Pierre Poilievre offers right-wing populism to the Conservatives.
Will they take him up on it? 

Althia Raj - National Columnist

• Canada
•  March 2, 2022
 

Canada’s Conservative party is changing. The question is whether it goes down a right-wing populist path — as Republicans south of the border have with Donald Trump — or whether it takes a centrist approach to appeal to a wider audience. In many ways, that question reveals the cracks in the nearly 20-year-old marriage of convenience between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, one that risks ending up in a nasty divorce.

The only declared candidate, Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre, is a polarizing figure with a “take no prisoners” attitude. He recently called Europe’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shockingly “weak,” embraced the so-called “Freedom Convoy,” and called COVID-19 public health measures a purposeful attempt by governments “to try and take away our freedom and give themselves more power.”

In the past, Poilievre has attacked the media, made derogatory comments about Indigenous peoples, left the door open to a niqab ban in the public service, and broken the election law. Elected at age 25, the career MP is a forceful opposition critic who has railed against elites, placed the blame for rising inflation and house prices at the feet of the Liberals, and promised more energy projects. His campaign launch through a social media video on Feb. 5 garnered more than seven million views on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. At least 26 Conservative caucus members have endorsed him.

Those who haven’t hope for a more mature candidate with a unifying message.

That’s what former Quebec premier Jean Charest, Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown and political commentator Tasha Kheiriddin want to offer. All three are current outsiders, and all hail from the Progressive Conservative side of the party.

Charest started his political career in 1984 under prime minister Brian Mulroney. He will meet with Conservative MPs — most of whom know little about him — on Wednesday in Ottawa. On Monday, Quebec’s anti-corruption unit (UPAC) ended its eight-year probe into allegations the Quebec Liberal party engaged in illegal financing when Charest was at the helm. It’s a welcome gift that clears the way for his candidacy.

Not that it will be a walk in the park. Jenni Byrne, Poilievre’s strategist, laid out the attacks against Charest on Twitter, describing him as a “Liberal who campaigned against [prime minister] Stephen Harper,” “supported the long-gun registry, raised taxes, brought in a carbon tax & worked for Huawei while the Chinese Govt detained kidnapped Canadians.” Her offensive led to an ugly public dispute on Sunday with Charest organizer and Tory MP Alain Rayes.

Brown, a vocal opponent of Quebec’s Bill 21, was a Conservative MP from 2006 until 2015, when he became leader of the Ontario PCs. Before resigning over allegations of sexual misconduct, which he strenuously denies, he sought to expand the Ontario party’s tent by supporting carbon pricing and reaching out to ethnic communities.

Kheiriddin has never held elected office, but she is well known, bilingual, and has no baggage.

Their decisions about whether to enter the leadership contest depend on the rules of the game — which could be announced as early as Wednesday. Poilievre’s camp wants a June vote and a membership cut-off of mid-May, sources said, giving any opponents little time to organize. His challengers would benefit from a longer race, with more time to sell memberships to newcomers and more time to be heard by existing members.

Charest and Brown will likely need to change the current makeup of the party — around 200,000 members — if they are to succeed. The Tories pick leaders through a weighted ranked ballot, in which every riding with more than 100 members is worth 100 points. Unless Poilievre were to win a majority on the first round, a race that includes Charest, Brown and Kheiriddin could see any of them benefit from each other’s supporters.

Poilievre is already courting down-ballot support from social conservative favourite Leslyn Lewis, the Conservative MP for Haldimand—Norfolk. Independent York Centre MPP Roman Baber, a staunch opponent of COVID-19 restrictions, is also contemplating a run.

Back in 2017, Andrew Scheer was elected leader as the compromise candidate, supported by social conservatives, Quebec dairy farmers and members who didn’t trust Maxime Bernier. In 2020, Erin O’Toole was also the compromise candidate, acceptable to social conservatives, and less centrist than Peter MacKay. In 2022, Poilievre is modelling himself as that candidate. But it’s unclear that the parts of the party he’s already alienated — namely the Quebec branch and those uncomfortable with his courtship of People’s Party supporters — will be willing to unite behind him once this race is over.

In choosing a leader, the Conservatives must ask themselves what their winning formula will be —do they want to take votes from Bernier’s far-right party or from Justin Trudeau’s Liberals?

Althia Raj is an Ottawa-based national politics columnist for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @althiaraj

The Globe and Mail

@globeandmail

March 1: ‘If Pierre Poilievre becomes Conservative leader, I will never vote for them.’ More candidates emerge, plus other letters to the editor

theglobeandmail.com

Letters to the editor: March 1: ‘If Pierre Poilievre becomes Conservative leader, I will never vote...

In today’s letters to the editor: sanctions against Russia; vaccine mandates; the Emergencies Act; the Conservative leadership; nuclear energy

 

‘There’s a lot of uncertainty among students': Concern grows as U of L faculty strike reaches day 18

Outstanding issues between the two sides include pay and benefits, academic freedom and some departments at the school being restructured.

Jayden Wasney
CTV News Lethbridge Video Journalist
Published March 1, 2022

LETHBRIDGE, ALTA. -

The University of Lethbridge’s faculty association (ULFA) has filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the University of Lethbridge. The complaint alleges that the school's board of governors have refused to bargain seriously during their current round of negotiations, which began in 2020.

The complaint put forth by the ULFA states that the board of governors has been engaging in "surface bargaining," which means a party has shown up to the table, but has refused to engage seriously with the other party's proposals, and in some cases, refusing to bargain at all.

“That is the strongest evidence you could ask for to see of a board of governors and an administration that has completely forgotten how you treat faculty and students with respect,” said ULFA president Dan O’Donnell.

The university however counter-claimed that it was the ULFA that recently refused repeated invitations to meet with the board of governors.

O’Donnell said that claim is false.

“The University of Lethbridge Faculty Association has never refused an invitation to the table in two years,” said O’Donnell.

“The same cannot be said of the board of governors side, and since the beginning of the lockout, the board of governors has received multiple unconditional invitations from ULFA.”

Outstanding issues between the two sides include pay and benefits, academic freedom and some departments at the school being restructured. The uncertainty of when classes will resume is only making matters worse for students as frustration grows.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty among students for graduating, for earning credits, for earning grades,” said student union president Holly Kletke.

“Lots of students take this semester to apply to grad school or scholarships and awards, so this puts a lot of uncertainty among students, but we’re doing everything we can to ensure both sides get back to the table.”

Kletke added that the students' union has a plan in the works to try and get both sides back to the bargaining table in the coming days, as the uncertainty of the strike is also creating mental health concerns among students.

“Having this thrown at us right now is the worst time for students' mental health,” said student Kayla Walker.

“We were just getting organized with COVID, me especially, I was just kind of getting my ball rolling after the new year, things were going to go back after COVID, and the stress of this I think is unmatched from anything else in my life.”

One student at the U of L who has received mental health training from the Mental Health Commission of Canada is offering her support and advice to students who are struggling.

“Since the strike has started we've gotten a lot of reports of students turning to substance use for example, and of course this falls during a pandemic at which point our mental health is already been questioned, and mental illness is definitely being exacerbated here,” said student Priyanka Dutt.

“I think what it comes down to is knowing your peers are available to support you, and while the institution might not be showing you that they care, your peers, colleges, faculty and I are all here for you.”

CTV reached out to the University of Lethbridge for comment about the unfair labour practice complaint. The university stated that "the ULFA’s recent complaint is without merit, and is unlikely to facilitate a productive return to bargaining."

On February 3rd, the university filed a bad faith bargaining complaint against the faculty association, claiming they derailed negotiations by withdrawing from salary discussions and reopening issues previously resolved.

Unfair Labour Practice complaint filed against the U of L

ULFA members on the picket line outside the U of L February 18, 2022. 

Photo: LNN

By Cathy Gibson
Feb 28, 2022 | 5:37 PM

Lethbridge, AB. — *Updated information with U of L’s response.*

The University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) says it has filed an Unfair Labour Practice complaint with the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) against the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors.

In the complaint, the ULFA alleges that the U of L Board has refused to bargain seriously throughout the current round of negotiations. The ULFA accuses the U of L Board of what it calls “surface bargaining” — which is when a party shows up at the negotiating table, but refuses to engage seriously with the other party’s proposals.

In a news release dated February 28, 2022, the ULFA stated that, “According to the complaint, the University Administration has engaged in a concerted and ongoing effort to avoid genuine and productive bargaining with the Association…'”

The ULFA alleges that the U of L Board of Governors falsely accused the union of refusing to meet to negotiate. The ULFA says it has never refused to meet with the U of L Board during this round of negotiations, and it says the Board has actually refused in writing to meet with the ULFA on three different occasions since the job action started.


ULFA members went on strike February 10, 2022, and the University locked out faculty members the following day. The ULFA has been without a contract since June 2020.

READ MORE: University of Lethbridge faculty on strike

READ MORE: University of Lethbridge lockout begins

“It is the students that suffer most,” said ULFA President Dan O’Donnell. “We are not the only university in Alberta suffering under budget cuts and a secret government mandate. And yet when it comes to settling our differences and keeping students in classes, only the University of Lethbridge Board of Governors seems unable to make the hard but fair choices that are required to get our students back to class.”

READ MORE: U of L says striking faculty need to make concessions

READ MORE: U of L students join professors on the picket lines

The ULFA complaint asks the ALRB to provide four years of annual financial statements and to require the two sides to meet under the oversight of a provincial mediator.

“It may be that this is the only way we’ll be able to reach [an] agreement,” said ULFA bargaining team member, Joy Morris. “It’s worked everywhere else. After two years of spinning our wheels, it’s time we get this settled and start catching up on the semester.”

University of Lethbridge statement in response to the ULFA’s complaint filed with the Alberta Labour Relations Board:

“ULFA’s recent complaint before the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) is without merit and is unlikely to facilitate a productive return to bargaining.

We continue to seek a negotiated settlement at the collective bargaining table.

We look forward to the union’s participation in productive discussions that reflect the impacts of our provincial funding cuts, and the fundamental need for financial stability.”

READ MORE: ULFA strike drags on

READ MORE: U of L and Lethbridge College lose millions in funding

U of L students host sit-in protest as faculty association strike continues

Eloise Therien 

A couple dozen students could be seen occupying a University of Lethbridge hallway on Monday and Tuesday in demonstration. They were protesting the continued impasse in labour negotiations at the post-secondary institution.

© Eloise Therien / Global News University of Lethbridge students began sit-in protests outside administration offices on Feb. 28 amid the ongoing faculty association strike.

They brought posters and signs in support of faculty, setting up camp outside administration offices in University Hall.

"We have our own voice and we're going to use it," said Amy Mendenhall. "We're using it right now."

Mendenhall is a fourth-year Indigenous Studies student who feels frustrated with the pace of negotiations. The strike began on Feb. 10, and students were supposed to resume in-person learning on Monday.

"We have tried everything up to this point to get attention," Mendenhall explained. "We went to an open (board of governors) meeting where they put down our hands, we have (written) letters, we have tweeted at them. We have done everything we can."

Video: Post-secondary schools discuss negotiation differences as U of L strike continues

According to students, they were approached by security on Monday for being too loud after they had been playing music and chanting.

Mendenhall said they then "toned it down".

"If they feel disrupted, well, welcome to the club."

The U of L issued a statement saying students have a legitimate right to protest, asking staff not to interrupt their demonstrations.

"As these activities unfold our community has a shared responsibility to respect these rights of students, in an atmosphere of mutual respect," the statement read.

On Tuesday, a resolution was no closer at hand. Both the administration and the ULFA engaged in finger-pointing, with administration saying the biggest contention is around money, while the faculty association claims the most contentious issues that remain are equity, transparency, and shared decision-making.

Read more:
Expert warns CUEFA strike could lead to more job action by faculty associations in Alberta

Both sides are accusing the other of refusing to return to the negotiating table.

The stalemate lead the ULFA to file an unfair labor practice complaint against the board of governors on Monday.

“It may be that this is the only way we’ll be able to reach agreement,” ULFA bargaining team member Joy Morris said. “It’s worked everywhere else. After two years of spinning our wheels, it’s time we get this settled and start catching up on the semester.”

Video: University of Lethbridge student solidarity groups show support for faculty association amid job action

"It proposes solutions to how we think we can get out of this impasse," ULFA president Dan O'Donnell added. "These are solutions that we know work because they've worked at every other university in the country. That's why we are the only university that has still got its students not in class."

However, the University of Lethbridge telling Global News the "recent complaint before the Alberta Labour Relations Board (ALRB) is without merit and is unlikely to facilitate a productive return to bargaining.

"We continue to seek a negotiated settlement at the collective bargaining table."

The U of L added it has been impacted by provincial funding cuts and looks forward to productive discussions with the union that reflect the impacts of the fundamental need for financial stability.

‘We demand you get back to the table’: Students call for action to end U of L faculty strike

Jayden Wasney
CTV News Lethbridge Video Journalist
Updated March 1, 2022 

Students at the University of Lethbridge held a sit-in protest outside the school’s administrative offices on Monday, Feb. 28, 2022.

Dozens of students held a sit-in protest outside the University of Lethbridge's administrative offices on Monday in an attempt to get the school and faculty members back to the bargaining table amid an ongoing labour disruption.

The strike has been going on for 17 days, and on Monday, the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Board of Governors, alleging that the board has refused to bargain seriously during their current round of negotiations.

The complaint alleges that university administration “has engaged in a concerted and ongoing effort to avoid genuine and productive bargaining with the association," and has "continuously engaged in surface bargaining tactics throughout this round of negotiations."

Members of the U of L's Student Solidarity and Action Council say they're tired of waiting for answers.

Approximately 30 students took part in the Monday afternoon sit-in.

“We’re not even asking, we demand you get back to the table and settle this now,” said Karina Almeida from the Student Solidarity Action Council.

“We are tired, we are over it, and this is not what any of us agreed to, and not what any of us paid for. The professors are what makes our school great, we need them back.”

“We’re going to be here until they get back to the table," said Amy Mendenhell from the Student Solidarity Action Council.

"They haven't listened to us. They've ignored us. They are now putting all of us at risk, so I need them – the Board of Governors – to start acting like adults and do the job they get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do, or step down and let somebody else do it."

Student Morgan Bowie says she worries about how the strike impact students who aren't from Lethbridge, who are paying for housing.

“I currently live on campus in one of the residence buildings, but my housing contract, I’m cancelling it after this week, because if classes are staying online there’s no point in me staying down here," said Bowie.

“It was really heartbreaking because I made some friends down here, and I’ve made a whole life down here, only to find out I have to move home.”

Third-year student Meghan Rennie joined Monday’s student sit-in because she feels the strike is taking a toll on the mental health of students, hers included.

"I’d compare it to the same amount of uncertainty we felt at the beginning of the pandemic," Rennie said. "Having to contend with that global pandemic, I’ve been actively thinking about how that has occurred, and been using that to try to support my mental health."

The University of Lethbridge says students have every right to express their views about the ongoing strike, and that they are doing everything they can to engage in serious negotiations with the ULFA.

Ukraine, Fossil Fuels, Bill McKibben, & You

Fossil fuels make the Earth unfit for human habitation. So why don’t we stop using them?

By Steve Hanley
Published2 days ago

When history books are written 100 years from now (assuming there are still any people around to write them), February 2022 will be described as a “watershed moment.” The invasion of Ukraine by a deranged Russian lunatic is not specifically about fossil fuels, but it will mark the time when humans decided whether to abandon them and live or embrace them and die.

Make no mistake. We are no different than the monkeys locked inside glass cages in New Mexico and forced to breathe diesel exhaust fumes by researchers paid by Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes Benz to “prove” that the crud pouring out of the tailpipes of diesel-powered vehicles did no harm to living creatures. In case you don’t recall that particularly horrific and disturbing news, here’s a link to the video.

YouTube is happy to make videos debunking climate science freely available, but has deemed this video too disturbing for younger viewers. God forbid our children should know the truth! [Note: the video is a recreation of what took place in that lab in Albuquerque. No actual footage of the experiments is publicly available.] Just imagine it is you inside that enclosure and not some lower life forms, known to the researchers as NHPs — non-human primates. In fact, thanks to fossil fuel pollution, the difference between us and those monkeys is very slight indeed. The cage we are in is bigger, but the pollution pouring into it is pretty much the same.

Bill McKibben Says End Fossil Fuels

In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book that warned of the dangers of pesticides. That book led to a ban on DDT and some other chemicals. Bill McKibben suggests the furor over Ukraine could actually spark the same sort of wholesale turning away from fossil fuels. In an opinion piece for The Guardian, he argues that the world should use this moment to massively increase the manufacture and installation of solar panels and wind turbines. He draws an analogy to America in World War II, when it converted its manufacturing sector to building planes, tanks, and ships on a scale never before seen in history. He writes,

In the last decade, scientists and engineers have dropped the cost of solar and wind power by an order of magnitude, to the point where it is some of the cheapest power on Earth. The best reason to deploy it immediately is to ward off the existential crisis that is climate change, and the second best is to stop the killing of nine million people annually who die from breathing in the particulates that fossil fuel combustion produces. But the third best reason — and perhaps the most plausible for rousing our leaders to action — is that it dramatically reduces the power of autocrats, dictators, and thugs.

Imagine a Europe that ran on solar and wind power: whose cars ran on locally provided electricity, and whose homes were heated by electric air source heat pumps. That Europe would not be funding Putin’s Russia, and it would be far less scared of Putin’s Russia — it could impose every kind of sanction, and keep them in place until the country buckled. Imagine an America where the cost of gas was not a political tripwire, because if people had to have a pickup to make them feel sufficiently manly, that pickup would run on electricity that came from the sun and wind. It would take an evil-er genius than Vladimir Putin to figure out how to embargo the sun.

The point is this. Fossil fuels are degrading the environment. They are the primary cause of rising sea levels, droughts, extreme heat, raging wildfires, and melting ice caps. And yet, despite the mountain of evidence against them, humans persist in using them because it’s easy. Modern civilization is made possible by the energy created from burning fossil fuels. People cannot imagine living any other way.

And yet, the waterwheels that powered the early days of the Industrial Revolution are all gone. The steam engines that displaced them are gone as well. Yet the global economy expanded exponentially following their demise. Imagine the infinite possibilities for humanity that virtually unlimited electrical power from renewables will make possible! Rather than being frozen by fears that the era of fossil fuels will end, we should be rushing headlong into a future that promises abundant clean energy.

McKibben adds,”We should be in agony today — people are dying because they want to live in a democracy, want to determine their own affairs. But that agony should, and can, produce real change. (And not just in Europe. Imagine not having to worry about what the king of Saudi Arabia thought, or the Koch brothers — access to fossil fuel riches so often produces retrograde thuggery.) Caring about the people of Ukraine means caring about an end to oil and gas.”

The Energy Independence Thing

Within hours of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the fossil fuel industry was in full-throated cry, demanding more drilling, more pipelines, more climate killing emissions! Instead of recognizing the damage done, the endless wars fought for oil and gas, the ceaseless parade of murderous lunatics — Idi Amin, Mohammed bin Salman, Mu’ammar Al-Qadhdhāfī, Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, and Vladimir Putin, to name just a few — and the dire economic impacts of wildly fluctuating energy prices, many want the world to tighten its embrace of fossil fuels.

The American Petroleum Institute was fast out of the gate with demands to increase fossil fuel production. It played the energy independence card just hours before the first Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine, calling on President Biden to “ensure energy security at home and abroad” by allowing more oil and gas drilling on public lands, extending drilling in US waters, and slashing regulations. “At a time of geopolitical strife, America should deploy its ample energy abundance — not restrict it,” said Mike Sommers, the chief executive of API. He added that Biden was “needlessly choking our own plentiful supply” of fossil fuels.

Renewables For Freedom!

A patient goes to the doctor and says, “It hurts when I do this.” The doctor says, “Stop doing that.” We know the harm fossil fuels do. We know renewables can improve the energy independence of America and every other country by flooding the grid with cheap, plentiful electrical power. We know fossil fuels are degrading the environment. We know we don’t want flooded cities, polluted ground water, or raging forest fires. So why would be continue doing the things that got us into this mess in the first place? If we know it hurts people and the environment when we burn oil, gas, and coal, why don’t we stop doing that?

“Expanding oil and gas production now would do nothing to impact short term prices and would only accelerate the climate crisis, which already poses a major threat to our national security,” said Lena Moffitt, chief of staff at Evergreen Action, tells The Guardian.

Bill McKibben says if America could ramp up the production of tanks, planes, and ships in a matter of months, it could do the same with manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. So why isn’t it doing that? Why is it held hostage to the demands of people who choose to drive gas pigs that the price of gasoline be kept unnaturally low?

A fellow by the name of Socrates once said, “The secret to change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old but on building the new.” It’s time to build the new, which is a world powered by clean, locally produced electricity. If we do not, those history books may never get written, because there will be no one left alive to write them.

Tonga volcano eruption yields insights into asteroid impacts on Earth

The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano eruption is seen from space in this NASA animation. 

(Image credit: NASA/NOAA/NESDIS)

By Leonard David

On Jan. 15, 2022, the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano erupted off the coast of Tonga in the South Pacific Ocean, generating a tsunami and triggering resulting wave action alerts around the world.

The underwater volcanic eruption spewed ash, steam, and gas a radius of over 160 miles (260 kilometers) and more than 12 miles (19 km) into Earth's atmosphere.



An infrasound network operated by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) found the blast to be the largest incident ever recorded by that monitoring system. All 53 infrasound stations recorded the main eruption, at global ranges. The discharge was much larger than the Chelyabinsk meteor airburst in 2013.

Related: Astronaut spots ash clouds from Tonga volcano eruption from space (photos)

The Tongan government described the eruption an "unprecedented disaster," with the island nation suffering loss of life, major damage to homes and loss of infrastructure.

We now know quite a bit about the undersea upsurge. And there appear to be takeaway messages for those concerned about an impacting space rock and the creation of similar effects. Space.com reached out to noted experts in the asteroid impact field to gauge similarities between an undersea belch and Earth taking an asteroid punch in the oceans.

Indeed, data amassed from the Tonga occasion is keeping the scientific community busy.

Effects and after-effects

Lindley Johnson is NASA's Planetary Defense Officer in Washington. "We should examine all natural disasters — but both volcanoes and earthquakes in particular — for lessons to be learned about the effects and after-effects of a significant asteroid impact."

Johnson pointed out that there have been suggestions that the Tonga eruption released about the same amount of energy as is estimated for the June 30, 1908 Tunguska impact event in Siberia, Russia. "I don't know how valid that assessment is, but it is certainly worth looking at as an analogy."

"A dangerous asteroid is likely to hit [an] ocean, not land, because over 70% of Earth's surface is ocean. But a disproportionately large fraction of people live near coasts, so tsunamis are a threat," Clark Chapman, a senior scientist (retired) from the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado, told Space.com.

"We need to learn more about asteroid impact tsunamis, because they probably behave very differently from those caused by earthquakes or landslides," Chapman said.
Risk assessments and simulations

Lorien Wheeler and colleague Michael Aftosmis work on NASA's Asteroid Threat Assessment Project at the Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley. Their research is done under NASA's Planetary Defense Coordination Office.

Wheeler is the risk assessment lead for the project, focused on building fast-running probabilistic models that look at the amount of risk that different asteroid hazards can pose.

Aftosmis is an aerospace engineer in the Advanced Supercomputing Division developing high-fidelity simulations of asteroid strikes, including blast wave propagation, tsunami, thermal and global effects.

The analogy between a volcano and an asteroid hit is not obvious Aftosmis said, as one comes from the ground up the other comes from the outside in. "An undersea volcano and an asteroid impact, they have a lot of similarities when it comes to the kind of tsunami that might be triggered," he said.
Coupling of energy

"When you look at the aggregate level of risk from potential asteroid impacts, considering all the different frequencies of sizes that are most likely to hit us," Wheeler said, "our current models indicate the risk of large tsunamis from asteroid impact is relatively low, compared to other potential impact hazards like local blast, global effects."

However, given a big enough asteroid that strikes close enough to a coastline, it could cause a sizable tsunami, Wheeler said. "It's important to develop good tsunami models to be able to predict those consequences as well as we can."

The Tonga incident may give some insights on the coupling of energy to the atmosphere and water, such as how fast ocean waves dissipate, to better refine simulation models, Wheeler said.

Airblast coupling, the tsunami from the eruption itself and also seismic effects data from the Tonga episode are being studied. While asteroid-generated tsunamis are a relatively small threat contrasted to other effects, this particular case does have some interesting similarities and raises physics questions worthy of pursuit, Aftosmis said.

Furthermore, over several years, there have been a series of "tabletop" exercises hosted jointly by NASA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), held specifically to respond to and better prepare for an asteroid-meets-Earth scenario, if and when emergency action is required.

The upshot from assessing the Tonga event does yield valuable information that could be fed into future tabletop exercises, to better hone ways to estimate the level of risk and better inform response decisions, Wheeler said.
Existence proof

Noted asteroid expert Mark Boslough is an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the University of New Mexico. He participated in documentary field expeditions to airburst sites including the Libyan Desert of Egypt in 2006, Tunguska in 2008, and Chelyabinsk, Russia in 2013 to assess the impressive Feb. 15, 2013 event when a destructive meteor burst occurred in the atmosphere.

Several years ago, Boslough suggested the potential for asteroid airburst-generated "meteotsunami" — large waves driven by air-pressure disturbances.

As for the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano eruption, "yes, this is a great test of the idea, and I understand that meteotsunami were detected in Puerto Rico and Menorca," Boslough said.

It appears to Boslough that these have to be from air-coupled tsunamis as opposed to direct generation at the source of the explosion because they are in different ocean basins.

"If this turns out to be the case, then we now have an 'existence proof' that pressure waves in the atmosphere from big explosions can trigger tsunami far away from the explosion itself. If volcanoes can do this, I think asteroid airbursts can as well," Boslough said.

Leonard David is author of "Moon Rush: The New Space Race" (National Geographic, 2019). A longtime writer for Space.com, David has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom or on Facebook.

Road de-icing, mined salt damaging freshwater ecosystems

MINING.COM Staff Writer | February 28, 2022 

Salt production. (Image by AkerrarenAdarrak, Pixabay).

The use or production of salt in mining operations, road de-icing, and agriculture fertilizers are causing freshwater salinization, which triggers a massive loss of zooplankton and an increase in algae – even when levels are within the lowest thresholds established in Canada, the US and throughout Europe.


A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that current water quality guidelines aren’t protecting freshwater ecosystems from increasing salt pollution.

“It’s clear that salt pollution in freshwater lakes, streams, and wetlands, even when constrained to levels specifically chosen to protect the environment, threatens the biodiversity and overall function of freshwater ecosystems. This is a global problem that has the potential to impact ecosystems and human health,” Rick Relyea, co-author of the paper, said in a media statement.

According to Relyea and his colleagues, increasing salt levels threaten zooplankton, a critical food resource for young fish, and changes caused by rising salinity could alter nutrient cycling, water quality and clarity, and instigate growth and population declines in economically important fish species.

In the research group’s view, their results indicate a major threat to the biodiversity and functioning of freshwater ecosystems and the urgency for governments to reassess current threshold concentrations to protect lakes from salinization sparked by sodium chloride, one of the most common salt types leading to the salinization of freshwater lakes.

“Our study shows the ecological costs of salinization and illustrates the immediate need to reassess and reduce existing chloride thresholds and to set sound guidelines in countries where they do not exist to protect lakes from salt pollution,” said Bill Hintz, co-leader of the project.

The lowest threshold for chloride concentration in the US established by the Environmental Protection Agency is 230 milligrams of chloride per liter. In Canada, it’s 120 milligrams of chloride per liter. Throughout Europe, thresholds are generally higher.

In countries like Germany, for example, chloride concentrations between 50 and 200 milligrams per liter are classified as “slightly polluted by salts,” and concentrations between 200 and 400 milligrams per liter are classified as “moderately polluted by salts.” The drinking water guideline is 250 milligrams per liter across much of Europe.

Cascading effect

But as the study shows, negative impacts occur well below those limits. At nearly three-quarters of the 16 study sites, chloride concentration thresholds that caused a more than 50% reduction in zooplankton were at or below the governments’ established chloride thresholds. This loss of zooplankton triggered a cascading effect causing an increase in phytoplankton biomass, or microscopic freshwater algae, at almost half of the study sites.

“More algae in the water could lead to a reduction in water clarity, which could affect organisms living on the bottom of lakes as well,” said Shelley Arnott, co-leader of the project and the paper. “The loss of zooplankton leading to more algae has the potential to alter lake ecosystems in ways that might change the services lakes provide, namely recreational opportunities, drinking water quality, and fisheries.”

Hintz and Arnott said that many salt-contaminated lakes with chloride concentrations near or above thresholds established throughout the world might have already experienced food web shifts.

“The variability in our experimental results demonstrate how new thresholds should integrate the susceptibility of ecological communities at the local and regional scale,” Hintz said.

For the researchers, solutions also include finding ways to strike a careful balance between human use of salt responsible for freshwater salinization with ecological impacts.

Colombia mine explosion kills 13 people, four missing

Reuters | February 28, 2022 | 

The accident occurred on Saturday night and was caused by a build up of methane gas at the mine. (Image: El Expectador)

An explosion at a coal mine in Colombia’s Boyaca province killed 11 people and left four missing, the national mining agency (ANM) said on Sunday.


The accident occurred on Saturday night and was caused by a build up of methane gas at the mine, which is located in the Tasco municipality, the ANM said.

Colombia’s mining industry includes huge open-pit and underground projects operated by multinational companies, as well as hundreds of small, informal deposits.

Accidents in the mining sector occur regularly as some enterprises are illegal, or do not properly enforce safety measures.

The mine in Tasco had approval to operate, the ANM said. Rescue crews and fire fighters fear that the four people still missing were also killed in the explosion.

Colombia saw 128 mining accidents in 2021, which killed 148 dead. So far this year 19 mining accidents have taken place, with 36 deaths, according to the ANM.

(By Luis Jaime Acosta and Oliver Griffin; Editing by Michael Perry)

‘Weaving Two Worlds’: How the resource sector can build trust with Indigenous communities

Alisha Hiyate | February 28, 2022 | 

Christy Smith and Mike McPhie, authors of Weaving Two Worlds: Economic Reconciliation Between Indigenous Peoples and the Resource Sector

LONG READ

Resource companies understand that positive relationships with Indigenous communities are key to their success. They are also aware that Aboriginal communities have a greater say and more power than ever over what happens on their traditional lands.


However, amid the shifting power dynamics and higher expectations, court cases such as Yahey v. British Columbia and the federal government’s commitment to implementing UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), the permitting landscape has grown more complex and the way forward, uncertain.

A new book coming out on March 1, Weaving Two Worlds: Economic Reconciliation Between Indigenous Peoples and the Resource Sector, aims to provide some guidance.

Written by Christy Smith and Michael McPhie, both principals of Falkirk Environmental Consultants, the book brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives (Smith is from the K’ómox First Nation in B.C., while McPhie is of Scottish and English descent). It also draws on the experience of each author in the resources sector – Smith as an Indigenous business consultant and Falkirk’s vice-president of Indigenous and stakeholder engagement, and McPhie, as a founding partner and co-chair of Falkirk, as well as a past president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C.

CMJ spoke with Smith and McPhie in February about the concept of ‘allyship,’ the trend of Indigenous-led environmental assessments, and why addressing unconscious bias is a prerequisite to building productive relationships with Indigenous communities.

CMJ: First of all, congratulations on the book. You’ve approached a sensitive and complex topic in a really thoughtful and practical way. So to start the conversation off, why did you two decide to write this book?

Christy Smith: Too often we see companies going into communities and engaging in what I consider a harmful way that just causes problems from the get-go in development of their relationships.

From my experience – Indigenous people are very relationship oriented and that’s a key to understanding how we operate, our concerns and interests. Without that relationship, there’s no trust. So building these relationships and this trust is key to resource companies in order to move projects forward.

Mike McPhie: Senior folks in the resource sector recognize that relationships with Indigenous communities is key to their success. But there’s a real gap in understanding how to get from recognizing the issue and how to actually do it well. Our belief is that dialogue is going to be the key to success. And there’s a lot of people that are actually quite interested but really struggle with even knowing where to start.

There are lots of guides out there on how to consult, the law and the permitting process, but they’re often written at a more academic level and are process driven. Whereas a lot of this is about belief systems, history, understanding – which is deeper discussion not everybody is comfortable with having. The difference with what we’ve done, having these two voices of Indigenous and non-Indigenous, it makes some of the topics a little more accessible.

This is just our experience and our ideas, but it’s based on a lot of years at the frontlines of doing this stuff both at the board and executive level as well as on the ground. So we’re just trying to share that experience and help the conversation move forward in a positive way.

CMJ: One of the things you talk about in the book is this legal power shift that’s been happening towards Aboriginal communities. Mining and exploration companies are certainly aware of this shift, including the many court cases for reaffirming Aboriginal rights and the federal government’s recent commitment to implement UNDRIP into Canadian law. But what is the next step for resource companies to take after just being aware – because as you say, they may be uncertain as to what to do next?

CS: The first thing companies need to understand is that Indigenous communities are not stakeholders. They are governments that represent their communities and have been stewards of their lands for thousands of years and must be engaged as such.

Building relationships takes time. You need to understand the distinct interests and concerns of the communities. That builds trust, which also takes time. Once proponents understand that, they can create a formal engagement and reconciliation plan, in partnership with the Indigenous communities in their project area. This is a long-term relationship they are building with a community that will have a direct interest in and influence over how their project will be advanced.

We mention in multiple areas in the book that listening is key and not truly listening can be a barrier to building that relationship. Listening to the silence of the conversation is also super important to guide proponents.

MM: In the book, we talk about the first step being to educate yourself, understand what you’re dealing with because the mining industry is a global industry and to operate successfully, whether you’re in Central America, Asia or Canada, you need to understand local cultures, their history, and the place that they’re coming from.

There are over 200 First Nations just in British Columbia, and all of them have different histories and experiences with resource companies. So the first thing is to understand. The second thing is to talk with the nation and ask them, this is what we’d like to do – we want to go out and drill ten holes to test this target. Discuss that ahead of time, not just when you need the permit and after you’ve filed it. That should actually be your first call when you acquire a property, make contact. It’s the first thing you do and it’s a sign of respect; then you start everything off on a good step.

CMJ: Let’s talk about this process of people educating themselves. The book calls for the mining sector to play a bigger role in reconciliation and you explain that this has to start at the personal level, with each person examining their own biases and educating themselves about Indigenous peoples and history. How much of a willingness do you see within the resource sector to actually do this work?

CS: It’s all over the board and it depends on the individual. Sometimes the management level is super keen to do this work, but it’s not supported at other levels. Or the individuals at the board level haven’t done the work in support of the management, so it really depends on the scenario.

And change is uncomfortable. Nobody really wants to get deep into self-reflection, especially when examining some of these biases, assumptions and guilt or what they would presume as normal thoughts. But if that self-reflection isn’t done, the relationship can’t be formed in that positive way.

In our book we’re saying in a soft way that you do need to do this to be successful, but we’re not jamming it down their throats, saying, ‘You’ve been thinking about these things all wrong all your life and here we are to change you.’ We try to guide people softly through a self-reflective process.

MM: There’s been a movement over the last 10 years to a more enlightened view in the resource sector. But the spectrum is really wide and there are still people that are operating in a 1950s mentality, and then there’s folks that are way ahead of the game and making real change. And I think we’re seeing that the folks with the more enlightened view are the ones who are successful.

Pension funds and other sources of finance are pushing management teams in that direction, whether it’s through ESG reporting or the Equator Principles. But a lot of the metrics used in ESG reporting haven’t been able to fully address some key issues such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as defined in UNDRIP, which is now law in Canada through Bill C-15 which received Royal Assent in June 2021. We are now in version 2.0 of what engagement and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is all about and moving to where people really start to understand what a productive relationship with First Nations and Indigenous people is.

CMJ: What would you say to people in the resource sector who don’t get it and who would bristle at some of the language like White fragility, White privilege that are part of the discussion in the book, and the concept of decolonization training.

MM: With all honesty, I had trouble with those concepts going into this and Christy really helped me to understand it. It is uncomfortable because most people think they’re good people, right? They don’t see themselves as carrying around these biases or stereotypes in their mind, but I think once you actually recognize what these terms and concepts represent, you can begin to understand it much better. I mean, the domination of White settlers over Indigenous people in the country – there’s no question about the facts behind that. Does that make you (as a non-Indigenous person) a bad person? No. But does that mean you have to acknowledge that history and why people have felt unfairly treated over many, many hundreds of years? This is our shared history and, importantly, it isn’t an attack on you – it’s an attack on and a questioning of our past as a country. Having those honest conversations, yes, is going to be hard for some people.

We try to be really positive on this stuff – nobody is being blamed here. It’s about deepening your knowledge, you have to understand where people are coming from to be able to have productive conversations. They don’t really teach this stuff in engineering school and that’s part of the challenge.

People can get defensive even hearing terms like White privilege. We only have to look south of the border, where talking about race can become incredibly emotional really quickly. So we try to be really positive on this stuff – nobody is being blamed here. It’s about deepening your understanding, you have to understand where people are coming from to be able to have productive conversations. That’s how you build connection. They don’t really teach this stuff in engineering school and that’s part of the challenge.

CS: Mike, I love how you started that with your own self-reflection – it’s an ongoing process. I want to be clear, when we talk about privilege, I also have to check my privilege and how I’m coming into a room and to the table. I want to hear what the community has to say. Self-reflection is not just Indigenous, non-Indigenous. It’s something everyone needs to do when they’re listening and engaging.

And it’s tough when it’s an ingrained behaviour or an assumption that has been normalized. You have to continually work at changes and habits and changing perspectives take time. But it starts with the willingness to do the work. Lots of times the term White privilege offends people and they get their back up, but I think it’s OK to have those hard conversations and make people a bit uncomfortable because that’s where the real change comes.

CMJ: You write in in the book that the ultimate goal is for the resource sector to shift its thinking and move from being an adversary of Indigenous communities towards being an ally. Can you give us any examples from your experience where you’ve seen resource successfully make that shift?

MM: There are a couple of companies in British Columbia, like Skeena Resources and Talisker Resources where a shared ownership perspective on projects is being developed. The Tahltan actually made an equity investment into Skeena and they’re now partners in the development of the Eskay project. Talisker signed an exploration agreement with the Xwísten First Nation (or the Bridge River Indian band), and as part of that there was a consideration of equity ownership in the company. So that’s where you begin to shift from just consultation and jobs and scholarships to being full partners in development. And that’s where being allies comes in.

CS: With respect to allyship, you’ll see the success come when you see the company truly understands what the Indigenous communities want, because there’s some that want equity and some that want and need other things. The idea of allyship is supporting that community and lifting that community up.

MM: One thing that’s key is that mines are only there for 10 or 15 years. Being allies is also about recognizing that yes, there are benefits during construction and operations, but what is the long-term legacy, and are you working with and supporting a community in the way that they want to be supported to create enterprises and opportunities that last well beyond the mine life? When you talk about sustainability, there’s this massive opportunity to leverage the investment in a mine to create long-term enterprises. It’s that kind of perspective – what’s your legacy of being there and have you created a more resilient, stronger community or have you done something else?

The last thing I’ll say about allyship is that it has to be welcomed. You can’t just show up and say, ‘Hey, we’ve got all this money and all this opportunity – here you go.’ It’s more like, ‘Here’s this opportunity. How do we do it together, and are you willing to accept that?” It’s very much a reciprocal relationship.

CS: When we talk about legacy, the land base will be there a lot longer than the project, so it’s really about becoming co-stewards with the community and ensuring that you’re supporting and protecting the environment into perpetuity in a way that the communities want. So not only providing support from the investment/business side, but also from a land-use planning perspective.

CMJ: You flagged a really interesting trend in in the book of Indigenous-led environmental assessments. This is a still a very new area, but how should the mining sector get prepared for this? What do they need to know?

MM: For quite some time there’s been increased involvement of Indigenous people in the assessment of the economic and environmental effects of projects. It’s mostly being led out of British Columbia, but it’s also happening in other parts of the country and in other parts of the world, where you’re seeing provincial or federal processes being either amplified or even almost replaced. There are only a few jurisdictions that are moving in that direction so far, but I would expect over the next 10 years it’ll become much, much more common.

The Squamish First Nation on the West Coast of British Columbia did their own environmental assessment on the Woodfibre LNG project that was being proposed in their territory in 2019. The Tahltan Nation is moving rapidly in that direction to assess projects in their traditional territories, and there’s lots of other discussion in that regard. We don’t know exactly how this is going to play out but the trend is real and companies need to be aware.

We do not see the essential science and methods of doing an EA changing, but the questions that are being asked, how the Indigenous community is involved in the review and the process that is to be followed will evolve. Procedurally, it may affect timelines, it could be a little bit more expensive and complicated. Hopefully though, where these assessments are Indigenous-led, or where they have their own parallel process, the projects will have a higher degree of certainty and support at the end, which could be a real positive.

CS: The government has been tasked with implementing UNDRIP in B.C. and now across the country. Having these processes in place where there’s true engagement and consensus-making forums I think will help the process in the long term. Maybe there’ll be ups and downs, but as far as I can see to date, it’s been super positive and the communities have a voice at the table with respect to their land, which is huge.

CMJ: You opened the book with a dedication to the reader that says: ‘may you place your feet on the ground, open your heart, listen with intention and do something to make our world a better place.’ It’s a beautiful message and it’s very hopeful. Where did that come from?

CS: Since the beginning when Mike asked me to help him write the book and partner on this, that was his objective – making the world a better place, which I fell in love with.

In order to do that, what we try to say throughout the book is listen; open yourself up. Do the work. And then hopefully the legacy of our work will be that that person will go on to do something to make our world a better place.

(This article first appeared in the Canadian Mining Journal)

CORPORATIST JURISTS

US Supreme Court questions scope of EPA’s climate change powers

Bloomberg News | February 28, 2022 

Plant Bowen, the third largest coal-fired power station in the United States.

 (Image by Sam Nash, Wikimedia Commons).

US Supreme Court justices debated putting new limits on the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions, as they considered a case that threatens to undercut President Joe Biden’s climate agenda.


Hearing two hours of arguments in Washington, the justices gave a mixed reception to Republican-led states and coal companies seeking to bar the EPA from issuing a sweeping plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The Biden administration is defending the agency’s authority, with backing from power companies and environmental groups.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned the administration’s assertion that it can broadly push electricity generation away from high-emission sources, as long as it doesn’t impose unreasonable costs or threaten grid reliability.

“I really don’t see what the concrete limitations are in any of what you said,” he told U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “So long as the costs are not absolutely crushing for the society, I don’t know why EPA can’t go even a lot further.”

But Justice Clarence Thomas, indicated he wasn’t convinced by the distinction the EPA’s opponents sought to make between permissible and impermissible regulation. The states say the agency can regulate “inside the fence-line” of power plants but can’t try to restructure the entire industry.

“I don’t know how you can draw such clean distinctions,” Thomas said.

The session was relatively low-key given the stakes involved. One of the court’s conservatives, Justice Neil Gorsuch, asked only a single question, while two others, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, made only a handful of comments.

Biden’s pledge

The case could jeopardize the country’s ability to meet Biden’s pledge to at least halve greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade. It’s impossible to hit that target without regulations to stifle greenhouse gases from oil wells, automobiles and power plants, as well as tax incentives designed to spur clean energy that can edge out fossil fuels, according to several analyses.

The argument came hours after the release of a United Nations panel report warning that the world has a “brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity” to slow the pace of global warming.

The companies and states are asking the court to preemptively bar anything resembling former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which pushed states to shift electricity generation from coal-burning plants toward lower-emitting options, such as renewable power. The Supreme Court blocked the Clean Power Plan in 2016, and it never took effect.

Exelon Corp., Consolidated Edison Inc. and National Grid USA are among the power companies joining the Biden administration in defending the EPA’s authority. The challengers include a Nacco Industries Inc. unit and Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC.

The case centers on a Clean Air Act provision requiring the EPA to identify the “best system of emission reduction” for existing pollution sources. The law then tasks states to implement plans that reflect those findings.

‘Agency’s wheelhouse’

Justice Elena Kagan said those words indicated Congress “wanted to give the agency flexibility to regulate as times changed, as circumstances changed, as economic impacts changed.”

The justices devoted much of the session to the so-called major questions doctrine, which the court in past cases has said requires Congress to provide clear authorization before an agency exercises broad powers. The court relied on that doctrine when it lifted the Biden administration’s moratorium on evictions during the pandemic and blocked plans to require vaccines or regular tests for 84 million workers.

Barrett drew a contrast with the eviction moratorium ruling, which rested in part on the court’s assessment that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was reaching beyond its core area of authority.

“Here, if we’re thinking about EPA regulating greenhouse gases, well, there’s a match between the regulation and the agency’s wheelhouse, right?” Barrett asked.

The dispute could be a key one for the movement to rein in the so-called administrative state. Legal conservatives say unaccountable regulators are usurping a role the Constitution entrusts to Congress.

The cases are West Virginia v. EPA, 20-1530; North American Coal Co. v. EPA, 20-1531; Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. EPA, 20-1778; and North Dakota v. EPA, 20-1780.

(By Greg Stohr and Jennifer A. Dlouhy)

Congo court appoints temporary administrator to run China Moly’s Tenke mine

Reuters | February 28, 2022

Aerial view of the processing plant at China Molybdenum’s Tenke Fungurume mine in 2015. (Image courtesy of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold)

A court in Democratic Republic of Congo on Monday appointed a temporary administrator to run China Molybdenum’s Tenke Fungurume copper and cobalt mine at the request of state miner Gecamines, a minority shareholder in the project.


The order from the Tribunal of Commerce in the southeastern city of Lubumbashi marks a significant development in a dispute that broke out last year between Congolese authorities and China Moly over reserve levels at the mine.

Congo’s government announced in August it had formed a commission to reassess the reserves and resources at the mine in order to “fairly lay claim to (its) rights”. Several Gecamines officials were appointed to the commission.

China Moly, which has an 80% stake in Tenke Fungurume, Congo’s second-biggest copper mine, said at the time it was confident the issue would be resolved. The government has made few public comments about the matter since then.

But the court order on Monday showed state mining company Gecamines, which owns 20% of Tenke Fungurume, petitioned judges in December to strip the mine’s current leadership of decision-making powers and appoint a temporary administrator.

The court appointed Sage Ngoie Mbayo, who Gecamines recently appointed as its representative to the mine, as administrator for a period of six months. He will take over management responsibilities from China Molybdenum-appointed chief executive, Jun Zhou.

The court tasked Ngoie with “reconciling the two partners on the points of divergence, namely access to technical information and social affairs of the company”.

China Moly did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tenke Fungurume produced around 182,600 tonnes of copper and 15,400 tonnes of cobalt in 2020, the last year for which complete data is available.

(By Aaron Ross; Editing by Chris Reese)

Alcoa CEO affirms promise of no new aluminum smelters

Bloomberg News | March 1, 2022 

Image: Elysis

Alcoa Corp.’s top executive is doubling down on his company’s promise to not add new aluminum capacity, indicating the world shouldn’t rely on the largest U.S. aluminum producer to help ease supply pains.


Chief Executive Officer Roy Harvey said Tuesday that Alcoa has no plans to add capacity by building or restarting aluminum smelters. His words reiterate a position made by the Pittsburgh-based company in November, which vowed to only build low-emission mills using technology from a venture dubbed Elysis.

“We choose not to invest in conventional technology — that brownfield or greenfield capacity,” Harvey said during a BMO Capital Markets conference in Florida. “We’re just not going to do it because by the time you design and start to construct, Elysis as a package will be ready to go.”

Harvey’s comments are significant given aluminum’s surge to an all-time high on Monday as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine compounds ongoing global shortages of the industrial metal used in goods ranging from autos and airplanes to appliances and packaging.

Elysis is a joint venture between Alcoa and Rio Tinto Group that developed technology to make aluminum with production methods that don’t emit carbon dioxide. Alcoa has said it expects the project will produce at commercial scale in a few years, and vowed in November that any new capacity would only be built using this technology.

Shares of Alcoa surged as much as 14% on Tuesday in New York, while benchmark aluminum prices in London gained up to 3.7%. The global market swung to a 1.9 million-ton deficit last year, according to the World Bureau of Metal Statistics.

Harvey said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has no direct impact on Alcoa’s business, though the war will impact the global supply of alumina, a key aluminum-making ingredient. As sanctions against Russia increase, the CEO also said Alcoa is assessing what to do about its aluminum sales to Russian companies.

(By Joe Deaux)