utility has the ability to draw electricity from the batteries to support the grid. Customers receive credits on their bills for the electricity they contribute.

The Rocky Mountain Power program is one of many virtual power plants across the country. Some other projects, all from the last two years:

• In California, the utility Pacific Gas & Electric is working with Sunrun, a solar and battery storage company, to enroll 7,500 customers to be part of a virtual power plant with capacity of up to 30 megawatts.
• Also, in California, sonnen is working on a virtual power plant with Baker Electric Home Energy, aiming to sign up 5,000 households by the end of 2025.
• In Vermont, the utility Green Mountain Power has a virtual power plant with more than 4,000 batteries in customers’ homes and businesses, and is in the process of expanding the program.
• The utility Hawaiian Electric is working with the energy company Swell Electric on an 80-megawatt virtual power plant that will serve customers on three Hawaiian islands.

Richetta started at sonnen in 2016 following some time at Tesla, where he was sales manager for the Powerwall battery storage system.

He was part of sonnen’s management in 2019, when the company agreed to be purchased by Shell, the London-based oil giant.

Environmental advocates have warned the public to be skeptical when oil companies tout their clean energy investments. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group summed up this view in 2022, when he said, in response to evidence at a Congressional hearing, that “Big Oil has zero intention of divesting from fossil fuels” and is instead “engaging in greenwashing tactics.”

I asked Richetta about this criticism. He said the sale to Shell has been good for sonnen, giving the company the resources to expand much more than it could have on its own.

“By next year, we will have grown approximately five times since we were acquired,” Richetta said. “Shell absolutely, positively is not greenwashing.”

Much of sonnen’s expansion has been in the United States, where the company has about 140 employees and a manufacturing plant and headquarters in Stone Mountain, Georgia, part of a global head count of about 1,500.

We are in the early stages of realizing the potential of virtual power plants. Clean energy researchers speak of a future in which batteries are just one of several resources that can be turned into networks, with nationwide capacity that would be in the tens of gigawatts.

RMI, the research and advocacy group, sketched out what this might look like in a report this year showing the potential for 61.9 gigawatts of capacity in the United States in 2030.

Batteries would have a small share, 9.9 gigawatts. Electric vehicles would have 17.3 gigawatts, most of which would be from reducing the use of EV charging during times of high electricity demand. The bulk of the capacity would be in buildings, including 19.8 gigawatts in homes and 14.9 gigawatts in businesses, most of which would come from using networks to reduce electricity demand by adjusting thermostats, among other measures.

Mark Dyson, a managing director at RMI, told me that he and the other co-authors of the report were deliberately broad in defining what a virtual power plant can be, including resources that can send electricity to the grid and those that can reduce demand. The common element is that all of the resources are located at homes and businesses and have the ability to work in tandem to make the grid more reliable.

“Virtual power plants can help us keep the lights on and keep electricity affordable, using devices we’ve already bought and paid for, without building new power plants,” he said.

Even if you don’t define it so broadly and focus just on batteries, 9.9 gigawatts, or 9,900 megawatts, is huge, like a dozen natural gas power plants. I don’t have a good number on how that compares to current virtual power plant capacity, which is likely less than 1 gigawatt.

If virtual power plants come anywhere close to that kind of growth, sonnen is among the companies that stand to benefit the most.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Virtual power plants are coming to save the grid, sooner than you might think on Jul 1, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Dan Gearino, Inside Climate News.

The post Two Ways That the Ukraine War Could Have Been Prevented (and Might Be Ended) appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Lawrence Wittner.

Sometimes people come as early as 4 a.m., hoping to be first in line for the precious supply of fresh fruit and vegetables.

As people arrive they cross the runway by car, motorbike or on foot. By opening time, an orderly queue has materialized. People sit on chairs or stand while they wait their turn.

Numbers are called and small groups eagerly converge on benches stacked with brightly colored crates. People haul out papaya, leafy greens and ample-sized cucumbers.

“It’s very hard to get fresh vegetables and fruit. This is the only place where we can get the fresh ones,” said grandmother Seleta Kapua Taupo as she waited her turn. “Most of the cabbages when they come [from overseas], most of the carrots, they are already in a stage of getting rotten and we don’t want to have that.”

People are grateful for the vegetables, grown in rows and rows of boxes raised off the porous atoll ground, but some also say it’s never enough. Because Tuvalu is so small – its islands spread over a vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean comprise only 26 square kilometers (10 square miles) – there’s no space for the garden to expand despite its important role in countering an unbalanced diet.

Taiwan’s aid agency, which established the garden as a demonstration project last decade, estimates it now provides most of the fruit and vegetables consumed on Funafuti – Tuvalu’s principle coral atoll made up of islets of barely arable land and reefs encircling the sapphire waters of a lagoon. 

The constraints on the garden show the tradeoffs that low-lying micronations in the Pacific such as Tuvalu grapple with and which will only get more intractable as scarce land is lost to sea-level rise. Without building up and extending land that averages an arm’s length above the high-tide, half of Funafuti will be inundated by tidal waters by 2050 and 95% by the end of this century, based on one-meter of sea-level rise projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Aside from locally caught fish and shellfish, much of Tuvalu’s food is imported, expensive and low in nutrition.

Restaurant staples here are large plates overflowing with white rice and fried meat. Cans of Fanta and Coke cost less than bottled water.

“Before we had this market, most of us didn’t know how to use these vegetables,” Taupo said. 

“Before, my grandchildren didn’t like vegetables in their food. But I cut them very small and put them in the soup, so they have no choice,” she said, chuckling. “So now they are used to it and they start to love even the salad. Now they love the salad.” 

Funafuti at its widest is about 400 meters (1,312 feet), a parcel of land that packs together the airport runway, government buildings and infrastructure and homes. Between the two to three international flights a week, the runway is a lively town square where people flock to socialize or play football and volleyball in the evenings. 

At one of the atoll’s narrowest slivers, mere meters, the view takes in ocean waves crashing on one side of the road while lagoon waters lap placidly on the other.

“You don’t want to think about it, that it’s going to disappear,” said Suzanne Kofe, who has repurposed an old shipping container into Sue’s Cafe, serving burgers to locals and the weekly influx of U.N. and other advisers that make up most of Tuvalu’s foreign visitors.

“That’s what scientists say, that it will disappear,” she said. “But I believe it’s not in my lifetime.”

Tuvalu has become emblematic of the plight faced by low-lying islands from projected sea level rise over the coming century.

Its coral atolls, a two-and-a-half hour flight north of Fiji, are home to only 12,000 people, and most people couldn’t locate them on a world map. Yet with clever public relations, fronted by its Foreign Minister Simon Kofe, Tuvalu has called attention to its situation and helped galvanize calls for faster action to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

In October 2021, a video of Kofe standing knee-deep in the ocean while delivering Tuvalu’s message to the annual U.N. climate change conference went viral online and was reported by news organizations worldwide. 

The following year, Kofe was superimposed into a three-dimensional digital replica of Te Afualiku, an uninhabited filament of palms and pulverized coral that he predicted would be one of the first Tuvaluan islets to disappear. 

He gravely intoned that Tuvalu would upload a digital copy of itself to the metaverse, a purported virtual world accessed through bulky VR goggles, so there would be a record of Tuvaluan culture if its islands become submerged by rising seas.

Months after the idea of a virtual-reality Tuvalu briefly held the world’s attention, it remains more a macabre stunt than reality.

“We’ve been advocating for decades now on the international stage and this is probably the most effective we’ve been,” said Kofe, “in getting the world’s attention on issues of climate change.”

The tech industry’s brief but expensive infatuation with the still largely hypothetical metaverse – hyped up in 2021 by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg as the future of the internet – is now ridiculed by technology commentators.

Facebook-owner Meta, which invested billions of dollars in its own video-game-like version of the metaverse only for it to flop, has laid off thousands of employees. It says it is now investing more in artificial intelligence. 

“The metaverse as Zuckerberg has defined it has been abandoned not just by originally supportive companies, like Disney, Microsoft and Tencent, but even by Meta itself,” said Jordan Guiao, a research fellow at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Responsible Technology.

“There may be more practical and specific applications being trialed,” he said, “but the grandiose and much overhyped visions that we saw over the last 18 months have not come to fruition.”

Societies need to develop policy and initiatives grounded in reality, “as opposed to imagined reality, to solve our problems,” Guiao said.

Business services company Accenture, which rendered Te Afualiku digitally after proposing the idea to Tuvalu, said it’s currently not viewable in the metaverse. 

Even if it were, it would be near impossible to experience it in Tuvalu due to limited Internet bandwidth. 

Despite the attention it has garnered, a virtual Tuvalu is only a small part of the strategy to ensure the country remains recognized as a sovereign state in the “worst-case scenario” of being swallowed by the Pacific Ocean, according to Kofe.

He insists that digital Tuvalu will become a reality and points to Singapore, which uses an immersive digital twin of the city-state for urban and environmental planning. 

“We’re at the early stages of it but a time will come and people will be able to have the access to it,” Kofe said. 

“The challenge that many of the tech companies have now is to find a user case for that sort of platform,” he said. 

“There has been a lot of interest in what Tuvalu is doing because they [tech companies] see the value of it, there’s a sense of purpose in developing something that could actually help save and preserve a culture.” 

Reclaiming an island

Just a two-minute stroll from Kofe’s modest office in the low-rise government building, backhoes and trucks maneuver around giant earth-filled sacks as azure waters wash against an expanding palisade of sand dredged from the lagoon.

An Australian marine engineering company, Hall Pacific, is creating more than seven hectares of new land along a 780-meter (2,560-feet) stretch of lagoon waterfront.

At roughly 4% of the existing area of Funafuti’s largest island, it’s a significant addition to the atoll that would also bolster the ability to withstand king tides and tropical cyclones.

The cost, including coastal protection works for two outer islands Nanumaga and Nanumea to stop them being swamped by storm waves, is about U.S. $30 million.

The project has been several years in the making and is only the first steps in a much larger vision.

“A solution for us,” Kofe said, “is to reclaim land, build sea walls and even raise our islands in some parts – that’s a solution that we see that’s viable for the people of Tuvalu and to save our people.”

Unveiled in November by Tuvalu’s government and the U.N. Development Programme, the decades-long plan to survive higher sea levels envisages more than doubling the size of Tuvalu’s most populated island and linking it to two smaller islets by reclaiming 3.6 square kilometers (1.4 square miles) from the lagoon.

“All involved hope that work will begin very soon and that it will become reality before sea-level rise critically endangers people and property,” said UNDP coastal adaptation expert Arthur Webb.

He said up to U.S. $7 million was needed now for design and engineering studies. He declined to say how much the proposed reclamation works could cost in total.

“There is no conventional adaptation fund or facility that Tuvalu can apply to for assistance on this scale, at this time,” Webb said. “Thus we must now think creatively about how we achieve what needs to be done.”

The plan proposes relocating residents and infrastructure to the reclaimed area and later possibly raising the level of the original island before revegetating it. 

The airport would be moved to a finger of land at one end of the enlarged islet and also serve as a water catchment for the thirsty islands that depend on rainfall for their water. 

Tuvalu’s government and its international advisers now need to secure the support of Tuvaluans and the considerable funding to make the plan a reality. 

“Obviously we will continue to advocate on the international playing field for countries to take stronger climate action,” Kofe said. “But I think we also need to focus our energy on things that are within our control.”

BenarNews is an online news agency affiliated to Radio Free Asia.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Stephen Wright for BenarNews.

On May 15, 2023, Berkshire Hathaway reported in a Form 13F filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it had completed the sale of its $4 billion stake in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). This sale completed a process that began in February 2023, when Berkshire Hathaway announced that it sold 86 percent of its holdings in TSMC. In April, Berkshire Hathaway’s leader Warren Buffett told Nikkei that the geopolitical tension between the United States and China was “certainly a consideration” in his decision to divest from TSMC. TSMC told Nikkei, is a “well-managed company” but that Berkshire Hathaway would find other places for its capital.

At his May 6 morning meeting, Buffett saidthat TSMC “is one of the best-managed companies and important companies in the world, and you’ll be able to say the same thing five, ten or twenty years from now. I don’t like its location and reevaluated that.” By “location,” Buffett meant Taiwan, in the context of the threats made by the United States against China. He decided to wind down his investment in TSMC “in the light of certain things that were going on.” Buffett announced that he would move some of this capital towards the building of a fledgling U.S. domestic semiconductor industry.

TSMC, based in Hsinchu, Taiwan,, is the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturer. In 2022, it accounted for 56 percent of the share of the global market and over 90 percent of advanced chip manufacturing. Warren Buffett’s investment in TSMC was based on the Taiwanese company’s immense grip on the world semiconductor market. In August 2022, U.S. President Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law, which will provide $280 billion to fund semiconductor manufacturing inside the United States. On December 6, 2022, Biden joined TSMC’s Chairman Dr. Mark Liu at the $40 billion expansion of TSMC’s semiconductor factories in North Phoenix, Arizona. Dr. Liu said at the project’s announcement that the second TSMC factory is “a testimony that TSMC is also taking a giant step forward to help build a vibrant semiconductor ecosystem in the United States.”

The first TSMC plant will open in 2024 and the second, which was announced in December, will open in 2026. On February 22, 2023, the New York Times ran a long article (“Inside Taiwanese Chip Giant, a U.S. Expansion Stokes Tensions”), which pointed out—based on interviews with TSMC employees—that “high costs and managerial challenges” show “how difficult it is to transplant one of the most complicated manufacturing processes known to man halfway across the world.”

At the December 6 announcement, Biden said, “American manufacturing is back,” but it is only back at a much higher cost (the plant’s construction cost is ten times more than it would have cost in Taiwan). “The most difficult thing about wafer manufacturing is not technology,” Wayne Chiu—an engineer who left TSMC in 2022—told the New York Times. “The most difficult thing is personnel management. Americans are the worst at this because Americans are the most difficult to manage.”

Blow up Taiwan

U.S. Ambassador Robert O’Brien, the former National Security Advisor of Donald Trump, told Steve Clemons, an editor at Semafor, at the Global Security Forum in Doha, Qatar, on March 13, 2023, “The United States and its allies are never going to let those [semiconductor] factories fall into Chinese hands.” China, O’Brien said, could build “the new OPEC of silicon chips” and thereby, “control the world economy.” The United States will prevent this possibility, he said, even if it means a military strike. On May 2, 2023, at a Milken Institute event, U.S. Congressman Seth Moulton saidthat if Chinese forces move into Taiwan, “we will blow up TSMC. … Of course, the Taiwanese really don’t like this idea.”

These outlandish statements by O’Brien and Moulton have a basis in a widely circulated paper from the U.S. Army War College, published in November 2021, by Jared M. McKinney and Peter Harris (“Broken Nest: Deterring China from Invading Taiwan”). “The United States and Taiwan should lay plans for a targeted scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan not just unattractive if ever seized by force, but positively costly to maintain. This could be done effectively by threatening to destroy facilities belonging to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company,” they write.

Right after Moulton made these incendiary remarks, former U.S. defense undersecretary Michèle Flournoy said that it was a “terrible idea” and that such an attack would have a “$2 trillion impact on the global economy within the first year and you put manufacturing around the world at a standstill.”

Taiwan’s officials responded swiftly to Moulton, with minister of defense Chiu Kuo-cheng asking, “How can our national army tolerate this situation if he says he wants to bomb this or that?” While Chiu responded to Moulton’s statement about a military strike on TSMC, in fact, the U.S. government has already attacked the ability of this Taiwanese company to remain in Taiwan.

Taiwan’s economics vice minister Lin Chuan-neng said in response to these threats and Buffett’s sale of TSMC that his government “will do its utmost to let the world know that Taiwan is stable and safe.” These incendiary remarks aimed at China now threaten the collapse of Taiwan’s economy.

Made in Japan

In his May 6 meeting, Warren Buffett said something that gives a clue about where the semiconductor manufacturing might be diverted. “I feel better about the capital that we’ve got deployed in Japan than Taiwan,” he said. In 1988, 51 percent of the world’s semiconductors were made in Japan, but as of 2022, the number is merely 9 percent. In June 2022, Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) announced it would put in 40 percent of a planned $8.6 billion for a semiconductor manufacturing plant by TSMC in Kumamoto. METI said in November that it has selected the Rapidus Corporation—which includes a stake by NTT, SoftBank, Sony, and Toyota—to manufacture next-generation 2-nanometer chips. It is likely that Berkshire Hathaway will invest in this new business.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Vijay Prashad.

The post How Many Rappers Must Die So That Ari Melber Might Look Dope appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ishmael Reed.

The clock is ticking as the top package courier in the world, which has seen two straight years of record-breaking profits, considers whether it will hold much of the country’s logistics infrastructure hostage by refusing workers’ demands: raising the poverty pay of part-time warehouse workers, re-establishing “equal pay for equal work” among delivery drivers, and introducing extreme heat–related and other safety protections, among others.

National negotiations between UPS and the Teamsters union, which represents the workers, begin on April 17. At that point, we can expect to see media coverage start to trickle in, and eventually reach a fever pitch, should bargaining break down and the Teamsters call a strike—something union leadership has explicitly said they’re willing to do.

Corporate media will have an outsized hand in shaping the narrative of this unprecedented moment, which presents the broader labor movement a catalyst for revival. So, four months out from the end of the bargaining agreement and a potential strike, it’s worth asking: What should we expect from establishment reporting? What have we seen in the past, and what have we seen so far this time?

‘Strike averted’

One needn’t look far into history to find corporate media covering strikes, well… corporately. 

Biden picked sides in the rail strike—and so did corporate media like USA Today (12/2/22).

Just last year, 115,000 railroad workers twice inched towards a strike, only for President Joe Biden and Congress to legislatively force a less-than-satisfactory labor contract on them, with media quick to relay their pro-corporate sympathies. 

Outlets declared that the Senate “averted” (PBS, 12/1/22), “prevented” (USA Today, 12/2/22), or “headed off” a freight rail strike that was “looming” and would have been “crippling” (Fortune, 12/1/22). Such word choices depicted the potential work stoppage as a national catastrophe, threatened by greedy workers and courageously warded off by neutral arbiters. 

But the “crisis averted” narrative obscures the class dynamics of strikes, and that in the case of the rail strike, Biden and Congress preemptively broke one on behalf of multi-billion-dollar corporations, and in violation of the workers’ right to withhold their labor.

‘An economic catastrophe’

In the run-up to the rail strike deadlines, news outlets sensationalized the potential economic damage that would be caused by a work stoppage. 

Look no further than the clips, edited together by the Recount‘s Steve Morris, of CNN pundits and reporters warning audiences of an “expensive” “disruption” that would devastate our economy—only weeks before the holidays, no less! Meanwhile, every media outlet under the sun bleated ad nauseam the Association of American Railroads–generated fact that a strike would “cost $2 billion a day” (Fortune, 11/22/22; Newsweek, 11/21/22; CNBC, 9/8/22; AP, 9/8/22; Barron’s, 9/14/22).  

It’s telling that no such vapors were stoked by railroad companies threatening limited service stoppages of their own–that is, illegal lockouts during negotiations. 

We should expect a similar shadow to be cast on a strike at UPS, a company that transports about 6% of the country’s GDP, and unsurprisingly, may be the railroad companies’ largest customer. Already, we’re seeing forecasts of economic doom: Business Insider (2/1/23) warns that “a driver strike threatens to upend millions of deliveries,” Fortune (9/6/22) decries that the strike “could hurt virtually every American,” and Bloomberg (1/30/23) emphasizes that “the stakes are high for [UPS CEO Carol] Tomé and the US.”

Fortune‘s headline (9/6/22) makes clear who it thinks the bad guys are.

With few exceptions in the case of both UPS (Guardian, 9/5/22;  New Yorker, 1/9/23; Jacobin, 2/21/23) and the railroads (Real News Network, 9/14/22; Lever, 11/29/22; Washington Post, 9/17/22), media overshadow the stakes for the workers—who, among other sacrifices, forgo much of their paychecks to hit the picket line—with hysterics about their disruption to the flow of capital. 

In this framing, workers are holding hostage “the economy,” a nebulous phrase that serves only to identify the reader with corporations. Those businesses, stand-ins for everyday Americans, become helpless protagonists fighting selfish employees. In articles so patently anti-worker they could’ve been written by a McKinsey consultant, Fortune (9/6/22) and the Daily Mail (9/6/22) reported that a UPS strike could be on the horizon, “even though delivery drivers already earn upwards of $95,000 a year.” Secondary or absent in these pieces is the fact that the majority of the UPS workforce are not drivers, and many earn as little as $15.50 an hour in some locations.

While drivers’ top salaries and UPS’s spending “$270 million on safety for its workers” (Fortune, 9/6/22) made the cut, neither outlet found it relevant to mention that the corporation’s revenues surpassed $100 billion last year, and CEO Tomé took home $19 million in compensation. 

Taking the side of capital

With this context, a readership might understand that indeed it is the corporations that are holding consumers and workers hostage during a strike; it is the corporations demonstrating their greed when they refuse, in the case of the rail companies, to give their workers even a single paid sick day. UPS, meanwhile, denies adequate protection from life-threatening heat in the warehouse or delivery truck.

In taking the side of capital, corporate media minimize the reality that the threat of a strike is the principal leverage workers have over their employers; that the gains strikes yield are not limited to one or a few shops, but have the potential to advance the working class as a whole, should they help raise standards across industries and inspire further labor activity; and that giving workers a raise even if they already make good money could be beneficial for all of us.

Readers should see over 340,000 UPS workers on strike—in every zip code in the country—not as a liability, but as a shot of adrenaline for labor militancy.When UPS workers struck the company in 1997, that gave the labor movement a potential catalyst for resurgence–and, therefore, the betterment of working-class lives and livelihoods. 

And indeed, it is in 1997 where we may find a glimmer of hope for corporate media’s coverage of a strike.

Winning hearts and minds

Almost 26 years ago, the strike threat by the Teamsters was not considered credible by UPS management, nor by the media. But in an era of globalization and broad-based attack on pay and working conditions, UPS workers were fed up—and highly organized by their militant union. 

Jacobin (8/4/17)

On August 4, 1997, 185,000 hit the picket line for 15 days. At first, corporate media brushed off the workers, focusing more on the 80% of UPS shipments coming to a halt, and the $40 million daily cost to the company. But as Deepa Kumar tracked in her book, Outside the Box: Corporate Media, Globalization and the UPS Strike, the 1997 UPS strike demonstrated that anti-worker labor coverage is not a given. 

By the second week of the strike, some mainstream outlets demonstrated a temporary tone-shift:

Some sections of the corporate media, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the ABC television network, began to acknowledge inequality and to discuss the problems of the US working class.

Then, when the Teamsters won nearly all their demands, with massive public support, media were forced to answer: 

What could explain the new prolabor mood in American society and the concomitant failure of antiunion propaganda? In trying to address these questions, the corporate media had to admit, however grudgingly, that a rising tide had not lifted all boats; that is, the working classes had not shared in the promised fruit of globalization.

Coverage of a UPS strike in August may be susceptible to the same forces that brought corporate media to heel in 1997—that is, UPSers’ successful campaign to win the hearts and minds of both their customers and the wider public, and to lift the veil on “Big Brown.” 

Today, unions are more popular than they have been in nearly six decades. UPS delivery drivers are in ever more contact with an ecommerce-addicted public. And fueled by the return of the “labor beat” in many newsrooms—which are undergoing a unionization wave themselves—the adversities of logistics workers at multi-billion-dollar corporations like Amazon and UPS are now more popularly known.

Without much questioning—and with, often, active support—from corporate media, economic inequality has only deepened since 1997. Workers across industries are beginning to understand that they can do something about it. And that means taking control of their own stories. 

The post UPS Workers Might Revitalize Labor—if Corporate Media Skip the Script appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Teddy Ostrow.

The post A South Korean Aircraft Carrier Won’t Scare North Korea, But Sadly Nukes Might appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Roger Thompson.

Probably by 2027, if you believe Adm. Philip Davidson, the now-retired head of the U.S. military’s Indo-Pacific Command.

“The threat is manifest during this decade – in fact, in the next six years,” Davidson told a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March 2021, before he retired from the role.

“I cannot for the life of me understand some of the capabilities that they’re putting in the field, unless ... it is an aggressive posture,” he added, noting Taiwan was key to Beijing’s plans to “supplant the United States and our leadership role” in the world order.

Davidson reiterated his 2027 guess last week, noting Chinese President Xi Jinping could by then be seeking a fourth term in office, and could put the country on war-footing as he seeks legitimacy.

But it could be even sooner – like in 2025, according to U.S. Air Force Gen. Mike Minihan, who caused a stir last week with a memo directing his 50,000 subordinates to “aim for the head” in the war.

“I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me we will fight in 2025,” wrote Minihan, who heads the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command and is responsible for transport and refueling operations.

“Taiwan’s presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a reason. United States presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi a distracted America,” he said in the leaked memo. “Xi’s team, reason, and opportunity are all aligned for 2025.”

The Pentagon distanced itself from Minihan’s comments. But not everyone disagreed: Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chairman of the House foreign relations committee, said he only hoped Minihan was wrong. “I think he’s right, though, unfortunately,” he said.

Even 2025 might be too optimistic, though, if you ask Adm. Mike Gilday, the chief of U.S. naval operations, who reckons even later this year cannot be ruled out, given “how the Chinese behave.”

“What we’ve seen over the past 20 years is that they have delivered on every promise they’ve made earlier than they said they were going to deliver on it,” Gilday said at an Atlantic Council event Oct. 5. “When we talk about the 2027 window, in my mind, that has to be a 2022 window or potentially a 2023 window; I can’t rule it out.”

2023, 2025 or 2027 

So why are there so many different estimates?

Jeffrey Meiser, professor of political science at the University of Portland and former associate professor at the National Defense University in Washington, said military leaders had a clear incentive to predict things “that will increase the readiness of U.S. forces.”

“Saying you think it is going to happen in a specific year adds credence to the prediction and gets people’s attention much more than saying it will happen in the next five or ten years,” Meiser said, adding there was a perverse incentive when prognosticating.

“Bad predictions are so common that they are forgotten quickly,” he explained. “Good predictions are less common and if you get something big correct, like war with China, then that will likely get a lot of attention, and in the context of generals making these predictions they may go down as prescient, having special insight, and maybe even be credited with saving the republic.”

But Meiser said it was all, in the end, mostly performative. 

“Nobody knows when or if China will invade Taiwan,” he said.

Still, Xi has never minced words when it comes to Taiwan.

At the 20th Communist Party National Congress in October, shortly before he was appointed to a norm-bending third term as president, Xi vowed that Beijing would “never promise to renounce the use of force” to take over Taiwan and return it to mainland control.

“Resolving the Taiwan question is a matter for the Chinese, a matter that must be resolved by the Chinese,” Xi said. “We will continue to strive for peaceful reunification with the greatest sincerity and the utmost effort, but we will never promise to renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all measures necessary.”

Military restraint

The threat is being taken seriously by the Department of Defense, which outlined four scenarios for an invasion in its China Military Power Report late last year, without offering any timeline.

A separate report from the independent Center for Strategic and International Studies based on a wargame it ran concluded that any Chinese invasion of the democratic island would likely fail and cause extensive economic damage to all those involved.

But Xi’s rhetoric has not gone unnoticed by American officials, even outside the military. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken last year said Beijing was seeking to take Taiwan “on a much faster timeline” and could use “forceful means to achieve its objectives.” 

“Instead of sticking with the status quo that was established in a positive way,” Blinken said, “a fundamental decision [was made] that the status quo was no longer acceptable and that Beijing was determined to pursue reunification on a much faster timeline.”

In fact, one of the few officials with some pause is the top U.S. general himself: Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who says he didn’t see an invasion as imminent given the lessons of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine invasion.

“He’s a rational actor,” he said of Xi in November. “It would be a political mistake, a geopolitical mistake, a strategic mistake similar to the strategic mistake that Putin has made in Ukraine.”

Milley explained that the U.S. military was watching the Chinese military’s build-up of capabilities “very, very closely” and that Beijing would likely be aware that it was far from ready to take Taiwan. 

“Most of Taiwan is a mountainous island,” he said. “It's a very, very difficult military objective [to invade] – a very difficult military operation to execute, and I think it'll be some time before the Chinese have the military capability and they're ready to do it.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, too, has made clear he does not believe Beijing has immediate plans to launch an invasion.

“I’ve met many times with Xi Jinping, and we were candid and clear with one another across the board,” Austin said during the G-20 leaders’ meeting in Bali, Indonesia on Nov. 14. “I do not think there’s any imminent attempt on the part of China to invade Taiwan.”

Incalculable but inevitable?

But experts around the world agree Xi’s eyes are on Taiwan.

The Mandarin-speaking former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who is due to take up duties as ambassador in Washington next month, in a recent speech dismissed the idea that Xi had “shelved” long-term plans to take control of Taiwan.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Rudd said.

“China still remains on track to enhance its military preparedness, as well as its financial, economic and technological preparedness, to take action against Taiwan from sometime in the late 2020s or in the 2030s – when Xi, of course, still aims to be in power,” he said.

But while that day may come, the different estimates for the date of the invasion from U.S. military leaders, in the meantime, are not helping with readiness, said Jude Blanchette, the Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS, during a call with reporters on Monday.

“What we're effectively signaling is we have no idea – and I'm not sure we understand how damaging that is,” Blanchette said.

“Having this menu option of various years, depending on the official you’re talking to,” he added, “comes across as undermining the credibility of our statements in our assessments.”

“We're basically the boy who cried wolf.”

Whatever the case, one thing is clear: A Chinese invasion of the self-governing island would clash with U.S. commitments under the  1979 Taiwan Relations Act to “resist any resort to force” that jeopardizes Taiwan’s security. That commitment, U.S. State Department spokesperson Ned Price has said, is “rock solid.”

When – or if – that happens, though, is anyone’s guess.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Alex Willemyns for RFA.

The post Nuclear Fusion Won’t Save the Climate, But It Might Blow Up the World appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Joshua Frank.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Deconstructed.

The post Why This Country Might Want to Lower Its Expectations appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Rebecca Gordon.

A few days ago I spoke to some of the striking academic workers at the University of California. (You can view my remarks at their rally, below.)

These second-class workers reflect the same second-class system America has created throughout our labor market.

A total of 48,000 are on strike, making this the largest and most important strike in the history of American higher education. As labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein says, it could not only raise the incomes and the status of those who work in an "industry" that now employs more workers than the federal government, but also transform higher education itself.

You wouldn't know this from what you're reading in the mainstream press. The New York Times reports that academic workers "walked off the job…forcing some classes to be canceled…classes were disrupted, research slowed and office hours canceled … only a few weeks away from final examinations."

Whenever you read that striking workers are causing harmful disruptions, note the implied bias, and consider that the status quo before the strike might have been even more harmful and disruptive to a large number of people.

One spur for this strike has been the extraordinary rise in housing costs and rents in California. Some of the academic workers at the University of California are paid so little that they've been living in their cars. Inflation has further eroded their paltry salaries.

Why should employees of the best public university in America, in the nation's richest state, in the wealthiest country in the world, live in poverty?

Last Friday, the University and the union representing tens of thousands of its striking academic workers agreed to ask an independent mediator to intervene.

Across American higher education, a large and growing portion of the responsibility for teaching and research has been borne by lecturers, adjuncts, graduate students, and post-doctoral students who are paid very little and have no job security. They are hired part-time, or are on year-to-year contracts, or are free-lancers who offer their expertise when needed.

These second-class workers reflect the same second-class system America has created throughout our labor market, and for the same reason: Employers want to pay as little as possible, and have maximum flexibility.

UC administrators plead budget constraints. Yet California is an immensely wealthy state with a budget surplus of almost $100 billion this year. Over the last several decades, however, state funding for UC, as well as the even larger state university system, has steadily declined. Today just over 10 percent of UC's budget comes from the state (down from more than half when in 1963 UC president Clark Kerr created the UC system). UC remains the jewel in the crown of American higher education, but excellence can't be sustained on the cheap.

So you might think (or hope) that California's progressive governor Gavin Newsom would take a lead in the strike on the side of workers, but he's been mum. Ditto the progressive California legislature.

The UC strike is not just an effort to raise thousands of academic workers out of near poverty. It's a movement whose success requires a reversal of the austerity that has subverted public higher education across America.

Here's a clip from my talk to the striking student workers:

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Robert Reich.

Photo by Kadir Celep

Trump is a symptom and not a cause…This is a problem that goes well beyond one person.

— Ian Bassin

Yes, Donald Trump’s chances of being the Republicans’ 2024 presidential candidate have taken a hit. On top of and related to all his, um, legal problems, there’s the defeats suffered by numerous candidates he backed in the 2022 mid-term elections. Even before that, the open QAnon fan Trump had lost the support of some key far-right billionaires, including no less of an ideological force than FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch. Then came Trump’s post-midterms and pre-Thanksgiving Mar a Lago dinner with the notorious anti-Semite “Ye” (the far-right narcissist formerly known as Kanye West) and Ye’s pal the revolting white supremacist and Holocaust-denier Nick Fuentes.

It was quite a gathering. Ye asked Trump to be his running mate and Trump insulted Ye’s ex-wife, Kim Kardashian, according to a video that Ye posted on Twitter on Thanksgiving Day. In a subsequent and belated “Truth Social” post on this event, the fascist Trump preposterously claimed he didn’t know who the fascist Fuentes was, and that Fuentes was tagging along with the fascist Ye. The orange-hued putschist failed to denounce racism and holocaust denialism in his comments on the Florida feast.

“This is a f—ing nightmare,” said one longtime Trump adviser. “If people are looking at [Ron] DeSantis to run against Trump, here’s another reason why.”

“The Republican Party is Driven by Trump’s Base”

So why am I not joining liberal friends in celebrating the supposed or possible political death of Donald Trump?

Where to start? Despite everything that would seem to trump Trump’s chances of a return, it’s not at all certain that’s he’s done. He retains widespread white support and still nearly ties or beats Joe Biden and crushes Kamala Harris in match-up polls.

Almost anybody who has dared to stand against Trump and his lethal base (see below) has been pushed out of the Republican Party over the last two years.

He’s still the Republican presidential frontrunner for 2024. His demented supporters will wield disproportionate power in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries if he’s still in the race.

It’s not clear that any other Republican candidate can break his feral grip on the party’s rank and file white supremacists. As the former Obama White House counsel Ian Bassin recently told Salon’s Chauncy de Vega:

“Trump cultivated a really revanchist, anti-democratic extremist base that is against democracy unless it puts their side in charge.  And Trump brought this base into coalition with more mainstream Republicans. Mainstream Republican elites thought they could ride the energy around Trump and then sideline him, but they were wrong – just as interwar leaders in Germany and Italy made the same miscalculation.  Now the Republican Party is largely driven by Trump’s base.”

That is why the next US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (Rf-CA) ran down to Mar a Lago to kiss Donald “Take Down the Metal Detectors Cuz the Guys with the AR-15s Don’t Want to Hurt Me” Trump’s ass within weeks of the Capitol Riot. It’s why McCarthy just degraded himself further by playing along with Trump’s ridiculous claim of ignorance about Fuentes’ identity and politics.

Ron DeFascist: “A More Respectable Version of Illiberal Rule”

But, okay, lets step back and imagine for a moment that Trump is in fact finally finished as a viable presidential candidate. It’ll be nice to see him politically terminated and even better to see him incarcerated (how about on the federal Death Row that he re-activated as president?), to be sure, but here’s an unpleasant question to ask in such an event: so what?

Seriously, so what? Trump did not personally create the fascist wave that has taken over one of the two capitalist and viable major political parties in the world’s most powerful and dangerous country since the 1990s.  He captured and expanded that wave, but he did not originate it and it will outlast his political and/or physical demise. The right-wing oligarchs and politicos who have demoted Trump for now (we’ll see if this downgrading survives the coming presidential candidate selection process) are doing so not because they’ve decided to step down from neofascism but because they now view him as an obstacle to far-right authoritarian rule. Along with Democrats who would prefer to run against Trump in the next election, they suspect that the 44-year-old Harvard Law graduate and Florida governor Ron DeSantis represents a better bet than the 78-year-old Mar a Lago deadbeat (and potential future multi-felon) to defeat the fading and unpopular octogenarian Biden (or the politically disastrous Harris) in 2024.

They may be correct. DeSantis is arguably a more dangerous fascist than Trump. DeSantis’s relative youth, his “outside the Beltway” status, his recent electoral success (he cruised to overwhelming re-election in the midterms), his greater marketability to moderates and independents, and his superior, more adult discipline and intellectual grasp of the Amerikan fascist project may make him the bigger menace.

Beneath his more polished and calmer if less charismatic demeanor, he’s also a vicious son of a bitch – a key qualification for fascist rule. DeSantis is a sadistic and authoritarian governor who fired an elected county prosecutor for resisting his war on abortion. He has created his own personal militia and routinely appears with armed police officers flanking him in public.  He mocked children for wearing covid masks. He has pushed through Florida bills forbidding honest discussion of racism and any mention of gay and transgender identity in the public schools along with a bill establishing a ridiculous annual neo-McCarthyite day for teaching about the alleged “crimes of communism.” And DeSantis has cruelly and criminally kidnapped Latin American migrants and dumped them without warning like human garbage in northern “liberal enclaves.”

The excellent fascism scholar and NYU historian Ruth ben-Ghiat recently issued an important warning about this noxious beast:

“DeSantis is No Better Than Trump…If DeSantis is becoming many Republicans’ answer to their ‘Trump problem,’ [this] is because of his authoritarian sympathies and attitudes, not in spite of them. He promises a more ‘respectable’-seeming version of illiberal rule than the baggage-laden outrage specialist that is Trump. No wonder dozens of billionaires backed him even before his November re-election…But let’s be clear: The man whom Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post celebrates as ‘DeFuture’ would, in fact, continue Trump’s relentless attempts to turn back the clock on social progress in America by silencing and disenfranchising tens of millions who don’t fit into Republicans’ white Christian vision for the nation…DeSantis has made Trump’s lines, and lies, his own. From his education bills that ban the teaching of ‘critical race theory’ in public schools to his crusades against commonsense public health protocols like mask mandates, DeSantis has made Trump’s lines, and lies, his own. His preference for ideology over science (his surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Lapado, has spread misinformation about Covid-19 prevention) had tragic consequences for Floridians.”

A Symptom, NOT a Cause: “A Problem That Goes Well Beyond One Person”

Ian Bassin makes a related and essential point, richly consistent with professor ben-Ghiat’s work on neo-fascist “strongmen” around the world today:

“It’s important to recognize that Trump is a symptom and not a cause…we have been experiencing a global recession of democracy. People are attracted to these strongman demagogue figures because they take advantage of people’s grievances and fears. There is also a deep fear of societal change. Trump may go away, but we can already see in the Republican Party people who are trying to copy him. When you recognize that autocrats are deploying this playbook in multiple countries right now, it becomes easier to see Trump as part of a trend. That trend didn’t start with one person, and won’t end when any one politician goes away. It’s playing on a wave of global discontent.  This is a problem that goes well beyond one person. One of the primary ways that demagogic authoritarian leaders thrive is by making people feel that things are hopeless and that the Great Leader can protect them.”

“In This Culture, Electoral Politics and Rule of Law are Incidental”

At the same time, it is equally important to recognize that the menace of the now tragically mainstreamed far right lives beneath and beyond electoral politics and candidate selection dramas. In the United States as elsewhere, fascism is a ferocious and many-sided movement hardly limited to the election cycle. Many among the nation’s millions of repellent Amerikaners love losing and being out of power. Electoral defeat or stalemate doesn’t subdue or restrain them one bit.  To the contrary, it feeds their conspiratorialist sense of white-patriarchal-Christian-nationalist victimization, encouraging them to double down on their “paranoid-style” madness and the embrace of violence to keep their “radical left” (their preposterous understanding of the militantly capitalist-imperialist Democrats) and nonwhite enemies at bay.

In a sharp post-midterm essay titled “Donald Trump is (Still) the President of White America,” Erin Aubry Kaplan makes a critical point:

“Trump was, and continues to be, the chief executive not of a nation, or of the Republican Party, or even of a cult, but of a culture — namely a culture of white supremacy…This is actually worse than it sounds. Even very ‘woke’ Americans tend to see white supremacy as an isolated dynamic synonymous with racism, the ‘bad’ America. But what many people don’t realize is that white supremacy is a culture that is much broader and deeper than that. It is about racialized power, an assumed authority of white people (chiefly men) to set and enforce the social and moral order as they see fit, often in the service of values that on their face sound noble, like tradition or family…In this culture, the presidency, electoral politics, the Constitution, rule of law, democratic ideals, liberalism, decency — all are incidental. They can never matter as much as white peoples’ ultimate right to power” (emphasis added).

The nation’s not-so- “semi-” fascist base isn’t chastened by mere election losses or (as in the 2022 “red ripple”) disappointments.  It’s about white male power as such, in and of itself, with or without the niceties of bourgeois democracy and rule of law.  The Amerikaner base isn’t bothered in the slightest by their master having dinner with white-supremacist neofascists like Nick Fuentes.  It thinks January 6th was a noble attempt to “save America” from what it sees as the illegitimate rule of dangerous and unworthy non-whites and “radical left” globalist elites.

The Dismal Dems

Meanwhile, returning to the US electoral sphere, certain terrible things stay the same whether or not the monster of Mar a Lago chokes to death on its last McDonalds meal. There are only two viable political parties in the viciously binary U.S. elections system. Anyone, no matter how awful, who nails down the presidential nomination of the party out of presidential power has a statistically decent shot at winning the White House. The party in executive branch power commonly faces steep barriers to keeping the top office: the exhaustion of term limits for a popular-enough president (e.g., Bill Clinton in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2016); economic recession and/or inflation (major factors in Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush’s failed bids for a second term); scandals (Watergate was no small part of how Carter rose to power in 1976); extreme policy failures (George W. Bush’s insane Orwellian invasion of Iraq and gross mishandling of Hurricane Katrina were grist for Obama’s campaign mill in 2007-08); the simple charisma-challenged dullness of a sitting president (a problem for Carter, George H.W. Bush, and Joe “You Know the Thing” Biden,” the oldest president in US history).

And then there’s the longtime neoliberal nightmare that is the dismal, dollar-drenched capitalist-imperialist Democratic Party, whose abject allegiance and subordination to the nation’s unelected dictatorship of money demobilizes millions of voters and renders transparently inauthentic its claim to be the party of the nation’s working- and lower- class majority. The political scientist Sheldon Wolin in 2007 aptly labelled the Democrats “the inauthentic opposition.” “Should Democrats somehow be elected,” Wolin wrote (in his chilling 2008 volume Democracy, Incorporated) as Barack Obama’s star rose, they would do nothing to “alter significantly the direction of society” or “substantially revers[e] the drift rightwards. … The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts,” Wolin noted, “points to the crucial fact that for the poor, minorities, the working class and anti-corporatists there is no opposition party working on their behalf.” The imagined, nominally “in-power” corporatist Democrats would work to “marginalize any possible threat to the corporate allies of the Republicans.”

Wolin called it (so did I in a much less heralded book published around the same time). A nominal Democrat was elected president along with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008. What followed under Barack Obama (as under his Democratic presidential predecessor Bill Clinton) was the standard “elite” neoliberal manipulation of campaign populism and identity politics in service to the reigning big-money bankrollers and their global empire. Wall Street’s control of Washington and the related imperial agenda of the “Pentagon System” were advanced more effectively by the nation’s “first Black president” than they could have been by stiff and wealthy white Republicans like John McCain or Mitt Romney. The U.S.-American system of corporate and imperial “inverted totalitarianism” (Wolin) was given a deadly, transparently inauthentic and fake-democratic re-branding.  The underlying “rightward drift” sharpened, fed by a widespread and easily Republican-exploited, white-identitarian sense of popular abandonment and betrayal, as the Democrats depressed their own purported popular and multi-racial base. The eliminationist right-wing cancer metastasized during the Obama years.

Anyone who thinks that this is all ancient history under the antique corporate imperialist Joe “Nothing Will Fundamentally Change” Biden is being naïve.  Either of the two fiendish Florida fascists – the malevolent Mar-a-Lago monstrosity or the mini-Mussolini in the governor’s office – would currently stand a good chance of beating Octo-Joe. “Right now,” Bassin tells de Vega, “a person who attempted a violent coup to stay in power illegitimately is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which in a 50-50 country puts him a coin flip, give or take, away from achieving power again. And if he does that, he’s already made clear he doesn’t intend to relinquish that power so long as he lives and breathes on this earth.” Ron DeSantis’s odds are the same if not better.

“The World’s Greatest Democracy”: Some Curious Features of Bourgeois Democracy, American Style

A big part of the problem is structural. The “world’s greatest democracy” (know any other good jokes?) continues to be saddled with the openly undemocratic Electoral College, which grants a significant presidential election advantage to the nation’s most reactionary and revanchist regions while absurdly reducing serious campaigning to a small handful of “contested” and hence “battleground” states. (The democrcy-flunking Electoral College gave us the national popular vote losers Dubya in 2001 and Trump in 2017). Also cancelling the core democratic principle of “one person, one vote” under the US-American system are the absurdly malapportioned and powerful US Senate, which vastly overrepresents the nation’s most right-wing regions and states, the horrific gerrymandering of the state legislatures and the US House of Representatives, and the related disproportionate power that the mainstreamed far-right now plays in the (intra-party) primary elections.  Thanks to these anti-democratic structural features, worsened by the nation’s openly plutocratic campaign finance and media regimes (both of which are backed by the nation’s powerful judicial branch), the now chillingly rightmost of the two major US political organizations doesn’t need to win a majority of the votes to gain and keep power.

Moore v. Harper

Speaking of structural problems and as if all this isn’t bad enough, the Republi-fascists retain firm control of the US Supreme Court – a dark legacy of the Trump presidency (which appointed three straight Christian fascist Supremes). This super-powerful, absurdly lifetime-appointed, and ridiculouslt right-wing judicial body will in just one week hear oral arguments in Moore v. Harper – a horrific case only taken up because the Court is now a Christian white nationalist Handmaid to neofascist consolidation.  Next spring (if not before), it will likely grant state legislatures the “constitutional” power to cancel popular presidential votes in their jurisdictions.

It’s great that the “MAGA Republicans” failed in their mid-term effort to take over top election-managing positions in contested states, but if the Simon Says Supremes give a thumbs up to the insane “independent state legislature theory,” as seems probable in Moore v. Harper, then state-level Republi-fascists holding legislative majorities in key contested states won’t need their states’ governors, attorney generals, and/or secretaries of state on board to constitutionally monkey-wrench their winner-take-all Electoral College slates to advance the Republicfascist presidential candidate (if “necessary”) in 2024-25.

Right-wing control of the Supreme Court handed the White House to the messianic militarist and Christian pre-fascist Big Lie practitioner George W. Bush (never forget his epic deceptions about “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” and Saddam Hussein’s supposed connection to al Qaeda and to 9/11) in 2000-01.  Trump or DeSantis (or some other Republi-fascist animal like Glenn Youngkin) could well benefit from a different sort of right-wing Supreme Court intervention in 2024-25. And recall that the Republi-fascists just (oh, by the way) won control of the US House, giving them (among other terrible things) a lethal platform from which to raise procedural and “constitutional” objections to the certification of a presidential election that doesn’t go their way in 2024-25.

Capitalism Breed Fascism

Meanwhile we have the little problem of how “our” underlying system of capitalism-imperialism creates not just ecocide, pandemicide, and potential global nuclear war but the related apocalyptic horseman that is 21st century “late fascism.”  Please see my earlier Paul Street Report titled “Can’t Say the F-Word, How About the C-Word?” for further reflections on this important problem, which naturally transcends US-American boundaries.

Anyway, Trump and DeSantis could both keel over tomorrow and none of this would change.  Some other monstrous women-, democracy- and immigrant-hating, palingenetic nationalist white supremacist would step into the neofascist vacuum left by their demise, pulling big money and media backing from toxic oligarchs like Murdoch, Stephen Schwarzman, Richard Uhlein, Elon Musk, and Charles Koch while exploiting the great structural advantages granted to the nation’s right-/Reich-most party under the rules of Bourgeois Democracy, American-Style.

This essay appears also at The Paul Street Report.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Paul Street.

Experts say these technologies are needed to tackle climate change. They can help cut carbon from hard-to-decarbonize parts of the economy that cannot simply switch over to renewable electricity. But there are very few large-scale examples operating today. To help people visualize what all this new infrastructure could look like, Third Way, a center-left D.C. think tank, commissioned the design studio Gensler to illustrate hypothetical projects, showing how they could be integrated into communities and local economies.

“Many communities in the U.S., particularly those historically impacted by environmental injustice and unequal distribution of economic benefits, have valid concerns” about these technologies, said Rudra Kapila, a senior policy advisor at Third Way who led the project. In creating these images, she said she hoped to “facilitate constructive conversations on how communities can safely live and work in a changing energy landscape.”

Of course, a series of images can only go so far in answering the questions and concerns that people may have about living near these projects. But the scenes may help sharpen those questions by giving shape to the scale of the infrastructure, its purpose, where it might go, and its potential risks and benefits. 

The first three images depict direct air capture projects of different sizes and in different settings. Direct air capture, or DAC, facilities filter carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Their purpose is twofold: By removing carbon from the air, they can balance out emissions from activities like farming and flying that might be hard to eliminate at the source. DAC could also eventually help reverse global warming if we build enough machines to pull more carbon out of the atmosphere than we’re putting in. 

“I think the specific challenges of a direct air capture plant is that they don’t really exist, outside of a couple demonstrations in Europe,” said Shuchi Talati, a senior visiting scholar at the nonprofit Carbon180, which advocates for policies to support DAC and other carbon removal methods but was not involved in creating the images. “And so the biggest challenge is helping people visualize and understand something that they’ve never seen before and have never really thought about.”

In this first image, small, modular DAC plants — similar to a model currently operating in Switzerland — are installed on the roofs of factories in an industrial part of a suburban town. Kapila warned that the fans on the equipment are loud and should not be sited on or near a school, for example. Here, the machines are powered by electricity from rooftop solar farms and a wind farm in the background. 

This first image also raises a key question for anyone appraising a DAC project: What will happen to the captured CO2? In Kapila’s narrative of this scene, the “DACME” construction company in the background uses the CO2 as a key ingredient in the concrete it sells. This isn’t far-fetched — there are already a few companies working on embedding CO2 in concrete. The trucks in the foreground suggest a more controversial idea — selling the CO2 to soda companies for carbonation. Kapila said she included the concept because of a reported shortage of CO2 in the beverage industry. But CO2 used for beverage carbonation quickly gets emitted again, meaning a lot of energy would be spent to capture CO2 for no climate benefit.

The second image features a project that’s very similar to another existing DAC plant in Iceland, the largest currently operating in the world. Like that facility, the one shown here runs on geothermal energy, a renewable resource that draws on heat beneath the earth’s surface, from a power plant across the river. The scene also shows the carbon dioxide being delivered directly to underground sequestration sites for permanent storage — those geodesic domes are modeled off real CO2 sequestration facilities in Iceland. (You may notice there’s more going on in this scene — Kapila incorporated many ideas about how these technologies could be integrated into local economies into each image, which are mapped out in a series of additional renderings on the project website.)

The clusters of mega-DAC projects depicted in this third image, all powered by a nuclear plant, would pull hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 out of the air each year. A pipeline on the right side, which Kapila said is meant to be a repurposed oil pipeline, carries the CO2 to underground storage sites. “There have been provisions, both in the Inflation Reduction Act and in the infrastructure bill, specifically for making use of existing infrastructure,” she said.

Kapila said this hub of DAC plants could be sited in the desert of Texas or New Mexico, currently a major oil-producing region. While no facility of this size exists today, the oil and gas company Occidental is currently building one in West Texas. But unlike the plant depicted here, that facility is planned to run at least in part on natural gas power. And unlike in Kapila’s illustration, some of the CO2 the Occidental plant collects is expected to be piped out to low-producing oil wells, where it will be injected underground in order to dislodge the last drops of oil. 

Many climate and environmental justice advocates have campaigned against the use of direct air capture, in part because of its potential to prop up the use of fossil fuels. Kapila said she sought to show people that we can design these systems to be independent of fossil fuels, or in a way that greatly diminishes their role in the economy. 

Talati, who previously worked at the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, said it’s essential to start to build a common understanding of what “good” DAC projects look like. “We need to build a lot more knowledge, whether that’s in communities where DAC might be built, across civil society, and across policy makers,” she said. 

At the same time, Talati warned that the goal of these conversations should not be to drive public acceptance of these projects. “I think that can be a dangerous way to talk about it, because that means that you are trying to convince people of something without taking the time to build knowledge and understanding,” she said. “When we think about public engagement, I think we want to make sure that we don’t have a preordained outcome in mind.”

The last two scenes that Third Way created venture into different territory, looking at how to lower emissions at existing heavy industrial sites. 

The first reimagines a Gulf Coast port as a hub for the production of clean hydrogen. Hydrogen is a fuel that has the potential to sub in for fossil fuels in a number of applications, and it doesn’t release any greenhouse gases when it’s burned. 

In this scene, an offshore oil platform has been repurposed for hydrogen production, which can then be used to fuel the ships in the port. Today, the vast majority of hydrogen is produced from natural gas in a process that emits carbon dioxide. But here, offshore wind powers the process, using electricity to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Experts often call this method “green hydrogen,” and while it’s only done at a few small facilities today, it’s set to grow rapidly. The bipartisan infrastructure law gave the Department of Energy $8 billion to spend on clean hydrogen hubs, and a new tax credit created by the Inflation Reduction Act will pay producers up to $3 for each kilogram of clean hydrogen they make.

Onshore in this scene you’ll find more DAC machines capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. There is also a blending facility, where the hydrogen could be blended with the captured CO2 to create what’s called a synthetic fuel. Blending hydrogen makes it easier to store, transport, and use with existing technologies. But using captured CO2 to make fuels will ultimately release it back into the atmosphere.

The final image in the series portrays a steel plant, modeled on an existing plant in Pennsylvania, outfitted with a technology called point source carbon capture.

Instead of sucking carbon dioxide out of the air, as DAC machines do, similar equipment is installed on the flue of the steel plant, capturing carbon before it enters the atmosphere. A defunct coal mine is also visible in the background, symbolizing the potential to store captured CO2 in unmined coal seams.

The U.S. iron and steel industry sent about 66.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2021, or about as much as 14 million gas-powered cars emit over a year. Steel is a notorious climate challenge, because its use in buildings, vehicles, and appliances make it so integral to modern life, but we don’t yet have many options for making it cleaner. Steelmaking requires massive amounts of energy to produce heat, and it also uses coal in the chemical reaction that turns iron into steel. While some companies are making progress with alternative chemistries, carbon capture is considered one of the best bets for slashing emissions from the sector in the near term.

Kapil acknowledged the challenges of drumming up public interest in carbon capture technology. “Point source carbon capture, it’s as glamorous as urban plumbing,” she quipped. “But the thing is, we need these systems. To say that we can function without steel would be, you know, we can’t.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Beyond solar: Here’s what the clean energy future might look like on Dec 1, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Emily Pontecorvo.

Milgram experiment, remember?

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:

‘Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?’ (Milgram, 1974).

Some of the aspects of the situation that may have influenced their behavior include the formality of the location, the behavior of the experimenter and the fact that it was an experiment for which they had volunteered and been paid.

Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.  Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.

Authority, fear, bandwagon, transfer, glittering appeal, etc., in the propaganda, Mad Men arena:

• Bandwagon propaganda
• Card Stacking propaganda
• Plain Folk Propaganda
• Testimonial Propaganda
• Glittering Generality Propaganda
• Name Calling Propaganda
• Transfer Propaganda
• Ad nauseam propaganda (source)

To the point of an apartheid state, Israel, with its deep roots in terrorism against the British and then mass gulag incarceration for the indigenous people, being not only called a great democracy, but one where it has a shadow government in the USA-UK-Canada-EU, in the form of Israel-Firsters of both the Jewish and non-Jewish persuasion.

Israel’s Secret Poisonings in 1948: New article by Benny Morris and Benjamin Kedar indicates that well before the botched assassination attempt 25 years ago on Hamas’ Meshal, Israel attempted mass poisoning during the war in 1948 [so, this comes out October 6, 2022, in  Haaretz, but there will never be a documentary on Netflix or dramatization on Hulu covering this one of a million stories of Israel’s pogrom]

Now? Check out the flip-side of flipped-out propaganda and truth: “Israel Is Arming Ukraine’s Blatantly Neo-Nazi Militia, the Azov Battalion.” USA-Israel has been for years:

What is going wrong with the so-called mainstream journalism tied to Ukraine is what was/is wrong with the MSM and left-wing narratives around masks, lockdowns, obeying the marching orders of corrupt Big Pharma, and listening without pushback against faux scientists, while allowing for the silencing of medical experts, and public health experts who had/have a different analysis of SARS-CoV2. Hook, line and sinker:

We’ll get to the Covid test for journalists in a minute, but the idea of exacting image management and agnotology and black is white, lies are truth mentality has taken off with algorithms and censoring and the onslaught of Google and Deep State and Corporate State seeding the world with a system of dumb-downing by 1,000,000,000 managed internet hits and mass hysteria.

Zelenskyy has been using 3D imagery to deliver speeches all over the world by using a hologram.

Zelenskyy’s “participation” in world events using a hologram has been reported by several renowned media outlets, as can be seen below.

A hologram is created through holography, a photographic technique which records the light scattered from an object and displays it three-dimensionally.

Images, and the Mass Incarceration Media Management Show:

Oh, these image management boys and girls:

It’s taken off like gangbusters with the few and the mighty controlling 90 percent of “media,” i.e. publishing (including k12 books) and radio and TV and cable and the Holly-Dirt manufacturers of lies, half-truths, multimillionaire thespians who end up acting in politics. All the world’s a stage for coiffing the reality of the poor masses, us, we useless eaters-breeders-breathers-shitters.

Then, with this total absorption of Hollywood images, the marketing ploys, the perceived, planned, hoped for complete transition from citizens to consumers to data zombies to useless to nobodies, we can have this sort of audacity, in my local rag. All full-page rainbow colors and all:

Imagine that, driving in Newport, while seeing all those employee solicitations plastered up on the local Burger King and Pizza Hut billboards, seeking drive-thru help or pizza dough assistants, for $16 an hour plus signing on bonuses and a 30 percent discount on fat, salt and sugar, man.

I’m not sure what the Burger King/Pizza Hut Covidian Madness Requirements are for those teens or Baby Boomers lining up for this gig, to actually get hired with background checks, drug checks, and vax checks, but I know the school district requires SARS-CoV2 experimental jabs, and CDC proof of it, to walk the halls of the school or help those kids on the teether ball court.

Note, the hourly wage for substitutes has been set by a staffing agency working hand in glove with the district — $14.07 an hour. When I was substituting, well, I’d get $18 an hour, and that included pay for a full day if I pinch-hit a couple hours after the morning bell rang. That was $140 for six hours work! Not anymore!

I’d meet the school secretary, get signed in, and then that was it —  look at the absent teacher’s notes for the day and then greet the 3rd graders and the math classes in the high schools, music room sub, or special education sub. Even PE and even all sorts of classes K12.  Now, the poor souls getting $14 an hour have to jump through the staffing agency hoop, a company out of Tennessee:

And this another aspect of the smoke and mirrors game of Western Society — the staffing agencies, the middlemen and middlewomen just making bank by adding on to all the daily costs of living, of surviving, with their powerful Salesforce apps and servers, all of that, taking over teaching, for the time being, until it all goes on-line, in home “learning”:

Over the last 22 years, we have innovated education staffing to provide dynamic solutions to school districts and professional opportunities to passionate educators. Our team serves over 4.5 million students with a pool of 80,000 substitute and permanent employees throughout 33 states. Internally, the ESS team is comprised of 650 individuals with a passion for education working together to ensure our 900 partner districts experience valuable education every day.

This is the big rip-off, the taxpayers’ spending trillions over the years to establish/prop up public education, schools, buses, college prep programs, all those state colleges and junior colleges, all those school districts throughout the land, so that one day the PT Barnums’ of the world can come in and swoop up and take some munches out of that public-private partnership bs.

I have never seen journalists question this rip-off scheme because (a) journalism has always been on life-support, always there as a town barker and nice guy in the business story realm, and (b) because “going deep” journalistically means going deeper into how immersive the rip-off schemes are in U$A.

I’ve written about my bad times here in Lincoln County, about the spinelessness of ESS, and, well, each criticism of these systems puts another nail into my useless eater-breather-shitter life:

Again, I think the biggest question in maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people?

The problem is more boredom and how what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life, when they are basically meaningless, worthless?

My best guess, at present is a combination of drugs and computer games as a solution for [most]. It’s already happening…

I think once you’re superfluous, you don’t have power.

– from a transcript at Rielpolitic Alexandra Bruce, “Brave New World: Yuval Noah Harari asks, “What to do with all these useless people?”

Harari goes on to outline a transhumanist vision of the future in which brain-computer interfaces make our footedness in the material world obsolete, human relationships become meaningless due to artificial substitutes, and the poor die but the rich don’t.

Wesley J. Smith points out:

Transhumanism, boiled down to its bones, is pure eugenics. It calls itself “H+,” for more or better than human. Which, of course, is what eugenics is all about.

Alarmingly, transhumanist values are being embraced at the highest strata of society, including in Big Tech, in universities, and among the Davos crowd of globalist would-be technocrats. That being so, it is worth listening in to what they are saying under the theory that forewarned is forearmed.

“Transhumanism is pure eugenics” at Evolution News, April 27, 2022

Big issues, no, for the 21st Century of Fourth Industrial Revolution, Web 3.0, Social Impact Bonds, pay for success, blockchains, twinning, and so-so much more that the average gumshoe journalist just can’t dig deep because it will upset the entire playing field they so badly need to get a sense of sanity from the insane. But reporting on insanity is what we need in a time of Transhumanism and Covidian Cults?

Try this out for size:

When you enter the “invest in kids bonds” door knowing there are plans to create asset-backed securities in toddlers and trade them (and perhaps short them) on global markets, the single-minded interrogation of cryptocurrency exchanges and NFT rip-offs feels woefully inadequate. If the stakes weren’t so high, it might be amusing to watch folks who’ve been swimming in the shark-infested waters of financial derivatives for years point fingers decrying crypto-Ponzi-schemers. Calls for better regulation and professed empathy for those who lost their savings to fraudulent digital money schemes ring a bit hollow once you realize many of the panelists’ livelihoods are intertwined with the same financial interests, journalism outlets, and think tanks that were enmeshed in the crash of the global economy via toxic-real estate debt products. These are the same folks who are now in the process of developing the risk modeling, tokenomics, and APIs needed to run the smart “Ricardian” contract, “sustainably resilient,” open-air prison. — Alison McDowell, Wrench in the Gears

“What Stage Are We On? Immersive Storytelling, Hegelian Dialectic, and Crypto-Spectacle“

Read what the billionaire class and the techno gurus are after, and it’s data, man, tracking us, every blink, twitch, hiccup, burp, step, defecation as well as every purchase, every debt, every desire, to create the ultimate robotics, AI. It’s universal basic chump income blathering, man, and it is that World Economic Forum adage on steroids: “You’ll own nothing but be happy.”

Go here, too, for more:

So, as a real journalist, I have experienced that old time religion of lack of bandwidth, lack of humane reporting, the lack of looking at many sides, and coming out the other end of a story with, well, some solutions that are not the black-and-white game of divide and conquer. False balance, equivocation, relying on diploma-ed and credentialed sources, fear of litigation, the whole nine yards of mainstream journalism requiring an inverted triangle of information; i.e., the lede and important stuff at the top, and the superfluous and unimportant stuff (sic) at the bottom. Of course, it is the stuff at the bottom that IS important.

Case in point: I did the story on 13 Salvadorans found dead in the Organ Pipe National Monument along the US-Mexico border. Newspaperman. Yeah, the hurly burly of all those cops, helicopters, forensics wagons, and a young reporter who happened to have friends working with refugees of El Salvador (and Chile and Guatemala) and who actually did some assistance with the so-called underground railroad. You know, assistance that would have gotten me fired and banned from journalism, even got me arrested, as in, well, helping undocumented folk get from point A to point B in my pick-up truck.

When the grisly scene came into play, and with my background in that work, of course I got a hold of some folk working to assist those coming into the USA for sanctuary and political asylum. Of course, I knew a few academics and authors who had been writing about the dirty schemes of the Salvadoran government, businesses, military and police who were exacting hell on common people, on farmers, and on labor unionists with the material support and intellectual help of USA!

That bottom-of-the-inverted triangle “stuff” was fought over, parsed, edited out, and eventually cut, as the newspapers I worked for was all about the facts, ma’am, if it bleeds, it leads, just get the information from the officials on the spot.

You know, don’t upset the local readers, don’t go into “that” political stuff, and don’t bring in guys and gals from universities all the way from Cochise County, Arizona, to Chicago in your stories?

That was in the early 1980s.

It’s gotten worse. And, I have found over the years that journalists are intimidated by or enamored by the scientists, the reef biologists, the astrophysicists, the dudes and gals mixing up the chemicals, designing the motherboards, and trading derivatives.

Journalists are also tone deaf to history, to backgrounding, and, alas, if the motherships are New York Times and Washington Post and another dozen or so papers sprinkled around the U$A, then that modelling has what has tainted the media, The Press.

How disturbing it is to see the fornication of corporations and media, how disgusting it is to see what is and is not off limits in the reportage arena.

Source: Sheepdog Bernie Sanders site!

Then, in book publishing? Fewer and fewer books of importance.

This prefatory bit I’m etching in hyperbole before introducing a piece on how the “left” failed the Covid reporting test big time is my angst, for sure, and my ability to see the big picture(s), even if they are holograms and 4 D chessboards in the entire propaganda game. Systems thinking, and while much about capitalism is boorish and raw and just plain usury and scamming and parasitic, there are some complicated and very technical aspects of how finance is moving into your local community, your neighborhood, your lives. BlackRock? Who controls the world?

CEO Larry Fink built a shadow government of former agency officials in a bid to become Hillary Clinton’s Treasury secretary. That didn’t stop Fink from becoming part of the main private-sector advisory organization to Donald Trump until that panel disbanded after Charlottesville.

Alas, though, we’d expect that non-legacy journalists, or those who were once in the Mainstream who are now leftist, supposed anti-monopoly, anti-corporation, skeptical beyond skeptical of any governmental narrative reporters, that they would have peeled back the onion peels on this SARS-CoV2 bioweapon, and then question the funny juiced-up cocktails that we call the mRNA jab.

You’d think that the censoring of doctors, scientists, just plain deep thinkers and activists on the lockdowns, the mandates, the failure to get the data from the Moderna’s and the Pfizer’s on these bizarre untested and rapidly released jabs would pique their interest.

Instead, many went blank, called millions of us as poorly informed, conspiracy theorists, anti-this and anti-that dupes. Imagine that, journalists who question empire, question the United Fruit Company, question authority, Vietnam, Weapons of Mass Destruction, the MIC, FIRE, and who want to look deep into the well that is American Manifest Destiny and Exceptionalism, that they would flip like dying dogs, or either go blank on the virus front, or even patronize those of us who have the gumption to look into the origins of that “virus” and who have the interest in understanding what a great reset is, and how a pathogen and mass hysterical and controlled media on that front can compel people to submit to these fascist things. Typical leftist yammering:

“I got my vaccinations, but I understand that some people who might have personal or whatever beliefs have the right, I guess, to not get forcefully jabbed. Well, yeah, I got the jab because the information just came to me in a dream -haha. I understand science and I understand how much smarter these virologists are, and, heck, a conspiracy of them producing products that would be bad for us, or cause deaths, or that the decent governmental employees would cook up fakes on all this, get real? I get why people might not want to have blood transfusions because of their religion, or not get this vaccine, but for the greater good of all, really, this is a pandemic. We have to follow the science. Sometimes the government-law has to intervene if the Jehovah Witness parent is putting their kids in jeopardy with this inane superstition about blood transfusions and keeping them on life support. Get real, and be part of our collective society.”

So, yes, I only have a BS in marine biology from a long time ago, and, yes, only a masters in Rhetoric and another one in urban and regional planning, and only years underwater diving, and decades as a many-venue journalist, and many decades teaching college, and many years as a sustainability coordinator, and, well, so, if I doubt the narratives around Event 201 and Gates and gain of function lies and what those bio-labs in Canada and USA and even Ukraine and former Soviet Union region are actually up to; and if I delve into many many sources tied to what the hell is going on with corona virus, bats, civets, and SARS, and what the history of Japan’s Unit 731 is, and what the history of biological warfare (ARPA and DARPA) and what is in the minds and labs (Plum Island, Fort Detrick) of U$A, well, again, lefties, liberals, Democrats: “Shut the f#@% up and just do what a good citizen should do . . . your commie countries are doing it too . . .  China, Nicaragua, Cuba . . . so take off that tin foil hat and just relax and take it as it is: these scientific things, these mRNA clipping things, this incredible advancement in the science of working with RNA and DNA, well, it supersedes your ability to understand where these big Pharma outfits are coming from. Shut up, and if you doubt any of this, then you are, well, akin to a Trumpian or Q-Anon or just a plain wacko antivaxxer, man. Embarrassing.”

Sure, everything else written about exposures of this bizarre multiple front narrative is verboten:

No Doubting Thomases here:

RNA for Moderna’s Omicron Booster Manufactured by CIA-Linked Company

Since late last year, messenger RNA for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines, including its recently reformulated Omicron booster, has been exclusively manufactured by a little known company with significant ties to US intelligence. (source)

Like every other important social phenomenon, propaganda regimes have historical genealogies. For example, a very strong case could be made that the ongoing, and sad to admit, largely successful Covid propaganda onslaught under which we now live can trace its roots back to the two so-called demonstration wars (the Panama Invasion and the First Gulf Conflict) waged by George Bush Sr.

The American elites were badly stung by the country’s defeat in Vietnam. In it, they rightly saw a considerable curtailment of what they had come to see as their divine right since the end of WWII: the ability to intervene as they so fit in any country not explicitly covered by the Soviet nuclear umbrella.

And in their analysis of that failure, they correctly alighted to the role that the media—by simply bringing the tawdry and ignoble reality of the war into our living rooms—had played in undermining citizen willingness to engage in such fruitless, costly and savage adventures in the future.

But his piece could have been titled: “Why did the Left, Right, Middle Fail the, now, fill in the blanks, Vietnam-Korea War Test? The Chemical Corporations Polluting Us Test? Why did they, the left, right, middle, fail to go after Carter for mining Nicaragua, for the Gulf of Tonkin Affair, for Vilifying Rachel Carson and Ralph Nader?” Harrington discusses the failure of left-wing writers who have failed to dig deep and parse through the entire reason, pretext for, history of, practice games with, this Planned Pandemic.

It is the failure of actually sticking to your guns; i.e., question EVERYTHING corporations do, sell us, tell us, connive with government to hide from us.

The price? Ending careers, and PayPal shut downs, and bank accounts seized, and endless ghosting and libeling on social media. Infinite social media assaults for anyone who might want to look into SARS-CoV2, the culprits in those biolabs, why the gain of function experiments were continued, why Fort Detrick was shut down months before the media wave of SARS-CoV2 hit? Why there are so many bio-labs at universities in USA and Canada and, well, in former Soviet Union; i.e., Ukraine.

Again, his, Harrington’s, hard-edged words, but real words, with the context, with the history and backgrounding to support what he is saying:

Reading this final flourish while remembering the lamb-like silence of John Pilger in the face of the sustained Covidian onslaught of institutionalized lies and Soviet-grade censorship, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

And when considering that virtually all those he endorses as exemplars of propaganda-savvy journalism—people such as Chris Hedges, Patrick Lawrence, Jonathan Cook, Diana Johnstone, Caitlin Johnstone all of whose work I have frequently and enthusiastically championed over the years—took the same cud-chewing path, the sense of farce only grows.

Go to Harrington’s piece and the piece Pilger wrote which Harrington references. You decide yourself how the left failed the Covid Narrative Badly.

John Pilger, “arguably one of the brightest and more persistent leftist analysts of establishment propaganda,” published “Silencing the lambs: How propaganda works” on his website and then a number of progressive news outlets.

[Leni Riefenstahl, center, filming with two assistants, 1936. (Bundesarchiv, CC-BY-SA 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)]

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Haeder.

The US and many other countries stand on the brink of fascism, world war, and climate chaos.  Meanwhile, the US left is in a state of paralysis, or collapse, or something along those lines.  Most of the best organizers across the country face a deluge of online disinformation about them, amplified by both nefarious actors as well as by well-meaning, self-styled activists who are engaging in some version of speaking truth to power by publicly attacking the reputation of a local organizer every time they post something online because they are guilty of one transgression or another.

To put it more directly, most of the best organizers across the country have been canceled.  That is, they have largely been rendered ineffective due to the cloud of suspicion that surrounds them wherever they go, especially online.  I don’t probably need to explain why having a cloud of suspicion around you at all times makes it difficult for you to do good organizing, or to do a lot of other things.

When you have the cloud around you, you are toxic.  Any association with you will lead to the people associating with you having to spend time and energy defending their actions and looking into the allegations surrounding you.  Regardless of whether they think there’s anything legitimate about the accusations surrounding you, people will tend to avoid you, for their own safety, comfort, peace of mind, etc.  They may also tend to do so, in order to avoid any group they’re associated with getting bogged down in some kind of controversy no one has time for, that would distract from important work.

By their own admission, the US and many other countries have lots of intelligence agents doing provocative things online, stirring up trouble of all sorts, fomenting division between and within communities, movements and organizations, and spreading suspicion about individuals as well.  These are standard practices which are frequently exposed, when secret (see Cointelpro and many more recent examples).  Aside from being keenly aware of the existence of these programs and agents, there’s probably not a lot to be done about them.

But so much of this kind of divisive work is done, or is amplified, or initiated, by well-meaning people who would consider themselves to be activists and members of the left of one kind or another.

I don’t have any idea whether I have anything of value to say to those who are completely convinced that cancellation campaigning is a useful way to advance society or some segment thereof.  But to those who have doubt about the tactic, maybe I have some worthwhile thoughts.

Over the past two decades of being canceled and seeing this tactic going on on a large scale — in my world first in Germany, and then much later in the United States and to some extent elsewhere — I have observed that the tactic of spreading disinformation and trying to cancel events or stop them from happening in the first place is most effective in the more libertarian-minded sectors of the left milieu.

That is, the tactic seems to be most effective in exactly the section of the left that I have historically been most at home in and most associated with.

And it’s not hard to see why.  There are specific tendencies here that are easy to exploit, especially if we’re not aware of the fact that there are all kinds of efforts at exploitation of these tendencies going on.  In case it’s helpful to anyone, I thought I’d try enumerating some of these tendencies, and how I have seen them being weaponized.  Maybe if some folks are aware of the bait they’re taking, they can remove the hooks from their mouths.

Weaponizing Egalitarianism

The left, and the libertarian sections of it in particular, tends to cherish the notion of collective organizing and collective action.  The left also has had its own issues with cultish and dogmatic groups and leaders, and people are understandably wary of this sort of thing.  This makes it easy for someone to find support for the notion that someone needs to be criticized for being too individualistic, too overbearing in their organizing efforts, or exhibiting too much in the way of leadership qualities.  As with any of this stuff, the criticism may be overt, in the form of public comments on social media threads, or more in the form of whispered rumors.

Weaponizing Antiracism

One of the most central contradictions in this settler-colonial society is, of course, racism, and how it is continually used as a tool for keeping the population in a pliable state, easily manipulated, divided, and conquered.  But what we see time and time again are groups losing the plot with internal accusations and counter-accusations over microaggressions and demonstrations of implicit bias.  We’re talking in some cases about some of the most effective organizers and organizations doing things like fighting for rent control or a living wage being nearly destroyed over allegations that someone made an inappropriate joke — allegations which upon a little investigation turn out to be completely ridiculous.

Weaponizing Antifascism

The US is on the precipice of a potentially fascist future, with the rise of Donald Trump.  Similar leaders are on the rise in many other countries, for the same sorts of reasons.  Corporate media and social media platforms freely peddle lies and promote blatantly fascist ideas.  While this situation is an obvious, massive problem, social media platforms are loaded with people who, in the name of antifascism, are constantly attacking anyone with a few thousand followers on YouTube who interviews a rightwinger, accusing them of “platforming” and “collaborating.”  There are reasons the left develops a reputation for being against freedom of expression and inquiry.

Weaponizing Trans Liberation

Trans people, historically and currently, are disproportionately victims of discrimination and violence, and one of the theaters of struggle for the trans liberation movement has been around trans access to many different spaces in society.  Another group in society that is currently and historically victimized by discrimination and violence are women, generally.  Sometimes trans access to contested spaces in the society brings trans interests in conflict with women’s interests, depending on how a person or group looks at a given situation.  Because of this fact, trans liberation can — and often is — used as a vehicle to denounce many feminists as transphobic, and in turn, trans activists get denounced as misogynists.  More typically, someone is accused of a microaggression towards a trans person such as the use of the wrong pronoun, and thenceforce continually vilified wherever they appear online as transphobes.

Weaponizing Believe the Victim

After centuries of so many victims of violence not being heard or believed, such as women and children subjected to male violence, prominent cases of the most horrendous practices have come to the fore, with people like Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein going to prison and dying mysterious deaths.  Meanwhile, particularly in the more libertarian sections of the left, the notion that the victim should always be believed, and even that they should never be re-traumatized by having to talk about how they were victimized, has become a more and more commonly-held belief among certain elements.  The fact that this approach makes it pretty easy for someone to make an unsubstantiated accusation that needn’t even be described is mentioned only in hushed tones, in these circles, lest the person mentioning this obvious problem be the next to fall victim to being called an oppressor, an accusation for which there is no defense, where the only acceptable punishment is constant denunciations and permanent exile of some undetermined kind.  What seems to happen more often than completely false allegations of bad behavior are allegations of something like an unwanted hand on someone’s back that somehow morph into some kind of rape.  The reality on the left is there are a lot of traumatized people making accusations about each other that should definitely not be believed at face value.  People need to take each other seriously, without falling prey to this absolutist nonsense.

Weaponizing Safe Space

As far as I know, the concept of safe space came out of the movements for women’s liberation and movements for the liberation of other marginalized groups in which there was a widespread feeling that separate space was necessary for people to communicate freely and not be subsumed by others within their movement, like men, or heterosexuals, or whatever the case may be.  This isn’t the way the term is understood by the cancellation campaigners going after people for violating some kind of safe space policy, whether spoken or unspoken.  In fact, if someone claims they feel unsafe around another person, that itself is all that’s needed for a person to be disinvited from an event or group, in some of the more dysfunctional segments of the libertarian left.

Weaponizing Speak Truth To Power

Finding ways to communicate the dire realities in the world to those with actual power in such a way that might stand to influence the situation has been known to work now and then.  Challenge authority and all that.  In the best cases, where it’s not just virtue-signaling, the eloquent speaking out against oppressive power can help build powerful movements for social change.  This idea has taken on a new form in the libertarian left, with public attacks against someone perceived to be holding a position of slight power within an organization seen to be righteous, because of the relatively slight power difference between the people within the group in question.  All this kind of public, online challenging of “power” tends to do is destroy organizations, one after another, under the weight of the resulting cancellation campaigning.

Weaponizing Dedication 

The kinds of practices that are regularly being engaged in by significant numbers of actual people involve the active shunning and isolation of former members of their communities, by spreading half-truths and lies, knowingly.  Maintaining this sort of dynamic is emotionally draining for both the attacked as well as their attackers.  Within the libertarian left circles, there is much talk about how hard it is to overcome the programming that taught some of us to be subservient to others of us, and how hard it is for those of us who grew up feeling entitled to be better members of a collective, to follow the leadership of marginalized people, etc.  So when you feel that you need to do something that is really uncomfortable — like publicly denounce a comrade and participate in destroying their career — you can justify your behavior, even though it doesn’t feel right.

Weaponizing Police and Prison Abolition

In libertarian left circles, particularly among people who talk about police and prison abolition, people also talk about accountability, and resolving conflicts within society without the use of police or prisons.  Of course, the vast majority of the world manages to have far less violent societies than ours, with far fewer police and far fewer people in prison.  But there is an element within the libertarian left in the US that would never report a crime to the police, because of their opposition to the US system of injustice.  What replaces the call to the police can sometimes be assumptions of guilt and cancellation campaigning against the person who might or might not have been accused of a crime, which is all openly justified under the guise of “accountability.”  We’re not supposed to call it a cancellation campaign, and certainly not vigilante justice.

Weaponizing Security Culture

Hit lists are real, there is real reason for organizers and others to be concerned about violence coming from the far right and from the state, and even more reason to be concerned about destructive trolling, hacking, surveillance, and so on.  It’s all real.  What this awareness tends to translate into in much of the libertarian left, especially online, is a complete mess of assumed identities that change all the time.  In so many instances there is no way to verify who anyone is, and the vulnerability to anyone wanting to throw a wrench in the works is obvious.  There are clear advantages to being anonymous, but that also applies to infiltrators, provocateurs, and undercover agents.  The idea seems to be increasingly acceptable in certain circles that we should respect the anonymity of anyone who feels the need to be anonymous, no matter what accusations about someone else they may be making.  This is obviously a very easy thing to abuse, and it is often abused.

I’ll stop there, though it would be easy to continue with other examples of the way solid left values get continually distorted and used as tools of division and destruction, whether wittingly or with the aid of social media algorithms and agents working for one state or another.

And lest the forest be lost for the trees, the overriding point I’m trying to make here is not that minor examples of bad behavior should be overlooked, or that we should reserve the tactic of cancellation campaigning for the major ones.  We should rise above the whole puritanical, witch trial mentality entirely.  We should have goals that necessitate building coalitions with people we don’t like, and then we should learn to work with those people for the common good.  We should cut the shit.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by David Rovics.

Here's a story I've never told before:

I traveled to Tunisia in late 1993 to meet with PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat. At the time I was serving as co-chair of Builders for Peace, a project launched by then Vice President Al Gore to help create employment and promote economic growth in the Occupied Palestinian lands. I was sent to Tunis first to meet with Chairman Arafat, and then speak to the PLO Executive Committee to explain our mission and receive their support. I had met with Arafat many times before; we knew each other and often had frank exchanges.

I was told that my initial meeting with the chairman would be at 2:00 am and arrived at his office to find him engaged in an animated phone conversation. When he finally hung up, he turned to tell me that he had been speaking to "my people in Lebanon" through a connection in Cyprus. He boasted that he spoke with them daily and had now succeeded in rearming his fighters in Lebanon—something that I felt he knew would provoke disagreement as I had argued with him before about what I believed had been the provocative and counterproductive nature of their armed presence in Lebanon.

That's the genius of peaceful resistance—it turns military might into a weakness and can turn worldwide public opinion into a powerful weapon for change.

At the end of his comments he said, "You see, Jimmy,"—that's what he called me—"these are the keys to leadership: communication and power in reserve."

Just then, the famed Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish walked into the room and Arafat said to him, "Mahmoud, I'm telling Jimmy that the keys to leadership are communication and power in reserve. Isn't that right?"

Mahmoud replied, "And also vision, sir." At which point, Arafat waved his hand dismissively, saying "Not important."

As noted, I've never written about this before, partly out of respect for the now deceased Yasir Arafat, and because, despite our disagreements and his obvious mistakes, I respect the enormous contributions he made to elevating the Palestinian national identity and movement.

During his life, he was shamelessly vilified in political discourse and popular culture. In cartoons he was portrayed as "Ara-rat." When he addressed the UN General Assembly, the Israeli spokesperson said, "Today, bloodshed and bestiality have come here." And I remember Edward Said, after reading some comments Israeli and American political leaders had made about Arafat's "ugliness," ask rhetorically what the response would be if Arabs had made similar remarks about Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, or Yitzhak Shamir—none of whom could be described as pleasing to the eye. But standards of decency didn't apply to comments about Arafat. He was always fair game.

One more story will suffice to explain my feelings about the man. During the lead up to the Madrid peace conference, the Bush administration was trying to work out a way to get all of the parties to agree to attend. The Israelis not only rejected the participation of the PLO, but wouldn't even accept a separate Palestinian presence at the conference. As a compromise, the Bush team proposed that a 12-person Palestinian delegation be formed of leaders from the occupied territories and that it be seated as part of, but apart from, the Jordanian delegation. Although the Palestinian delegation was comprised of extremely distinguished and principled Palestinian leaders, Arafat was both personally and politically hurt by his exclusion from the process.

Because I believed it was important that this compromise be accepted, I agreed when asked by a contact in the White House to speak with Arafat. After presenting my reasoning to him, I said in closing, "Look, I know this is hard, but think of yourself like the biblical Moses. You can take your people to the river's edge, but you, yourself, won't be able to cross. Let them go." As I looked at him, his eyes had watered up and I could see his pain—after his years of struggle, he was being left out.

Back to my original story. I felt it necessary to share these recollections now because, in some important ways, this idea of "communication and power" without vision still serves as a metaphor for the Palestinian dilemma. Arafat was, in fact, an effective communicator, and he was responsible not only for projecting the Palestinian message to audiences worldwide, but also for bridging differences within the Palestinian movement. He became a heroic figure for Palestinians and for hundreds of millions in the "Third World."

The problem was that when Arafat and his generation spoke of Palestinian moral and legal rights or even of a "democratic, secular Palestine," they were speaking about ideas which, though compelling and justified, did not constitute strategic vision coupled with realistic and actionable tactics to implement that vision. And so, while Arafat may have inspired millions and amassed arms, the use of these weapons was all too often counterproductive to the goals he sought to achieve.

Applying the same test to today's competing Palestinian leaderships, can anyone claim that the Palestinian Authority or Hamas or Islamic Jihad have a realistic strategic vision or that they propose steps that can lead to the implementation of that vision? In fact, the PA and Hamas have been reduced to dependencies, simply struggling to survive and maintain control over their fiefdoms. The PA president not only has no vision, but also doesn't communicate or have power. Hamas, too, has played right into Israel's hands. Their "strategy" has succeeded in providing Israel with the opportunity to separate Gaza from the rest of the Occupied Lands. Their so-called "deterrent power" is, at best, ineffectual and counterproductive in that it gives Israel the excuse to cruelly strangle and periodically deliver massive blows that take the lives of hundreds of innocents. And now with Hamas tamed, it has fallen to Islamic Jihad to foolishly think that random attacks and ineffective missiles can somehow bring about a change in the Palestinian situation.

As the brilliant and witty Israeli Palestinian leader Tawfiq Zayyed once replied to group who had denounced him, claiming that he had denied the Palestinian right to "armed resistance," "You may have that right, but when you use it as badly as you do, you forfeit that right."

What's needed now is what always been needed: a realistic assessment of the Palestinian situation vis-à-vis the oppressive and aggressively acquisitive State of Israel and, based on this reality, the development of a strategic vision and the tactical steps to implement it. For this, I would turn to the heroic example of the strugglers in Palestinian and Israeli civil society, both in the occupied lands and in Israel itself. They are creating the movement for change that can translate the one-state reality into a democratic future for all.

It won't happen overnight or even in a few years, but if the so-called "leaderships" would discipline their forces and lend their support or, at the very least, get out of the way, the possibility of a mass non-violent struggle against the apartheid regime could bear fruit—as it did in varying degrees in South Africa, the US civil rights movement, and Northern Ireland.

Violence plays into Israel's hands. Civil disobedience and general strikes by Palestinian laborers, boycotts, and mass peaceful demonstrations at check points and the borders would paralyze Israel. That's the genius of peaceful resistance—it turns military might into a weakness and can turn worldwide public opinion into a powerful weapon for change.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by James Zogby.

But at the same time, there were other problems in the oil sands — human ones — that escaped media attention, according to Kate Beaton, the author of the upcoming graphic novel Ducks: Two Years in the Oil Sands. After graduating from university in 2005, Beaton left her home in Cape Breton, an island off the east coast of Canada, to try to pay off a mountain of student loans by working in Fort McMurray. A white lie got her a job in the “tool crib” at the Syncrude Base Mine, where she handed wrenches and hard hats to workers. Around the time the ill-fated ducks landed in the toxic pond, Beaton was working in an office for Shell in the Albian Sands, using the office copier on her lunch break to scan the cartoons that would launch her future career. 

Today, Beaton is best-known for her sharp historical and literary satire in the comic book Hark! A Vagrant, a New York Times bestseller. Though Ducks maintains the same knack for humor, it is darker, recounting Beaton’s two years in Fort McMurray in impressive detail. Ducks has already drawn comparisons to classic graphic novels such as Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home and Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis. It offers an empathetic picture of her coworkers while also portraying the harsh realities of life in the oil sands: isolation, environmental destruction, and for Beaton personally, an endless stream of sexist comments. 

In an interview with Grist, Beaton explained why she thought a new story needed to be told about Alberta’s most controversial industry. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Q. You’ve written that people often characterize the Alberta oil sands as either “entirely good or entirely bad — the jobs and profits vs. the climate-rattling destruction.” How did you push back against that dichotomy in your book?

A. The images that we often see are of the giant machines. Rarely do you see the workers in any capacity but in their role as the operator of a machine, or behind the wheel of a pickup truck. I am from Nova Scotia, a place that exports migrant workers to Alberta. There isn’t a family around here that isn’t affected by a loss of a loved one to the oil sands. And when I see news about the oil sands, very rarely do I see the humanity in the place. It’s about politics or environmental issues, which are important, but for me, it’s a personal story.

Q. Your book lets readers draw connections for themselves about these bigger themes, but do you see a link between how these oil camps exploit both people and the environment?

A. Well, when you go out there, you lose your sense of yourself very quickly, because you are so isolated, you’re far from home, and you’re resocialized into an environment that is really unnatural. In my camp dorm, there were 48 rooms, and two of us were women. If you are a man, you are not expected to do anything except work and perform work-type masculinity — we’ve all seen the “hurt feelings report.” It’s a joke about somebody complaining about how their feelings were hurt. And that’s the type of stuff that you see all the time. So, mental health suffers under the conditions of hiding away your pain. And the massive gender imbalance has an obvious effect on the lives of women.

And so how that translates into the environment seems like an easy parallel to me. People’s lives are not being cared for. If there was somebody having a mental health crisis or a drug crisis, they would just be gone — either they would leave work or they would be fired. The company would not be responsible for them as soon as they left the site. And we would never see them again. 

Q. What did workers think about environmentalists?

A. When Greenpeace showed up and made a demonstration after the duck deaths, they were decidedly not on the side of the workers at all. Their point was to make a big splash, to get on front page news. As somebody pointed out to me in the book, Greenpeace left a mess for people to clean up, and put workers in danger to clean up afterwards.

Q. Why did you choose Ducks as the title?

A. When the ducks hit the tailings pond, you could hear the necks snapping as the world turned to look at what was going on in Fort McMurray for the first time, because it made headlines all over the world. It was this mass casualty of wildlife and it looked really bad.

It was a tragedy, and it shouldn’t have happened, but the ducks made headlines, and meanwhile, 2008 was one of the deadliest years for crashes on Highway 63, connecting Fort McMurray to Edmonton, which they called the Highway of Death. I saw a few of those deadly crashes. And there were a few workplace deaths when I was there — the companies always downplayed how dangerous the actual sites were. And the Indigenous communities around the oil sands reported things like rare cancers. And nobody cared. For whatever reason, the ducks got people being like, “Hey now, you have to do something.” And I’m like, “Well, what about the people here that are suffering?”

Then there’s the obvious metaphor too, that these were migratory animals that got stuck in the oil, like the workers.

Q. You’ve said that you weren’t that aware of climate change when you left for the oil sands in 2005. What was the attitude toward it like at the time?

A. So, when I left for the oil sands, Stéphane Dion, the minister of environment in Canada, said, “There is no environmental minister on earth who can stop the oil from coming out of the sand, because the money is too big.” That’s where we were on climate change in 2005.

Q. So things have changed a bit since then?

A. Well, I don’t think that any environment minister would be that honest right now. She was honest, at least. Because one of the years that I was there, 2008, they got almost $150 a barrel for oil. It was the highest that anybody ever made out of Fort McMurray, the height of the boom. It was like a flood of people going in there and it seemed unstoppable.

Fort McMurray actually, if you recall, was on fire in 2016, and it’s been through a lot. But at that time I worked there, we weren’t yet reckoning with everything that we were doing. 

The book could have been 3 billion pages and it would never have been enough — I got to touch on some of the environmental things because they came my way every now and then. I will say that the buffalo in the reclaimed pasture look very sad. 

Q. The buffalo in the reclaimed pasture?

A. At Syncrude, they make a big deal over reclaiming old open-pit zones into pasture land. If you look up videos, there’s like a man in a hard hat with his hand going through the grass and he’s like, “The buffalo are happy here.” And so when you’re driving up at Syncrude, you could see the fenced-off area for the buffalo, but Syncrude is right there like pumping shit into the air beside them, because it’s right next to the base mine. And so the buffalo are just like, “Hi. This isn’t really my natural habitat.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The year’s best graphic novel might just be about life in Canada’s oil sands on Sep 12, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Kate Yoder.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Anita Mureithi.

Victory Field, Indianapolis. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

When the Major League Baseball Players Association sent union authorization cards to approximately 5,000 minor league players in an attempt to unionize them, I was both surprised and not surprised at all.

If any industry is crying out for unionization, it’s this one. Minor league baseball players are subject to some of the poorest wages and most dreadful working conditions in America. Most of them toil for years before being washed out of the game without ever having reached the promised land of the big leagues.

On the other hand, as someone who has written about baseball’s labor history, I’ve noticed how nobody seemed to care all that much about minor leaguers until relatively recently.

Which begs the question: Why now?

Unionization, once a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the nation’s workforce, looks to be making a comeback – at least marginally, after decades of declining membership and strong-arm tactics by management to defang it.

If unions can work their way into the strip mall coffee shop, why not Minor League Baseball?

Big leaguers get their due

It was hard enough to get major league players to work collectively on behalf of one another.

Marvin Miller, a former labor negotiator for the United Steel Workers of America, became the executive director of the Major League Baseball Players Association in 1966. He soon realized that he faced a monumental task in encouraging big league, brand-name players to stand up for themselves against management.

By 1968 he was able to negotiate the first collective bargaining agreement for MLB players. Two years later, he succeeded in not only raising the minimum major league salary 25% to US$10,000, but also securing for his players arbitration rights. By 1976, players with more than six years of service had won the right to become free agents and negotiate with any team of their choice. Salaries skyrocketed.

As the MLBPA scored victory after victory on the labor front, life for the minor leaguers remained as it had been, and the chasm between being a big leaguer and a minor leaguer grew more pronounced as the decades passed.

Over time, the grueling life of a minor leaguer became the stuff of legend, explored in films like “Bull Durham” and “Sugar.” Travel often remained as it always had been: by bus. Trips could last for days; it wasn’t considered cruel and unusual punishment to include clubs residing in Maine, Virginia and Ohio in the same league.

Players are only paid during the roughly five-and-a-half month season. According to Advocates for Minor Leaguers – which was subsumed by the MLBPA as part of the union organization push – until 2021, the minimum minor league salary came out to around $4,800, which amounted to about one-third of the national poverty level of $12,880 for a single-person household. Meanwhile, the median minor league salary hovered around the national poverty level. On top of all this, players were responsible for securing and paying for their own housing.

A weak attempt to appease

In 2021, MLB began restructuring the minor leagues, realigning and contracting them such that 43 out of 163 minor league clubs were eliminated.

After this reorganization, MLB finally upgraded minor league pay, at least somewhat, increasing the Single-A minimum salary from $290 to $500 per week and the Triple-A minimum salary from $502 to $700 per week over the course of the season. MLB also assumed responsibility for most player housing.

This improved things, but only incrementally. Most minor leaguers still toil for substandard wages under conditions that seem unfathomable given the gravy train that is pretty much everything else Major League Baseball touches.

To be sure, not all minor leaguers suffer under these circumstances. Early-round draft picks have the luxury of dipping into their substantial signing bonus money to supplement their minor league incomes. But all minor league players remain subject to a litany of further indignities at the hands of their employers: Clubhouses – where players can spend up to 12 hours a day – can be dingy shacks with dirt floors. Off days are few and far between – sometimes as few as a single day per month – and players are often made to feel disposable.

“Minor-league players need to be looked at as investments, not pawns,” one minor leaguer confided to a reporter for The Athletic in 2021.

“They act like we aren’t a part of the organization,” added another.

The winds of change

Suddenly, however, there’s been movement on the minor league front.

If nobody else saw this coming, MLB likely did. Why else did the league finally make incremental changes in 2021?

I doubt the MLB did this out of the goodness of their hearts. I believe they did it because, like Bob Dylan, they didn’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing.

In July, MLB settled a $185 million class-action lawsuit over minor league pay, agreeing to permit clubs to compensate these players for their work during spring training.

Formerly, clubs were prohibited from doing so. Now they’re free to compensate their players for this time – if they so choose.

The MLBPA could sense the shifting winds as well.

After decades of silence, people with influence were at last beginning to take note of what was going on down on the farm. Reporters started digging, and former players started speaking up, publishing thoughtful and incisive pieces detailing not only MLB’s back-of-the-hand treatment of minor league players, but also how the MLBPA often ignored or sold out their minor league counterparts in labor negotiations.

And then, of course, there have been the high-profile unionization efforts at places such as Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, Chipotle and Trader Joe’s, which signaled that something was clearly afoot beyond the bushes.

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans’ support for unions is not merely ticking upwards – it’s at a 57-year high.

The real work begins

The unionization effort is far from a done deal; the MLBPA merely distributed union authorization cards. Now it’s up to a critical mass of minor league players to vote in favor of unionization.

How many of these highly vulnerable minor leaguers are going to be willing to risk angering the people who hold their precarious futures in their hands? How many of them are going to be willing to put their lifelong dreams on the line for a union card? How many are confident enough that their skills are such that they won’t be released in retaliation for organizing?

All I know for sure is that minor league baseball today finds itself in a place it has never been before: on the precipice of real, profound change.

Depending on how things turn out, perhaps one day the reality of being a professional ballplayer might actually resemble the fantasy so many young ballplayers have clung to for generations.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.  

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Mitchell Nathanson.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz took a thrashing from progressives on Friday after he underhandedly acknowledged that President Joe Biden's move this week to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt per borrower is likely to help Democrats in the upcoming 2022 midterm elections.

"I've interviewed many 'slacker baristas' who work much harder and are MUCH smarter than Ted Cruz."

"If you are that slacker barista who wasted seven years in college studying completely useless things, now has loans, and can't get a job, Joe Biden just gave you 20 grand," Cruz said on his Verdict podcast.

"Maybe you weren't gonna vote in November," he added, "and suddenly you just got 20 grand, and if you can get off the bong for a minute and head down to the voting station, or just send in your mail-in ballot that the Democrats have helpfully sent you, it could drive up turnout, particularly among young people."

Responding to Cruz's remarks, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted "this is what a leading Republican thinks of young 'slacker' Americans who took out loans to go to college."

Educator Chris Williams tweeted: "Apparently myself, a public school teacher who joined the Peace Corps out of college, and currently with over 20k in student loans after graduating in 2009, is a slacker according to Ted Cruz. Good to know."

Status Coup podcaster Jordan Chariton said on Twitter, "I've interviewed many 'slacker baristas' who work much harder and are MUCH smarter than Ted Cruz."

Cruz has been a vociferous critic of student debt relief. On Wednesday, he issued a statement condemning Biden's move and dubiously claiming on Twitter that it would "cost every taxpayer an average of $2,100."

It was far from Cruz's first questionable—if not downright false—tweet, which have run the gamut from defending former President Donald Trump's "Big Lie" that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election to claiming that the Biden administration was going to fund the distribution of free crack pipes.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

The fossil-fuel policy that has drawn the most attention in the weeks since Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer unveiled their deal is a provision that requires the federal government to auction oil and gas leases on federal land and in the Gulf of Mexico. Though presidential administrations of both political parties have historically leased this territory for drilling, the Biden administration has attempted to halt the federal leasing program; recent lease auctions have also been delayed by litigation from environmental groups.

The reconciliation bill reinstates old auctions that the Biden administration has tried to cancel and forces the administration to hold several new auctions over the coming years. The legislation also requires that the government auction millions of acres of oil and gas leases before it can auction acreage for wind and solar farms. The Center for Biological Diversity, one of many environmental organizations to oppose these provisions, said they turned the bill into a “climate suicide pact,” since they have the potential to prolong the lifespan of the domestic oil industry. However, energy and climate experts who spoke to Grist said that the provisions may not add significantly to U.S. emissions — in part because the fossil fuel industry may not be all that interested in what the government has to offer. 

“I wouldn’t say the provision requiring offshore lease sales is entirely insubstantial, but I also wouldn’t classify it as some kind of major victory for the oil and gas industry,” said Gregory Brew, a historian of oil at Yale University.

That’s for one simple reason: Even if the government does keep auctioning off federal territory, it’s far from certain that oil and gas companies will want to build new drilling operations on that territory. The industry has shifted resources away from federal lands and the Gulf of Mexico in recent years, and there’s currently less capital available than ever for new production in these areas The issue with Manchin’s lease provision is not so much that it will open up a bonanza of new oil production, but instead that it won’t do anything to make energy more available or affordable in the short term — and may even slow down the buildout of renewables in the long run.

The American oil industry was built on federal land and water. Massive companies like Exxon, Chevron, and Hess rose to prominence in the twentieth century by drilling the Gulf of Mexico for all it was worth, and further expansion of so-called “conventional” production took place on federal lands across the West. Over the past 20 years, though, the industry has shifted its capital elsewhere. The fracking revolution unlocked massive shale oil reserves in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and the Permian Basin of Texas, where almost all land is in private hands; most analysts now expect that the future of American oil production hinges on the Permian, which accounts for around 40 percent of U.S. oil production. Meanwhile, large companies like Exxon have cultivated young oil fields in countries like Guyana, where production could surpass U.S. offshore production in just a few years, and Suriname, which is expected to start exporting oil in 2025. These basins are far less developed than the Gulf of Mexico, which means the cheapest-to-drill oil in them still hasn’t been tapped as thoroughly as it has in the Gulf.

As new production plays have opened up, industry attention has shifted away from traditional federal acreage, especially onshore, according to Raoul LeBlanc, a vice president for energy at the financial analytics firm S&P Global and a former strategist for the oil company Anadarko Petroleum. He added that there is a finite amount of investment capital available for drilling, and that companies are likely to direct it to the most economical opportunities.

“In terms of oil, our view is that virtually all of the highly prospective [onshore] acreage is already leased and held,” he told Grist. “In that sense, opening up a lot of auctions for more development is unlikely at this point to yield a lot of actual activity.”

The market for offshore leases is stronger, because there’s still a lot of untapped oil in the deeper sections of the Gulf of Mexico, but it’s far from voracious. According to a 2021 report from the Department of the Interior, the amount of acreage under lease in the Gulf of Mexico has declined by more than two-thirds over the last decade, as existing leases have expired and oil companies have declined to renew them. The government attributed this change to “market conditions and changes in companies’ strategic approach to leasing” — in other words, companies were no longer willing to buy and explore new acreage unless they were certain there was oil underneath.

The only producers who still have any appetite for offshore acreage, according to LeBlanc, are the largest oil majors, like Hess and Shell, who can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on rig projects that may take as long as a decade to build. These offshore rigs are far costlier to start up than new shale drilling rigs, and they come with significant legal and environmental liabilities.

“[New production sites] are going to be in deep water, they’re going to be high-tech, high-capital, and there’s only really a handful of players that have chosen to play in the deep water,” said LeBlanc. “It’s not like the onshore [auctions], where you may have a party and nobody shows up, but people are also not crazy for this.” LeBlanc added that many companies are expecting oil demand to decline as a result of the energy transition, and therefore may not want to commit to decades-long projects. 

The result is that offshore auctions just aren’t what they used to be. Take for instance the offshore lease auction that the Biden administration held last November, the largest such sale in history. The government offered companies around 80 million acres of offshore territory for bidding, but it only received bids for about 1.7 million acres. Much of that leased acreage may never actually produce oil: About a third of the auction’s 300 bids came from ExxonMobil, which snapped up wide swaths of shallow territory close to the Louisiana coastline. Most analysts agree there’s very little oil left in those tracts, which suggests that Exxon may want to use the seabed to sequester the carbon it captures from other operations. 

“Industry trends suggest a decline in interest toward offshore exploration, in part due to the problems associated with acquiring leases, but also due to related costs, higher risk, and the more competitive state of shale fields,” said Brew, the historian.

Even so, the bill will resolve a long period of uncertainty around the federal leasing program, which may tempt producers back to the Gulf of Mexico. President Biden promised on the campaign trail that he would halt all new oil leases on public lands, but his administration has lurched back and forth on the leasing question several times already. Biden signed an executive order in January 2021 that ordered the Interior Department to “pause” all new leasing, but a federal judge blocked that order soon afterwards. Then, in November of last year, the administration held the largest-ever offshore lease auction. A few months later, though, another federal judge threw out the results of that auction, saying the administration hadn’t conducted adequate analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from the sale. In the months since then, the department has paused all leases again (in February), then resumed some leases (in April), and canceled an auction in the Cook Inlet of Alaska, citing lack of interest (in May). Earlier this summer, the Interior Department again delayed a final decision on whether to offer new leases. The Inflation Reduction Act would end all this back-and-forth. 

Even if all the auctions move forward, however, the emissions benefits of the bill’s clean tax credits will likely dwarf the impact of new oil production. An analysis from the Rhodium Group, a data analytics firm, estimates the Inflation Reduction Act will prevent 24 tons of carbon emissions for every new ton of carbon emissions it creates.That’s in part because the energy credits are so generous, but it’s also because the leases aren’t as enticing to big oil producers as they would have been a few decades ago.

In fact, the biggest win for the oil and gas industry may be the expanded tax credits for carbon capture technology, an area where producers like Exxon and Occidental have made big investments, plus a still-to-come permitting bill that could eliminate regulatory hurdles for pipelines and other fossil-fuel infrastructure. That permitting deal could lead to further air and water pollution in fenceline communities.

Fossil fuel companies might also be thankful that certain provisions were cut from the legislation at the last minute on technicalities: An earlier version of the bill, for instance, included provisions that would have increased costs for oil and gas companies in order to help reduce the number of abandoned wells on federal lands. Oil and gas companies are required to post financial assurances in the form of bonds to cover the cost of cleaning up their operations should they go bankrupt. But the amount of money that companies are currently required to post before they can drill on public lands is a fraction of the true cost of cleanup, which often forces the federal government to foot the bill. Current rules require operators to post $10,000 per individual lease and $150,000 for multiple leases nationwide. The bill initially raised the bonding requirement to $150,000 per individual lease and $2 million for leases nationwide. 

However, this provision was removed in the hours before passage because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it did not meet the requirements for passage under reconciliation rules. (The Inflation Reduction Act was passed through a special legislative process called budget reconciliation, which allowed Senate Democrats to bypass the filibuster and pass the bill with a simple majority.)

A bigger question about Manchin’s fossil fuel leasing provisions is if they’ll even succeed on the West Virginia senator’s own terms. As Manchin has it, the reason for the lease mandate was to ensure that the U.S. has enough reliable energy during the transition away from fossil fuels.

“You’re not gonna be able to do any more offshore wind … unless we’re absolutely doing more production with drilling,” he told a Fox News anchor last week. “We need more energy today, and we also need to invest in energy for the future. This is a balanced approach.” 

But according to Megan Milliken Biven, founder of the oil and gas worker advocacy organization True Transition and a former official at the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (which handles offshore leases), the lease provisions won’t actually help ensure energy security.

For one thing, Biven said, there’s potential for all these new offshore oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico to crowd out future wind energy investment. That’s because much of the promising wind acreage in the Gulf is already littered with pipelines and abandoned wells, and the new legislation’s mandate could mean that more of that territory is snapped up by oil and gas companies; this will further burden Gulf communities that already serve as oil and gas hubs.

“We have a lot of potential wind [in the Gulf], but there is already junk in there,” she said. “The old industry is imposing costs on the new industry.”

Furthermore, she argued, the lease provision won’t help reduce domestic energy costs, at least in any tangible or timely fashion. In Manchin’s telling, more domestic fossil fuel production will yield more domestic energy supply, which will reduce prices. But any new production in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, would take several years to yield oil or gas. And the U.S. already has a shortage of gasoline refinery capacity, meaning any new crude production is likely destined for export overseas anyway. 

“We are conflating production with energy security, when that’s not the case,” Biven told Grist. “The bill creates a lot of incentives that are counter to most people’s desires and wants for the trajectory of our country.”

Naveena Sadasivam contributed reporting to this story.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Inflation Reduction Act promises thousands of new oil leases. Drillers might not want them. on Aug 9, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Jake Bittle.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Rashmee Roshan Lall.

If you are tired of waiting for Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict Donald Trump for seditious conspiracy, insurrection, obstruction of Congress, or any other crime involving the attempt to overturn the 2020 election, I have some words of consolation: Steve Bannon’s trial for contempt of Congress has begun. If convicted, he will likely go to jail. 

Bannon might have been emboldened by the fact that contempt of Congress prosecutions are relatively rare.

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t take pleasure in the prospect of anyone doing time, as our penal institutions are shamelessly overcrowded and do little in the way of rehabilitation or deterrence to lower our outrageously high crime rates. But apart from Trump himself, there might not be any other person more deserving of a stint in the pokey than Bannon, the loud-mouthed propagandist and podcaster who led Trump’s 2016 political campaign to victory, and subsequently served as the disgraced ex-President’s chief strategist and senior counselor for nearly eight months in 2017.

The facts of the case against Bannon are straightforward and, from a legal perspective, devastating.

On September 23, 2021, the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol issued a subpoena commanding Bannon to produce documents on October 7 and sit for a sworn deposition on October 14. Bannon defied both requests.

On October 20, the committee voted to hold Bannon in contempt. Three days later, the full House, with the support of nine Republicans and every Democrat, passed a contempt resolution against Bannon and forwarded a request for prosecution to the Department of Justice.

On November 12, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Bannon for disobeying the subpoena. The first count cites him for refusing to testify, and the second for failing to turn over documents.

Contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, but a very serious one. Conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of thirty days and a maximum of one year in jail. There is no possibility of probation, according to a 2011 federal court ruling interpreting the contempt statute.

The committee set forth its reasons for seeking Bannon’s cooperation in a succinct one-page letter that accompanied the subpoena. The letter reads in part:

“The Select Committee has reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding important activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. For example, you have been identified as present at the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, during an effort to persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of the election the next day, and in relation to other activities on January 6....Moreover, you are quoted as stating, on January 5, 2021 [on Bannon’s ‘War Room’ podcast] that ‘[a]ll hell is going to break loose tomorrow.’ Accordingly, the Select Committee seeks both documents and your deposition testimony regarding these and multiple other matters…”

The subpoena itself lists seventeen categories of records and communications. In addition to the items highlighted in the letter, the list includes all discussions that Bannon had with Trump about the planning, financing, and staging of the events of January 6, and any communications that Bannon had with Trump between November 3, 2020, and January 20, 2021, “concerning efforts to contest the election results or delay or impede the electoral vote.”

The list also includes communications Bannon may have had with any third parties about the insurrection. The subpoena specifically names attorney Boris Epstein, who worked as a strategic adviser on Trump’s 2020 election campaign; Kash Patel, a one-time aide to former GOP Congressman Devin Nunes of California; and Ezra Cohen-Watnick, an intelligence officer who briefly served as the acting Under-Secretary of Defense in 2020.  

Initially, Bannon reacted to the subpoena with tough-guy bravado. Following his first court appearance in November, he told a small crowd of supporters and reporters, “This is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. Joe Biden ordered Merrick Garland to prosecute me from the White House lawn when he got off Marine One. And . . . we’re going to go on the offense. We’re tired of playing defense. We’re going to go on the offense on this and stand by.”

Bannon might have been emboldened by the fact that contempt of Congress prosecutions are relatively rare, and because his case was assigned to Federal District Court Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who was narrowly confirmed by the Senate in 2019. In March, Nichols dismissed a felony obstruction charge brought against a Texas man accused of storming the Capitol.

Nichols, however, has been anything but lenient with Bannon. On June 15,  Nichols denied Bannon’s motion to dismiss the case, rejecting his claims of executive privilege and his contention that the select committee was established illegally in violation of House rules. 

As Bannon’s July 18 trial date approached, he apparently had a “come-to-Jesus moment” typical of many criminal defendants faced with imminent defeat. In an email sent to committee chairman Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of South Carolina, by one of his lawyers on July 9, Bannon offered to testify after all. The email also cited a rambling letter written by Trump, waiving claims of executive privilege.

Neither Judge Nichols nor the DOJ was swayed by Bannon’s change of position. On July 11, Nichols denied Bannon’s request to postpone his trial to October.

Nichols also ruled that Bannon will not be permitted to argue executive privilege as a defense at trial, and that he will not be allowed to subpoena House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or other members of the select committee to testify. The rulings left attorney David Schoen—who represented Trump in his second impeachment trial and later joined Bannon’s legal team—so exasperated that he remarked in open court, “What’s the point in going to trial if there are no defenses.”

Unlike seditious conspiracy or obstruction cases, contempt of Congress cases do not involve complex issues of intent. All that the prosecution needs to prove is a willful or deliberate intention not to respond to a Congressional subpoena. Evil motives or corrupt purposes need not be shown. 

Bannon’s eleventh-hour offer to testify likely won’t save him, either. As the DOJ noted in a recent court filing, Bannon’s crime was committed and became complete in October, when he dodged the committee’s subpoena.

What this means, bottom line, is that Bannon had best hope he isn’t housed with the general population at the infamous D.C. Central Detention Facility, where he will probably serve his sentence. The same goes for former Trump aide Peter Navarro, who has also been indicted for defying a select committee subpoena. Navarro’s trial is set to begin November 17.

And who knows—a victory in the Bannon and Navarro cases might even encourage Garland to find his spine and prosecute Trump for attempting to overthrow what remains of our damaged democracy. 

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Bill Blum.

President Joe Biden sits in a virtual meeting with leaders of the so-called I2U2 group at a hotel in Jerusalem on July 14, 2022.

Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

The goal of a grand Pax Americana is finished. Biden is merely writing its obituary.

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Murtaza Hussain.

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Lydia Namubiru, Yetunde Adeyeri.

In 2004, high-rank­ing staffers in the George W. Bush admin­is­tra­tion spear­headed a holistic review of the pres­id­ent's emer­gency powers. Their goal was to refresh a set of secret plans known as "pres­id­en­tial emer­gency action docu­ments," or PEADs, the continu­ity-of-govern­ment play­book that emerged under Pres­id­ent Dwight Eisen­hower as a response to the threat of nuclear war.

We have been left to wonder whether exist­ing docu­ments still green-light the viol­a­tion of Amer­ic­ans' consti­tu­tional rights and civil liber­ties, or if modern sens­ib­il­it­ies and under­stand­ings of the law have moder­ated their approach.

Those docu­ments had been revised previ­ously, but they took on new signi­fic­ance in the wake of 9/11. Their review was, as one Bush offi­cial saw it, an "urgent and compel­ling secur­ity effort, espe­cially in light of ongo­ing threats."

In response to Free­dom of Inform­a­tion Act requests, the George W. Bush Pres­id­en­tial Library turned over to the Bren­nan Center more than 500 pages gener­ated during this review and subsequent reviews in 2006 and 2008. (Another 6,000 pages were with­held in full because they are clas­si­fied.) The released records shed troub­ling new light on the powers that modern pres­id­ents claim they possess in moments of crisis—powers that appear to lack over­sight from Congress, the courts, or the public.

Origins

Faced with the possib­il­ity of a Soviet nuclear strike, mid- to late-20th-century pres­id­ents craf­ted a collec­tion of pre-planned emer­gency actions. Although none has ever been leaked, declas­si­fied, or deployed, we know that some early drafts rested on broad claims to inher­ent exec­ut­ive power. Offi­cial reports from the 1960s indic­ate that vari­ous PEADs author­ized the pres­id­ent to suspend habeas corpus, detain "danger­ous persons" within the United States, censor news media, and prevent inter­na­tional travel. (The Bren­nan Center's repos­it­ory of related mater­i­als, span­ning the admin­is­tra­tions of 12 pres­id­ents, can be found here.) 

Beyond that period, however, our know­ledge of PEADs' content fades. We have been left to wonder whether exist­ing docu­ments still green-light the viol­a­tion of Amer­ic­ans' consti­tu­tional rights and civil liber­ties, or if modern sens­ib­il­it­ies and under­stand­ings of the law have moder­ated their approach.

Equipped with the latest tranche of pres­id­en­tial records, we now know that at least some of the most disturb­ing aspects of early–­Cold War emer­gency action docu­ments persisted as of 2008. Although the library with­held almost all substant­ive inform­a­tion about the PEADs under review, we have been able to recon­struct the broad contours of several of them.

Controlling commu­nic­a­tions

At least one of the docu­ments under review was designed to imple­ment the emer­gency author­it­ies contained in Section 706 of the Commu­nic­a­tions Act. During World War II, Congress gran­ted the pres­id­ent author­ity to shut down or seize control of "any facil­ity or station for wire commu­nic­a­tion" upon proclam­a­tion "that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States."

This fright­en­ingly expans­ive language was, at the time, hemmed in by Amer­ic­ans' limited use of tele­phone calls and tele­grams. Today, however, a pres­id­ent will­ing to test the limits of his or her author­ity might inter­pret "wire commu­nic­a­tions" to encom­pass the inter­net—and there­fore claim a "kill switch" over vast swaths of elec­tronic commu­nic­a­tion.

And indeed, Bush admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials repeatedly high­lighted the stat­ute's flex­ib­il­ity: it was "very broad," as one offi­cial in the National Secur­ity Coun­cil scribbled, and it exten­ded "broader than common carri­ers in FCC [Federal Commu­nic­a­tions Commis­sion] juris[diction]."

Previ­ously, it was a matter of spec­u­la­tion as to whether any emer­gency action docu­ments purpor­ted to imple­ment this author­ity. But Bush offi­cials evid­ently examined at least one such docu­ment as part of their review, a Commu­nic­a­tions Act PEAD that appears to have pred­ated the admin­is­tra­tion. And the librar­y's records suggest that the admin­is­tra­tion added three more docu­ments on the same subject.

Deten­tion author­ity

The records indic­ate that at least one pres­id­en­tial emer­gency action docu­ment pertained to the suspen­sion of habeas corpus. An internal memor­andum from June 2008 specified that a docu­ment under the Justice Depart­ment's juris­dic­tion was "[s]till being revised by OLC [Office of Legal Coun­sel], in light of recent Supreme Court opin­ion." Examin­ing the Court's rulings over the previ­ous months, it is evid­ent that this must refer to the land­mark decision in Boumediene v. Bush, which recog­nized Guantanamo Bay pris­on­ers' consti­tu­tional right to chal­lenge their deten­tion in court. This strongly suggests that the early–­Cold War PEADs purport­ing to suspend habeas corpus had survived, at least in some form, and were part of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion's review. 

The result of the admin­is­tra­tion's post-Boumediene revi­sion is unknown. Signi­fic­antly, though, it does­n't appear that any emer­gency action docu­ments were with­drawn or cancelled. To the contrary, eight PEADs were added, bring­ing the total number to 56.

Inhib­it­ing the right to travel

Restrict­ing the use of U.S. pass­ports—a repor­ted feature of some early pres­id­en­tial emer­gency action docu­ments—remained on the table as of 2008. Records gener­ated by the Bush admin­is­tra­tion's review high­lighted a provi­sion of law from 1978 that allows the govern­ment to curtail inter­na­tional move­ment based on "war," "armed hostil­it­ies," or "immin­ent danger to the public health or the phys­ical safety of United States trav­el­lers."

Although pres­id­ents have used this stat­ute to ban travel to Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea, a more sweep­ing abrog­a­tion of the right to travel would repres­ent a stark break from modern histor­ical prac­tice.

Trig­ger­ing other emer­gency powers

The national emer­gency declared after 9/11 — which is still in effect today and contin­ues to prop up the United States' milit­ary pres­ence across the globe—was cited in connec­tion with one or more PEADs.

A national emer­gency declar­a­tion unlocks enhanced author­it­ies contained in more than 120 provi­sions of law. Bush invoked several such author­it­ies, but several dozen others were—and still are—avail­able to the pres­id­ent as a result of Proclam­a­tion 7463. Presum­ably, the refer­ence to the proclam­a­tion during the admin­is­tra­tion's review implies the exist­ence of docu­ments designed to imple­ment other stat­utory emer­gency powers, which run the gamut from anodyne to alarm­ing, nearly four years after the attacks.

As with any archival exped­i­tion, the silences are often the most telling. William Arkin, a noted expert on PEADs, reviewed the new mater­i­als disclosed by the library and observed that they relate primar­ily to civil agen­cies—few, if any, touch on the role of the milit­ary in times of crisis. He suggests that this "black side" would have been discussed at a higher level of clas­si­fic­a­tion. By implic­a­tion, the most daring claims to pres­id­en­tial power may have been entirely excluded from this tranche of docu­ments.

Also miss­ing from the records is any evid­ence that the Bush admin­is­tra­tion commu­nic­ated—much less collab­or­ated—with Congress during its review. We have previ­ously noted that pres­id­ents have kept PEADs secret, not only from the Amer­ican public but from lawmakers as well. This lack of disclos­ure effect­ively blocks a coequal branch of govern­ment from over­see­ing emer­gency proto­cols.

With Congress unable to serve its consti­tu­tional role as a check on the exec­ut­ive branch, there remains the possib­il­ity that modern PEADs, like their histor­ical prede­cessors, sacri­fice Amer­ic­ans' consti­tu­tional rights and the rule of law in the name of emer­gency plan­ning. Congress should pass Sen. Ed Markey's REIGN Act, which has been incor­por­ated into the Protect­ing Our Demo­cracy Act and the National Secur­ity Reforms and Account­ab­il­ity Act, to bring these shad­owy powers to account.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Benjamin Waldman.

Lee’s success in the primary is remarkable in that she supports an outright fracking ban, a rare position for a politician seeking to represent Pennsylvanians. In the primary for one of Pennsylvania’s Senate seats, Democratic candidates Conor Lamb and John Fetterman — the latter of whom has enjoyed significant media attention as an unconventional, progressive prospect — both refused to endorse a fracking ban. Lee’s opponent Irwin received enthusiastic support from Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald, who has eagerly pushed fracking development in the region. 

Western Pennsylvania, with its hallowed history as a center of industry and fossil fuel extraction, has long been presumed a stronghold of fracking supporters. But the reality on the ground is more complex. It would be easy to assume that the city of Pittsburgh proper, whose demographics have shifted considerably from aging steel town to something of a destination for educated young professionals, is a mighty center of anti-fossil fuel progressives in a red sea of roughnecks. But that still fails to capture the nuance of the situation. Multigenerational residents of old steel and coal towns have had to weigh the economic benefits of fossil fuel-based industry against its devastating pollution that sticks around for far longer, and many have had enough. 

The district that Lee would represent in Congress includes much of the Monongahela Valley, or the Mon Valley as it is called locally. This is a chain of longstanding mill towns, a few of which still produce steel or process the raw materials to do so, that runs along the Monongahela River south of Pittsburgh. Many of these towns are economically depressed and struggle with significant pollution issues due to centuries of industrial malfeasance that continues to this day.

Lee has used her position as state representative to call attention to the ongoing environmental justice issues in this corner of Western Pennsylvania, emphasizing the need for improving air quality in the Mon Valley due to high rates of asthma in children and particularly poor health outcomes for Black residents. To that end, she has spoken out against U.S. Steel’s continuing violation of air quality standards in the town of Clairton, and fought against the company’s plans to install a fracking well on the site of its steel plant in her hometown of North Braddock. In the state legislature, she sponsored a bill that would impose stronger fines and penalties on polluting facilities. And indeed, she made environmental justice an explicit part of her Congressional campaign platform.

Should Lee win the November election against Republican nominee Mike Doyle (who has the same name as the exiting Congressman whose seat they are competing for), as she is expected to, she would join an expanding cohort of progressive, young women of color in the House.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Pennsylvania might really send an anti-fracking advocate to Congress on May 19, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Eve Andrews.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Robert Mackey.

A page from planning documents for the initial militarized clearing at Trinity Bellwoods Park on June 22, 2021, Toronto.

“Nothing this big or controversial ever happens without the Mayor and the Mayor’s Office being involved in every step of the decision making process,” explained midtown Toronto City Councillor Josh Matlow, when asked who rejected a documented, human-rights based alternative to militarized homeless encampment evictions. “That’s how it works in City Hall for good or bad.”

Emails, documents, and slide decks, recently obtained through Freedom of Information requests made by a team of activists of which I am a part, include a new set of speaking notes received the day after publication here of “War” Preparations: the City of Toronto’s Approach to Homelessness. They strongly appear to back Matlow’s view that Mayor John Tory had to be involved “in every step of the decision making process,” and suggest that the Mayor and City Managers’ offices were prepared, even at this early stage, to ignore their legislated human rights obligations

The speaking notes for Slide 9 of a deck, discussed in two meetings with City Managers, the Mayor, and his top aides on back-to-back Fridays and then again four days later with the Interdivisional Encampment Steering Committee, present the following “Concern”:

“Concern re: political aspect of policy going to council; enforcement action at some point in the parks & this will a challenging [sic] element of the work – very concerned about advocates response. Described this file as a political nightmare to contain – that council might hear two days of deputations before a decision will be made. Concerns about a million motions coming forward with every councillor’s agenda attached.”

Councillor Matlow was one of more than thirty sources I attempted to speak with for this story in order to share relevant pieces of information from the FOI documents and to get their responses. More than a dozen people responded and the vast majority spoke on the record. Over the phone, I read Matlow the “Concern” from the speaker’s notes.

He seemed stunned.

After a few moments of silence, he said, “well, that implies only the Mayor’s agenda counts and no other elected representatives’ voice—or who they represent—matters as much.” He continued, “that’s fundamentally wrong in the understanding of our democratic system. This was certainly a very centralized decision-making process.”

***

A comprehensive human rights-based alternative to the City’s militarized mass eviction of unhoused people from parks in the summer of 2021 was put forward to senior City officials by Leilani Farha, former United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Housing, and her new organization, The Shift in April. This plan, if adopted, would have re-started dialogue with unhoused people and their advocates in a more deliberate attempt to resolve differences over what to do about the large-scale encampments that had arisen during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Toronto.

Documents related to the back-to-back Friday discussions between Mayor Tory and the City’s top bureaucrats reveal that serious planning for evictions began months before they occurred. Following a January 7th request from Tory’s office for an update on plans for encampments come spring, an initial draft of an “encampment resolution plan” that laid out the structure of a highly orchestrated strategy to clear encampments from four City parks was prepared for a meeting among the Mayor, his Deputy Chief of Staff Courtney Glen, his Director of Legislative Affairs Edward Birnbaum, and representatives of the City Manager’s office that included at least Deputy City Managers Tracey Cook and Giuliana Carbone. The first version of the eviction planning slide deck, dated January 12, was prepared for the first meeting on January 15, and was published as part of Sunday’s article here.

“Hot off the press – I haven’t reviewed yet – but gives an idea of what we are looking at,” announced Cook in an email sent twenty-one minutes after the scheduled start of their second meeting on January 22. Attached was the fourth version of the slide deck, version six of which would be presented four days later with the speaker notes which we are publishing along with this article.

The centralized decision making process is evident in the speaking notes, which say City staff are “grateful for your top down support to this file.” There are other points of concern in addition to centralization and the intention to figure out a way to push through a highly controversial approach to dealing with homeless encampments.

Slide 3 “… We are all concerned about encampments and the springtime.”

Slide 9 “… Noted timelines are tight & will require a tight communication strategy … Will require a very political astute approach to the work – there will be 2 days of deputations before council when this policy piece goes forward; concerned about the end result of the policy following the political process”

Slide 10 “… Agreement on resolution (clearing) date – is this negotiable with executive leadership?”

Slide deck slide 7: Encampment eviction timeline.

Both Matlow and downtown Councillor Mike Layton put forward motions at the June 8, 2021 City Council meeting, crafted in consultation with Farha and frontline workers and advocates. One motion  in particular directed City staff to effectively pursue the approach Farha had recommended. That motion and all but one of the others, failed. Councillors Matlow and Layton separately told me that they understood Mayor Tory’s rejection of their motions as proof that it was the Mayor that had rejected The Shift’s human rights-based approach.

City Staff that I contacted for this story refused to talk about who made the decisions or crafted the accompanying political strategy. This includes the person who sent the slide deck and prepared the speaker’s notes for his presentation to the Interdivisional Encampment Steering Committee, Dan Breault, the lead of the City of Toronto’s Encampment Office. Throughout January 2021, Breault was communicating back and forth with Tracey Cook over email about various drafts of related slide decks.

Breault referred CounterPunch questions to the City of Toronto’s media office.

Eventually, City spokesperson Brad Ross responded for all involved (including the Mayor’s office). Ross asserted, in spite of evidence presented to the contrary, that in “all manners concerning … the enforcement of City bylaws, decisions rest with the City’s Senior Leadership Team, comprised of senior civil servants. Staff kept elected officials apprised of the unprecedented work they were doing throughout the pandemic to ensure that our most vulnerable residents continued to have access to safe, indoor accommodation.”

The Mayor has also refused to comment on his involvement. I have now put the question regarding the rejection of a non-violent human rights-based approach and why that decision was made directly to the Mayor, his communications secretary Don Peat, and Peat’s associate Lawvin Hadisi at least ten times. I have received no tangible response, despite repeated promises that one would be forthcoming. Furthermore, the Mayor’s office – including Glen and Birnbaum who were in the critical January meetings with the Mayor and City Managers and were copied during those meetings by email with the critical slide deck on encampment plans – has further refused to answer questions about the speaking notes, including the material on Slide 9. Birnbaum texted back only to say, “I believe Brad Ross responded to you. Thank you.”

Ross, senior civil servants, and relevant members of the Mayor’s Office, including Tory, who were copied on Ross’ response, did not respond to follow up questions.

While ex-cop and former Councillor Jonathon Burnside did go on the record stating of the decision, “it’s above me” as a Manager for Strategic Initiatives in the City Manager’s office, he insisted, “I don’t know who made the decision. Honestly, I can look you in the eye and say that.” Still, he was certain, “It wouldn’t be the Mayor. … The Mayor does not get involved in operational stuff.”  On repeated questioning, Burnside could not, however, state who should be responsible at all, even theoretically, for such a call.

Burnside did remember lots of back and forth with Farha and The Shift, “I was in on the meetings where she was talking about various things, but specifically an alternative plan? I don’t remember an alternative plan.”  However, emails that include Burnside and more than a dozen others, dated April 23 and May 4, contain The Shift’s plan and the City’s response, authored by Cook. We have not yet obtained the attachments (that include the City’s response) for those emails.

On the record, Burnside did not relay details of what they had talked about in such meetings in any detail. According to another participant in those same meetings, Andrew Bond of Inner City Health Associates (ICHA), the conversations were held under Chatham House Rules, binding participants against reporting specifics of the conversation outside of the group. Bond did share that, in those meetings, ICHA supported The Shift’s position on a human rights approach.

Farha also feels constrained by Chatham House Rules and, therefore, could not speak on the record to specifics of why the City refused The Shift’s plan. Nor could she pass us related attachments, but she says she “supports any efforts to retrieve them by way of Freedom of Information.” (A follow up request has been filed.)

The one participant who did agree to speak to me about what had caused the City to reject Farha’s plans, did so on the condition of anonymity. “The dynamic was, they were looking for something that could solve everything, quote- unquote, within sort of a six to eight- week timeline.” The source continued, “my gut is, if the human rights approach happens within a timeline, they would have accepted it.” They told me that it strongly appeared the decision was made by someone above the head of Deputy City Manager Cook, who was Chair of the encampment meetings.

“Democracy and protecting human rights are not always convenient or the most efficient way in the short term to get something done,” Farha noted when I asked her directly if the timeline question was what caused the Mayor and senior City bureaucrats to reject her plan.

As Bond noted, “People have a right to housing. They have a right to help. … If you ever have any timelines where you’re competing [between] recreation and fundamental rights to housing, safety, dignity and health, there’s no comparison there.”

***

FOI documents further show a carefully crafted communications strategy that saw emails first go to downtown Councillors informing them of the clearing only at 5:02 on the morning of the Trinity Bellwoods Park clearing followed by a similar notice to all other Councillors and the Mayor about an hour later.

Ahead of the enforcement action, plans for it, including especially the Operational Planwere tightly held in several other ways. Only those who drew up the plans knew what was happening until nine days in advance when relevant divisional heads were briefed but given strict instructions not to alert others. City employees and private security guards meant to show up at Trinity Bellwoods Park on Tuesday were only informed on Monday, lest the plans leak.

They leaked anyway.

On Friday, June 18, four days before the clearing at Trinity Bellwoods Park, I received a tip that a massive enforcement action involving hundreds of police, security guards, and City workers would take place on the following Tuesday.

Working to confirm the tip, I asked Farha and Scarborough Councillor Paul Ainslie, among others, if they knew of such plans. Farha noted that she had been told days earlier that “all sizeable encampments will be dismantled in the next two weeks. But I’ve received no more specific info since then.”

Ainslie is a member of Tory’s Executive Committee and eventually answered to point me to the latest information City Council had on the matter. Upon follow-up as to whether the Executive Committee knew more, he stated clearly, “No. What is given publicly is what we get. Unless at the local level they are giving more detailed information to the local City Councillor.” (Ainslie initially agreed to speak on the record for this article but proved too busy after reading over the materials.)

The Mayor and City Manager’s offices had been successful in stick-handling around Council members, avoiding having almost any of them gain knowledge that a militarized response had been in the works for months when they voted on how to address encampments at Council in early June.

***

Matlow wasn’t the only one who immediately smelled the anti-democratic powder keg in the slide speaker’s notes, talking points that appear to have flowed out of the meeting less than 100 hours earlier between the City Manager’s office and the Mayor’s Office, including John Tory.

Farha read the Speaking Notes and quickly replied first with a: “Wow” and then continued, “Let’s plough ahead because otherwise, democracy might get in the way. It’s appalling, but Tory strikes me as that type.”

Mayor Tory says violent encampment evictions are “meant to help the homeless people.” If left unchecked, Toronto’s Mayor may continue to push rapid, violent encampment evictions over human rights-based alternatives as Toronto’s housing and homelessness crises intensify.

I would like to thank the team of other activists who helped to obtain this material and closely read various drafts of this article to make sure that errors, egregious or small, were avoided to the greatest extent possible.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Doug Johnson Hatlem.

Following the publication by Politico of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Roberts authenticated the leaked document and stated that he had “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.” Whether or not the leak itself was illegal, however, the question of how a technical investigation of this document would proceed raises some interesting issues for journalists as well as potential sources.

Screenshot: The Intercept

Screenshot: The Intercept

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Nikita Mazurov.

The post If Anti-Trans Lawmakers Got Their Way, I Might Not be Alive Today appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Sage Dolan-Sandrino.

CBS News hiring former Trump aide Mick Mulvaney speaks volumes about systemic problems in our media. Mulvaney notoriously defended various Trump chicaneries—including withholding military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to extort its president for political gain—and no democracy worthy of the name should give him a prominent media platform. But once again, commercial values trumped democratic principles in mainstream news media.

A recording of a staff meeting captured CBS News co-president Neeraj Khemlani explaining how the hiring decision was based on maintaining "access" to Republican elites (Washington Post, 3/30/22). He told the staff of CBS's morning show:

Being able to make sure that we are getting access to both sides of the aisle is a priority because we know the Republicans are going to take over, most likely, in the midterms.

Such media malpractice recalls the now-disgraced former CBS CEO Les Moonves (Extra!, 4/16) enthusing in 2016 how the Trump campaign "might not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."

Misguided norms

De-prioritizing democracy is a recurring failure in our commercial news media, often enabled by misguided norms. As Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan (4/3/22) aptly noted, hiring Mulvaney reveals

the news media's blind and relentless pandering to the outdated notion that both sides of the aisle are pretty much equal…just with different governing philosophies.

The tendency to rely on "he said/she said" false equivalence has long stained professional news practices—simultaneously presenting a veneer of neutrality while also accentuating partisan conflict. But this practice is especially egregious now that the Republican Party has become an openly anti-democratic force, often supporting the "Big Lie" that the 2020 election was stolen, and refusing to properly condemn the January 6 insurrection and broader efforts to overturn election results—in some cases even encouraging them. The recent revelation that Sen. Mike Lee supported such attempts—a coup by any other name—barely registered with major television media.

News outlets have increasingly normalized this fascistic threat, at least partly because to call it out and condemn it—as news outlets would in any functioning democracy—counters a key cornerstone in the commercial media model. "Bothsidesism" is arguably one of the worst symptoms of our media's structural pathologies. Fixating on access to official sources, this practice typically indexes media coverage to the parameters of elite opinion, and naturalizes status quo power relationships instead of challenging them.

To confront the GOP's neofascist turn would amount to a departure that, in the words of media critic Jay Rosen (PressThink, 9/25/16), "fries the circuits of the mainstream press." A profit-driven media so closely wedded to the political elites within a two-party system could never dare alienate a large swathe of Americans who ensure the ratings that advertisers covet.

Obsession with ratings

As former MSNBC producer Ariana Pekary (8/3/20) has publicly written, commercial media's obsession with ratings warps and degrades media coverage. She described how it's "practically baked into the editorial process," but remains "taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content."

Yet the damage is all around us. Ratings-driven news outlets focus more on facile coverage of pressing social issues—or provide no coverage at all—to privilege entertainment over information. This commercial logic drives media to emphasize dramatic and sensational storylines that keep our eyes glued to various screens, from online clickbait to cable television's barking heads.

Several years ago, Chris Hayes made a revealing comment on Twitter (7/24/18) to this effect when he acknowledged that covering climate change is a "palpable ratings killer. So the incentives are not great"—which begs the observation that we must change the incentives driving our news media.

But why are commercial media so ratings-obsessed? It isn't just a popularity contest, but rather stems from the core business model that undergirds the American media system: capturing our attention to deliver to advertisers. In the US, most commercial media organizations—from cable news to social media—rely on revenues from delivering eyes and ears to advertisers.

Even for many newspapers, it's long been about an 80/20 split (80% from advertisers/20% from reader-support like subscriptions, though this ratio is changing with the collapse of ad revenue). At the same time, the US is almost literally off the chart compared to democracies around the globe for how little it allocates towards public media.

Captured by capitalism

Progressives often attribute mainstream media's failings to its corporate ownership. While news media's allegiance to corporate power deserves ruthless criticism, it's also important to underscore how these pathologies are baked into the very DNA of a commercial press, resulting in media's capture by unfettered capitalism.

Democratic theorists have long warned us against this kind of market censorship, a filtering process that creates patterns of omission and emphasis in which some voices and views are elevated, and others muffled, according to commercial values, especially the need for profit to satisfy media owners and investors. They rightly observe that much of this power traces back to the influence of advertising, which privileges some narratives and some audiences over others, thereby essentially redlining the news by serving whiter and wealthier audiences.

A commercial press that's overly reliant on advertising revenue and "access journalism" based on elite sources, simply is—and always will be—ill-equipped to defend democracy. Despite noble exceptions, such a profit-first system will consistently marginalize progressive issues and favor news frames that align with elite interests and worldviews.

For many journalists who have internalized these norms—a code of professional ethics that traces back to the first half of the 20th century when publishers assumed a semblance of "social responsibility" to stave off public criticism of commercial excesses in the press—these practices are carried out in the name of objectivity. It's this orientation that led a board member of the Society of Professional Journalists to recently suggest that journalists shouldn't adopt a pro-democracy bias in reporting.

This commercial system's shortcomings are symptomatic of core structural maladies—namely, profit imperatives that overwhelm commitments to democratic principles. It's not simply a few bad journalists and news organizations; it is deeply systemic. While critiquing corporate media is an important exercise—public pressure can help push the needle toward more progressive and democratic narratives—at least part of our focus needs to be on apprehending and changing the underlying structures that help produce bad journalism.

Democratizing media

This media reform project is especially urgent now, as much of the professional journalism ranks have been decimated in the last two decades. Our long-term strategies for democratizing media should include building nonprofit and public alternatives to failing commercial models.

Today, exciting new experiments are taking root across the country—many are independent, grassroots-driven and noncommercial—but we still need a society-wide approach to ensure that all members of the public not only have access to reliable and diverse news and information, but also have opportunities to make their own media and tell their own stories. Ultimately, we must democratize our media, but first we must remove journalism from the market as much as possible.

This task of de-commercializing our media is made more feasible by the market itself, as profit-seeking entities (with the unfortunate exception of vulture hedge funds) abandon local journalism altogether. We're faced with a historic opportunity to create a new media system from the ground up. It's incumbent upon all of us who have a pro-democracy bias to work towards building true structural alternatives to the run-amok commercial system we've inherited in the US. Because what's damn good for CBS is really bad for democracy.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Victor Pickard.

Kim Jong Un emphasized the need to strengthen the North Korea’s military capabilities, with an emphasis on nuclear development, in a speech before the parade that analysts in Seoul and Washington said were troubling.

“In particular, the nuclear forces, the symbol of our national strength and the core of our military power, should be strengthened in terms of both quality and scale, so that they can perform nuclear combat capabilities in any situations of warfare, according to purposes and missions of different operations and by various means,” the state-run Korea Central News Agency reported him as saying.

The event commemorated the 90^th anniversary of the founding of the Korean People’s Revolutionary Army (KPRA), which under the country’s founder, Kim Il Sung, waged guerilla attacks against the Japanese army in and around the Korean peninsula. The elder Kim is Kim Jong Un’s grandfather.

Pyongyang has been actively testing short and long-range missiles to display its military power, with a more conservative administration about to take over the government in South Korea and talks with the U.S. over denuclearization stalled.

Officials in Washington and Seoul have said that activity at North Korea’s nuclear testing site may indicate that Pyongyang is preparing to resume tests there.

Kim said in the speech that the purpose of Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal is to deter attacks, but also suggested that the weapons could be used for other purposes.

“Our nukes can never be confined to the single mission of war deterrent even at a time when a situation we are not desirous of at all is created on this land,” Kim said. “If any forces try to violate the fundamental interests of our state, our nuclear forces will have to decisively accomplish its unexpected second mission.”

The parade included the country’s largest known ICBM, the Hwasong-17, which Pyongyang claims to have successfully tested last month. South Korean officials have said that the Hwasong-17 exploded prematurely during the test and North Korea tested a less-advanced missile a few days later, claiming it was the Hwasong-17.

State media made a point of showing Kim shaking hands with military officials as the Hwasong-17 rolled by them.

De-escalation urged

Officials in South Korea urged the North to stop raising tensions on the peninsula.

“The South Korean government, above all else, urges North Korea to immediately stop any actions that cause tensions on the Korean peninsula and in the region,” South Korea’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Choi Young-sam said.

The presidential transition committee for South Korean President-elect Yoon Seok-yeol, who will assume office on May 10, said in a statement that close cooperation with the U.S. was necessary to deter North Korean threats.

South Korean analysts said that Kim’s words signified a significant shift regarding North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

“North Korea’s supreme leader has explicitly stated that [nuclear weapons] are no longer a means of self-defense, but they are now for attack,” Kwak Gil Sup of Kookmin University in Seoul told RFA’s Korean Service.

This increases the likelihood that North Korea would attempt to use nuclear weapons to resolve crises, Cho Han Bum of the Seoul-based Korea Institute of National Unification told RFA. 

“By significantly expanding the scope of the use of nuclear weapons, it is possible to use nuclear weapons in such attempts as regime crises, internal crises and regime changes,” said Cho.

Analysts in the U.S. meanwhile expressed doubts that the Hwasong-17 in the parade was real, but agreed that Kim Jong Un’s comments about his nuclear ambitions were troubling.

“What we see in the parade may only be a mockup, [and] may not be a real missile, either,” David Maxwell, a former Army officer and now a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told RFA.

“I think it's safe to say that Kim Jong Un is trying to show us advanced military capabilities, which on the one hand support his political warfare strategy and blackmail diplomacy to raise tensions to make threats. And they use these provocations to gain political and economic concessions,” Maxwell said.

Bruce W. Bennett, a counterproliferation expert at the RAND Corporation, told RFA that Kim Jong Un’s comments about nuclear weapons were “worrisome.”

“He's trying to be scary and make it look like he's capable. And then he says, ‘Hey, guys, bother me, and I'll use nuclear weapons.’ You know, it's a threat,” he said. “And especially given that he's facing internal instability, [it] does make us wonder where things are going on the peninsula.”

The General Political Bureau of the People’s Army used the occasion of the 90^th anniversary of the KPRA’s founding to issue a directive to soldiers that they have the responsibility of “protecting the system as the military of the supreme leader,” a military source in the northeastern province of North Hamgyong told RFA’s Korean Service Monday on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

But the source said that there was discontent brewing among the troops.

“The soldiers and even military officials criticize their leaders for designating them as a ‘spearhead’ for protection of the [current political system], without treating them accordingly. … [The order] emphasizes protecting the system but does not say anything about improving the military supply situation, so many soldiers scoff at the directive,” the military source said.

In North Pyongan province, in the northwest, another military source told RFA the directive included instructions to boost troop morale.

“The [recent] test firings of strategic and tactical weapons … induced the morale of the soldiers which has fallen due to hard training and a poor military supply system. It says that we can respond to any type of war,” the second source said.

“Officials and soldiers reacted that they feel that this propaganda, touting them as the strongest military in the world, is absurd.  They question how…, saying they are just workers in military uniforms who are unable to eat enough food.”

Translated by Leejin J. Chung. Written in English by Eugene Whong.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA’s Korean Service.

Photograph Source: Paul VanDerWerf – CC BY 2.0

An article written by authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge for Bloomberg on March 24 sounded the alarm to announce the end of “the second great age of globalization.” The Western trade war and sanctions against China that predated the pandemic have now been joined by the stiff Western sanctions imposed against Russia after it invaded Ukraine. These sanctions are like an iron curtain being built by the United States and its allies around Eurasia. But according to Micklethwait and Wooldridge, this iron curtain will not only descend around China and Russia but will also have far-reaching consequences across the world.

Australia and many countries in Asia, including India and Japan—which are otherwise reliable allies of the United States—are unwilling to break their economic and political ties with China and Russia. The 38 countries that did not vote at the United Nations General Assembly meeting on March 24 to condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine included China and India; both of these countries “account for the majority of the world’s population,” Micklethwait and Wooldridge observe in their Bloomberg article. If the world bifurcates, “the second great age of globalization… [will come] to a catastrophic close,” the article states.

In 2000, Micklethwait and Wooldridge published the manual on this wave of globalization called A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Promise of Globalization. That book cheered on the liberalization of trade and finance, although its authors acknowledged that in this free market society that they championed, “businesspeople are the most obvious beneficiaries.” The inequalities generated by globalization would be lessened, they suggested, by the greater choices afforded to the consumers (although, as social inequality increased during the 2000s, consumers simply did not have the money to exercise their choices). When Micklethwait and Wooldridge wrote A Future Perfect, they both worked for the Economist, which has been one of the cheerleaders of Western-shaped globalization. Both Micklethwait and Wooldridge are now at Bloomberg, another significant voice of the business elites.

In an article for the International Monetary Fund, Kenneth Rogoff, a professor at Harvard University, warns of the risk of deglobalization. Such an unraveling, he notes, “would surely be a huge negative shock for the world economy.” Rogoff, like Micklethwait and Wooldridge, uses the word “catastrophic” to describe the impact of deglobalization. Unlike Micklethwait and Wooldridge, however, Rogoff’s article seems to imply that deglobalization is the production of Russia’s war on Ukraine and that it could be “temporary.” Russia, he states, “looks set to be isolated for an extended period.” In his article, Rogoff does not delve very much into concerns about what this means to the people in many parts of the world (such as Central Asia and Europe). “The real hit to globalization,” he worries, “will happen if trade between advanced economies and China also drops.” If that happens, then deglobalization would not be temporary since countries such as China and Russia will seek other pathways for trade and development.

Longer Histories

None of these writers acknowledges in these recent articles that deglobalization, which is a retreat from Western-designed globalization, did not begin during the pandemic or during the Russian war on Ukraine. This process has its origins in the Great Recession of 2007-2009. With the faltering of the Western economies, both China and Russia, as well as other major economic powers, began to seek alternative ways to globalize. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which was announced in 2013, is a signal of this gradual shift, with China developing its own linkages first in Central and South Asia and then beyond Asia and toward Africa, Europe and Latin America. It is telling that the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a backwater event founded in 1997, has become a meeting place for Asian and European business and political leaders who see this meeting as much more significant than the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting held in Davos, Switzerland.

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, countries such as China began to de-dollarize their currency reserves. They moved from a largely dollar-based reserve to one that was more diversified. It is this move toward diversification that led to the drop in the dollar’s share in global currency reserves from 70 percent in 2000 to 59 percent in 2020. According to author Tony Norfield, the share of dollars in Russian foreign exchange reserves was 23.6 percent in 2019 and dropped to 10.9 percent by 2021. Deprived of dollars due to the sanctions imposed by the West, the Central Bank of Russia has attempted various maneuvers to de-dollarize its currency reserves as well, including by anchoring the ruble to gold, by preventing the outward flow of dollars and by demanding that its buyers of fuel and food pay in rubles rather than in dollars.

As the United States widens its net to sanction more and more countries, these countries—such as China and Russia—seek to build up trade mechanisms that are not reliant upon Western institutions anymore.

Deglobalization Leads to a Different Globalization

On January 1, 2022, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership(RCEP)—the world’s largest free trade pact—went into effect. Two years ago, 15 countries met virtually in Hanoi, Vietnam, to sign this treaty. These countries include close allies of the United States, such as Australia, Japan and South Korea, as well as countries that face U.S. sanctions, such as China and Myanmar. A third of humanity is included in RCEP, which accounts for a third of global gross domestic product. The Asian Development Bank is hopeful that RCEP will provide relief to countries struggling to emerge from the negative economic impact of the pandemic.

Blocs such as RCEP and projects like the BRI are not antithetical to the internationalization of trade and development. Economists at the HKUST Business School in Hong Kong show that the BRI “significantly increases bilateral trade flows between BRI countries.” China’s purchases from BRI countries have increased, although much of this is in the realm of energy and minerals rather than in high-value goods; exports from China to the BRI countries, on the other hand, remain steady. The Asian Development Bank estimates that the BRI project would require $1.7 trillion annually for infrastructural development in Asia, including climate-related investments.

The pandemic has certainly stalled the progress of the BRI project, with debt problems affecting a range of countries due to lower than capacity use of their BRI-funded infrastructure. The economic and political crises in Pakistan and Sri Lanka are partly related to the global slowdown of trade. These countries are integral to the BRI project. Rising food and fuel prices due to the war in Ukraine will further complicate matters for countries in the Global South.

The appetite in many parts of the world has already increased for an alternative to Western-shaped globalization, but this does not necessarily mean deglobalization. It could mean a globalization platform that no longer has its epicenter located in Washington or Brussels.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by E. Ahmet Tonak – Vijay Prashad.

Dailey bought a lot down the street, farther from the water, and — on the advice of his insurance agent — built a new house that was elevated 16 feet above the neighborhood flood level, with only a garage on the first floor. The house was high enough to stay dry even during large floods, and its flood insurance premiums reflected this fact: Dailey would now pay just $500 a year.

Last summer, though, he got a rude awakening. His insurance agent called him up and told him that FEMA had just debuted a new system for calculating flood insurance rates. His premiums would soon increase to around $5,000 a year.

“It was a bait and switch,” Dailey told Grist. “I was playing by their rules by building a compliant house. And now they yanked the rug out from underneath me.”

Dailey was already halfway done building the new house, and it was too late to turn back. He dropped his policy and didn’t acquire a new one — he had paid off the house, so he wasn’t technically required to carry insurance. If a flood overwhelms his new property, he’ll be on his own.

This month marked the full rollout of Risk Rating 2.0, the federal government’s new system for calculating flood insurance rates. The system, administered by FEMA, aims to fix long-standing issues in the beleaguered National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, shoring up the public insurance program’s shaky finances and making prices fairer for its millions of customers. As the program takes effect, a few trends are becoming clear: Homes that are closest to the water, and those in hurricane-prone southern states like Florida, are poised for massive premium increases.

As a result, many homeowners who live closest to rivers and coastlines will find themselves with new, sky-high insurance costs even if they elevate their homes or take other preventative measures. Over the long term, these cost increases could spell disaster for low-income homeowners who can’t afford pricier insurance, and for future growth in the riskiest housing markets.

David Maurstad, the chief executive of the National Flood Insurance Program, defended the system, saying that policyholders like Dailey were paying far less than they should have, and getting elevation discounts that weren’t matched to their true risk.

“The old rating methodology was antiquated and didn’t reflect the true risk of a structure,” he told Grist.

Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program in the late 1960s to protect floodplain homeowners from risks that private insurers didn’t want to cover. The original goal of the program was twofold: first, save the federal government money by having homeowners in risky areas finance the cost of rebuilding their homes after floods; second, discourage people from moving to these areas by making it mandatory for most homeowners to carry flood insurance policies.

A number of constraints have plagued the program for years. Congress required the NFIP to offer insurance at “reasonable” rates, so there are limits on how much the program can charge, even where risks have grown exceedingly large. On the other hand, even these subsidized costs are more than many low-income homeowners can afford, which means there are millions of people who should have insurance but don’t. Furthermore, the program calculated premiums based on a rudimentary mapping system that didn’t account for the design of local streetscapes, or for a home’s specific position within a floodplain.

FEMA doesn’t have the authority to alter the basic financial structure of the NFIP — that’s up to Congress, which has long dithered on changing the program —  but the agency does have the authority to revamp the actuarial system for calculating premiums. Risk Rating 2.0 does just this, setting prices using a complex algorithm that considers a home’s specific position within a floodplain, its position on the street, the cost of replacing it, and other local factors including tide dynamics. The idea is to shift the risk burden onto the NFIP policies that face the worst risk from flooding, giving cost relief to customers who are overpaying for their risk right now.

When FEMA rolled out the revision last year, agency officials said that most NFIP customers would see small rate reductions or very minor increases, so that the vast majority of policies would stay more or less the same. In Florida, for instance, some 20 percent of policyholders will see rate reductions, while around 70 percent will see policies increase by between $0 and $120 per year. A small minority of homeowners, though, will see premiums rise by thousands of dollars over the course of the next five years until their insurance policies reflect the true riskiness of their homes. (The system caps annual rate increases for existing policies at 18 percent per year, and FEMA says policies max out at around $12,000.)

Dailey is one of these homeowners, as are many of his neighbors in Shore Acres and other parts of St. Petersburg. Around one in five homes in the area are poised to see their policies increase by more than $240 each year, according to FEMA data. Dailey’s insurance agent, Jake Holehouse, said that around 80 to 90 percent of his clients’ flood policies are seeing increases, and many of those increases are in the thousands of dollars. 

NFIP’s Maurstad said the new system offers consumers more clarity about their rates, since it establishes a definitive premium price for each property, rather than increasing rates year after year in perpetuity.

“Have [policyholders] call up their auto insurance company and ask them what their auto premium is going to be ten years from now,” he said. “They won’t get an answer. We’re trying to provide a signal of what the full risk rate of the property is.”

FEMA’s guidelines for the new system say that a house elevated 5 feet above the floodplain can receive premium discounts of up to 40 percent, but Holehouse said such discounts still aren’t enough to make policies manageable for many people. Homeowners might save some money by elevating, but they’re still paying far more than they ever thought they would.

Maurstad said that policyholders who are confused about why their rates are now so high may be “misunderstanding what their pricing has been over the course of the last number of years” — in other words, they’ve grown accustomed to a subsidy that didn’t match the riskiness of their property.

“Elevating the structure is still very significant, and elevating the structure will reduce premiums,” he said. “It’s a powerful factor, but it’s only one factor.”

Holehouse said many of his customers are planning to cancel their NFIP policies and purchase policies from the unregulated private market, or go uninsured like Dailey and hope they don’t flood. Private flood insurance companies have gobbled up more market share in recent years as NFIP premiums have risen, but there’s very little accountability over the way they set their premiums or manage their risk pool, and thus no telling how these insurers would hold up after a major storm event. 

Maurstad said that the NFIP expects some consumers to consider the private market after reviewing their new rates, but said he’s “hopeful that people will think about the value associated with the flood insurance, and the ramifications if they don’t have the coverage they need.”

A similar trend is emerging in Louisiana, where thousands of homeowners have used FEMA grant programs to elevate their homes in recent years. Roderick Scott, a flood mitigation consultant who lives on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain in the town of Mandeville, says that many of his neighbors are seeing their premiums rise from a few hundred dollars a year to a few thousand, even if their homes are elevated several feet above the floodplain. He has helped elevate more than 6,000 homes — many of which are now set to pay close to what they would have if they’d never made any improvements at all.

In other parts of the country, trends are murkier. Julie Nucci, who lives in the upstate New York village of Owego, is in a situation much like Chris Dailey’s. After her historic Greek Revival home flooded in 2011 during Tropical Storm Lee, Nucci elevated it by 4 feet using money from a FEMA grant program and some of her own money as well. Her annual premium went from $1,800 down to $372, and her house was cited by the National Parks Service as an example of how to elevate a historic structure. Under the new system, her premiums will balloon to $2,900 a year.

“They changed the rules on me, and that’s not fair,” said Nucci. Now, she argues, there’s far less incentive for her neighbors to elevate their homes. “I want the rest of my village to elevate. I want my beautiful, historic village to survive, and FEMA is telling my village: We want you to leave.”

Maurstad said that the new rating engine allows FEMA to tweak insurance rates over time, which should enable the agency to smooth out any issues in the pricing system.

“If situations surface where we’ve got to further refine and improve the program, we’ve committed to do so,” he told Grist.

In coastal Virginia, on the other hand, many homeowners who paid a fortune for insurance under the old system are seeing massive premium discounts, according to Mike Vernon, a flood mitigation consultant who works in the city of Virginia Beach.

“I’m losing almost $40,000 this quarter in renewable premiums on structures that have no business seeing their premiums reduced,” he told Grist.Many of his clients were paying thousands of dollars a year to insure homes that were just a few feet from the ocean, but the new system has chopped their premiums down to just a few hundred dollars a year. 

According to Vernon, the new algorithm seems to place a lot of weight on what region of the country a home is in, so that high-risk homes in Virginia Beach cost less to insure than moderate-risk homes in Florida. The old system encouraged homeowners to mitigate risks by offering them steep discounts for installing flood vents and elevating homes, he said, but the new one won’t bring as many clients to the table.

Maurstad said that a number of factors could account for the regional differences. Some regions, for instance, tend to have older and smaller homes that are now seeing premium reductions. The new system also offers more nuanced modeling of hurricane risk, which better differentiates between the risks that face a city like Virginia Beach and those that face a town like Mandeville.

For wealthy beachfront homeowners in Florida, these new costs will be inconvenient or annoying, but for low-income homeowners the new burden will be impossible to bear. And since the new system doesn’t incentivize elevating one’s home, there will be no way for homeowners to get around the cost.

For the moment, said Holehouse, the prices won’t affect demand for homes in his part of St. Petersburg. Over the long term, though, home values might suffer in areas like Shore Acres, leaving some homeowners underwater on the value of their mortgages. He says that homeowners in the area haven’t fully grasped the scale of the problem yet, because they’ve only absorbed a portion of the rate increase so far, since increases are capped at 18 percent per year.

If the new system does start to soften demand in places like St. Petersburg, it will be fulfilling the original purpose of the NFIP, which was designed to discourage people from living in the riskiest places. FEMA’s new price system is sending a signal to people like Dailey and Nucci about their houses’ perennial risk of flooding — and the high value of their homes relative to others in the program. Elevating and floodproofing their homes may reduce that risk, the system is telling them, but it can’t remove it altogether. 

“One of our responsibilities in the program is to communicate flood risk,” said Maurstad, “and we’re doing that far more accurately than we ever have before.”

In other words, FEMA hasn’t changed the rules — it’s just that the stakes are much higher.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline FEMA’s new flood insurance system is sinking waterfront homeowners. That might be the point. on Apr 20, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Jake Bittle.

The post Gaza’s Forthcoming Crisis Might Be Worse than Anything We Have Ever Seen appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ramzy Baroud.

This was our life under Israeli military occupation in Gaza. The tactic of holding Palestinians hostage to Israel’s water charity was so widespread during the First Palestinian Intifada, or upirising, to the extent that denying water supplies to targeted refugee camps, villages, towns or whole regions was the first measure taken to subdue the rebellious population. This was often followed by military raids, mass arrests and deadly violence; but it almost always began with cutting Palestinians off from their water supplies.

Israel’s water war on the Palestinians has changed since those early days, especially as the Climate Change crisis has accelerated Israel’s need to prepare for grim future possibilities. Of course, this largely happens at the expense of the occupied Palestinians. In the West Bank, the Israeli government continues to usurp Palestinian water resources from the region’s main aquifers – the Mountain Aquifer and the Coastal Aquifer. Frustratingly, Israel’s main water company, Mekorot, sells stolen Palestinian water to Palestinian villages and towns, especially in the northern West Bank region, at exhorbitant prices.

Aside from the ongoing profiteering from water theft, Israel continues to use water as a form of collective punishment in the West Bank, while quite often denying Palestinians, especially in Area C, the right to dig new wells to circumvent Israel’s water monopoly.

According to Amnesty International, Palestinians in the occupied West Bank consume, on average, 73 liters of water a day, per person. Compare this to an Israeli citizen, who consumes approximately 240 liters of water a day, and, even worse, to an illegal Israeli Jewish settler, who consumes over 300 liters per day. The Palestinian share of water is not only far below the average consumed by Israelis, but is even below the recommended daily minimum of 100 liters per capita as designated by the World Health Organization (WHO).

As difficult as the situation for West Bank Palestinians is, in Gaza the humanitarian catastrophe is already in effect. On the occasion of the World Water Day on March 22, Gaza’s Water and Environmental Quality Authority warned of a ‘massive crisis’ should Gaza’s water supplies continue to deplete at the current dangerous rate. The Authority’s spokesman, Mazen al-Banna, told reporters that 98 percent of Gaza’s water supplies are not fit for human consumption.

The consequences of this terrifying statistic are well known to Palestinians and, in fact, to the international community as well. Last October, Muhammed Shehada of the Euro-Med Monitor, told the 48th UN Human Rights Council session that about one-quarter of all diseases in Gaza are caused by water pollution, and that an estimated twelve percent of deaths among Gaza’s children are “linked to intestinal infections related to contaminated water.”

But how did Gaza get to this point?

On May 25, four days after the end of the latest Israeli war on Gaza, the charity Oxfam announced that 400,000 people in besieged Gaza have had no access to regular water supplies. The reason is that Israeli military campaigns always begin with the targeting of Palestinian electric grids, water services and other vital public facilities. According to Oxfam, “11 days of bombardment … severely impacted the three main desalination plants in Gaza city.”

It is important to keep in mind that the water crisis in Gaza has been ongoing for years, and every aspect of this protracted crisis is linked to Israel. With damaged or ailing infrastructure, much of Gaza’s water contains dangerously high salinity levels, or is extremely polluted by sewage and other reasons.

Even before Israel redeployed its forces out of Gaza in 2005 to impose a siege on the Strip’s population from land, sea and air, Gaza had a water crisis. Gaza’s coastal aquifer was entirely controlled by the Israeli military administration, which diverted quality water to the few thousand Jewish settlers, while occasionally allocating high saline water to the then 1.5 million Palestinian people, granted that Palestinians did not protest or resist the Israeli occupation in any way.

Nearly 17 years later, Gaza’s population has grown to 2.1 millions, and Gaza’s already struggling aquifer is in a far worse shape. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported that water from Gaza’s aquifer is depleting due to “over-extraction (because) people have no other choice”.

“Worse, pollution and an influx of seawater mean that only four percent of the aquifer water is fit to drink. The rest must be purified and desalinated to make it drinkable,” UNICEF added. In other words, Gaza’s problem is not the lack of access to existing freshwater reserves as the latter simply do not exist or are rapidly depleting, but the lack of technology and fuel that would give Palestinians in Gaza the ability to make their water nominally drinkable. Even that is not a long term solution.

Israel is doing its utmost to destroy any Palestinian chances at recovery from this ongoing crisis. More, it seems that Tel Aviv is only invested in making the situation worse to jeopardize Palestinian chances of survival. For example, last year, Palestinians accused Israel of deliberately flooding thousands of Palestinian dunums in Gaza when it vented its southern dams, which Israel uses to collect rain water. The almost yearly ritual by Israel continues to devastate Gaza’s ever shrinking farming areas, the backbone of Palestinian survival under Israel’s hermetic siege.

The international community often pays attention to Gaza during times of Israeli wars; and even then, the attention is mostly negative, where Palestinians are usually accused of provoking Israel’s supposed defensive wars. The truth is that even when Israel’s military campaigns end, Tel Aviv continues to wage war on the Strip’s inhabitants.

Though militarily powerful, Israel claims that it is facing an ‘existential threat’ in the Middle East. In actuality, it is the Palestinian existence that is in real jeopardy. When almost all of Gaza’s water is not fit for human consumption because of a deliberate Israeli strategy, one can understand why Palestinians continue to fight back as if their lives are dependent on it; because they are.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ramzy Baroud.

The report lists anti-Russia measures divided into the following areas:  economic, geopolitical, ideological/informational, and military.  They are assessed according to the perceived risks, benefits and “likelihood of success”.

The report notes that Russia has “deep seated” anxieties about western interference and potential military attack. These anxieties are deemed to be a vulnerability to exploit. There is no mention of the cause of the Russian anxieties: they have have been invaded multiple times and had 27 million deaths in WW2.

Significance of Ukraine

Ukraine is important to Russia. The two countries share much common heritage and a long common border.  One of the most important leaders of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, was Ukrainian. During WW2, Ukraine was one of Hitler’s invasion routes and there was a small but active number of Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi Germany. The distance from the capital of Ukraine, Kiev, to Moscow is less than 500 miles.

For these same reasons of geography and history, Ukraine is a major component of a US/NATO effort to undermine Russia.  Current Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland,  said that over 20 years the US invested $5 billion in the project to turn Ukraine. The culmination was a violent coup in February 2014. Since 2015, the US has been training ultra nationalist and Neo-Nazi  militias. This has been documented in articles such as “U.S. House admits Nazi role in Ukraine” (Robert Parry, 2015), “The US is arming and assisting neo-nazis in Ukraine while the House debates prohibition,” (Max Blumenthal, 2018), “Neo Nazis and the far right are on the march in Ukraine,” (Lev Golinken in 2019) and “The CIA may be breeding Nazi terror in Ukraine” (Branko Marcetic Jan. 2022).

Rand suggested provocations

Prior to 2018, the US only provided “defensive” military weaponry to Ukraine. The Rand report assesses that providing lethal (offensive) military aid to Ukraine will have a high risk but also a high benefit.  Accordingly, US lethal weaponry skyrocketed from near zero to $250M in 2019,  to  $303M in 2020,  to $350M in 2021.  Total military aid is much higher.  A few weeks ago, The Hill reported, “The U.S. has contributed more than $1 billion to help Ukraine’s military over the past year”.

The Rand report lists many techniques and “measures” to provoke and threaten Russia. Some of the steps include:

* Repositioning bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets

* Deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia

* Increasing US and allied naval force posture and presence in Russia’s operating areas (Black Sea)

* Holding NATO war exercises on Russia’s borders

* Withdrawing from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty

These and many other provocations suggested by Rand have, in fact, been implemented.For example, NATO conducted massive war exercises dubbed “Defender 2021” right up Russia’s border. NATO has started “patrolling” the Black Sea and engaging in provocative intrusions into Crimean waters. The US has withdrawn from the INF Treaty.

Since 2008, when NATO “welcomed” the membership aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia, Russia has said this would cross a red line and threaten its security. In recent years NATO has provided advisers, training and ever increasing amounts of military hardware. While Ukraine is not a formal member of NATO, it has increasingly been treated like one. The full Rand report says “While NATO’s requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington’s pushing this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to redouble its efforts to forestall such a development.”

The alternative, which could have prevented or at least forestalled the current Russian intervention in Ukraine, would have been to declare Ukraine ineligible for NATO. But this would have been contrary to the US intention of deliberately stressing, provoking and threatening Russia.

Ukraine as US client

In November 2021, the US and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership. This agreement confirmed Ukrainian aspirations to join NATO and rejection of the Crimean peoples decision to re-unify with Russia following the 2014 Kiev coup. The agreement signaled a consolidation of Washington’s economic, political and military influence.

December 2021 Russia red lines followed by military action

In December 2021, Russia proposed a treaty with the US and NATO. The central Russian proposal was a written agreement that Ukraine would not join the NATO military alliance.

When the proposed treaty was rebuffed by Washington, it seems the die was cast. On February 21, Putin delivered a speech detailing their grievances. On February 24, Putin delivered another speech announcing the justification and objectives of the military intervention to “demilitarize” and “denazify” Ukraine.

As Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov later said, “This is not about Ukraine. This is the end result of a policy that the West has carried out since the early 1990s.”

Afghanistan again?

As earlier indicated, the Rand report assesses the costs and benefits of various US actions. It is considered a “benefit” if increased US assistance to Ukraine results in the loss of Russian blood and resources. Speculating on the possibility of  Russian troop presence in Ukraine, the report suggests that it could become “quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.” (p 99 of full report)

That historical reference is significant. Beginning in 1979, the US and Saudi Arabia funded and trained sectarian foreign fighters to invade and destabilize the progressive Afghan government. The goals were to overthrow the socialist inclined government and lure the Soviet Union into supporting the destabilized government. It achieved these Machiavellian goals at the cost of millions of Afghan citizens whose country has never been the same.

It appears that Ukrainian citizens are similarly being manipulated to serve US  goals.

A “disadvantageous peace settlement”

The Rand report says, “Increasing U.S. military aid would certainly drive up the Russian costs, but doing so could also increase the loss of Ukrainian lives and territory or result in a disadvantageous peace settlement.”

But who would a peace settlement be “disadvantageous” for? Ukrainian lives and territory are currently being lost. Over fourteen thousand  Ukrainian lives have been lost in the eastern Donbass region since the 2014 coup.

A peace settlement that guaranteed basic rights for all Ukrainians and state neutrality in the rivalry of big powers, would be advantageous to most Ukrainians. It is only the US foreign policy establishment including the US military media industrial complex and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who would be “disadvantaged”.

Since Ukraine is a multi-ethnic state, it would seem best to accept that reality and find a compromise national solution which facilitates all Ukrainians. Being a client of a distant foreign power is not in Ukraine’s national best interest.

The Rand report shows how US policy focuses on actions to hurt Russia and manipulates third party countries (Ukraine) toward that task.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Rick Sterling.

Road crews dump more than 20 million metric tons of salt on U.S. roads each winter to keep them free of ice and snow – an almost unfathomable number of teaspoons. Now, Nissen’s organization, Stop Over Salting, is pushing for Minnesota to pass a bill to reduce that figure by helping applicators learn how to use less of it — a technique called “smart salting.”

The reason, she said, is because the state’s freshwater bodies are in a crisis: 54 lakes and streams are “impaired” by high salt concentrations, meaning they fail to meet federal water quality standards, while dozens of others are drawing closer to that tipping point, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. But environmental activists and scientists argue that it’s possible to maintain winter safety while reducing the amount of salt spread on streets and highways.

“There are solutions,” Nissen told Grist. “We can still have our winter mobility and be safe … with less salt.”