MONOPOLY CAPITALISM

U.S. seeks to stop Schick-maker Edgewell from buying shaving upstart Harry's

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Monday it would file suit to block Edgewell Personal Care Co’s (EPC.N) $1.37 billion acquisition of privately held Harry’s Inc, saying it would harm competition in the U.S. shaving industry.

The shaving market has long been dominated by Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N), which makes Gillette brand razors, and Edgewell, which makes Schick and many private label razors. But it has been shaken up with the arrival of Harry’s, which began online and later entered brick and mortar stores.

The arrival of the upstart forced its bigger rivals to lower prices, said Daniel Francis, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.

“The loss of Harry’s as an independent competitor would remove a critical disruptive rival that has driven down prices and spurred innovation in an industry that was previously dominated by two main suppliers, one of whom is the acquirer,” the FTC said in a statement.

Edgewell Chief Executive Officer Rod Little said the company was evaluating the FTC decision. Harry’s co-CEOs, Jeff Raider and Andy Katz-Mayfield, said they were disappointed by the FTC’s opposition to a sale.

All five commissioners voted to oppose the deal.

President Trump's $5.6m 30-second commercial sparks fury after he boasts about freeing black prisoner Alice Johnson

President Trump's re-election campaign purchased a first quarter commercial slot for the Super Bowl

The ad, which depicted the Commander-in-chief as an advocate for criminal justice reform, divided opinion

Some dismissed it as 'trash' and 'pathetic' while others said it was 'simply brilliant' and thanked the president

By LUKE ANDREWS FOR MAILONLINE and ANDREW COURT and MEGAN SHEETS FOR DAILYMAIL.COM 2 February 2020

President Trump's $5.6 million 30-second Super Bowl commercial sparked fury on Sunday after he boasted about freeing black prisoner Alice Johnson.

In the clip, priced at more than $186,000 a second, the president pitches himself as a champion of criminal justice reform and claims credit for the release of Ms Johnson, who is shown crying and holding flowers, after she is released following a life sentence for nonviolent drugs offences.

A second advert, aired after the Super Bowl, struck a more 'Trumpian' tone as it set out his nationalistic credentials with images of the US army, navy and air force alongside crowds cheering and waving US flags.

His adverts were branded as 'trash' online by some viewers, while a former democratic speech writer also accused him of 'screaming at black athletes'. Others were impressed, however, telling Trump 'well done sir' and 'simply brilliant'.

Presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg paid $11million for a 60-second ad space during the Super Bowl, in which he put himself forward as a president that would fight against the powerful gun lobby. 

Trump releases Super Bowl ad for 2020 reelection campaign

The Super Bowl advert pitched Trump as a criminal justice reformer. It showed prisoner Alice Johnson crying and holding flowers after she was released from a life prison sentence following a conviction for nonviolent drug offences

Mr Trump's decision to feature Ms Johnson has been criticised online. Celebrity Kim Kardashian worked for her release, and hired a team of top lawyers. President Trump granted her clemency in 2018 following a visit to the Oval Office

+39



Kim Kardashian pictured with Alice Johnson. Ms Kardashian has also written the foreword to Ms Johnson's memoir. Above right is Ms Johnson's tweet after the Super Bowl advert was broadcast

+39





Trump tweeted the first advert with a caption saying he promises to 'restore hope in America. That includes the least among us'. The second advert, posted after the Super Bowl, had the caption 'Hope you liked this!'.






















Trump's advert played during the game began with the phrase; 'Thanks to President Trump, people like Alice are getting a second chance.'

It then showed Alice crying and holding flowers following her release before stating that the president doesn't just talk about criminal justice reform, he 'got it done'.

Trump goes on to claim that through his work thousands of families have been re-united.

The advert was slammed online as 'embarrassing', 'pathetic' and 'racist', with one Twitter user even accusing the president of tearing families apart from 'the minute he got into office'.

Former Democratic speechwriter Jake Maccoby also posted a tweeted accusing the president of hypocrisy, writing: '"Don't bring your politics into sports!" Trump screamed at black athletes while purchasing a million-dollar super bowl ad'.

Alice Johnson was released from prison following a tireless campaign headed by celebrity Kim Kardashian, who recruited a team of dedicated lawyers to work on her case.

She was granted clemency a week after an Oval office meeting with Trump in 2018.

Ms Kardashian also wrote the foreword to Ms Johnson's memoir, After Life: My Journey from Incarceration to Freedom, that was published last year.

After the ad went out, Ms Johnson tweeted it with the caption: 'Two Super Bowls ago I was sitting in a prison cell. Today I am a free woman and my story was featured in a Super Bowl Ad.

'I will spend the rest of my life fighting for the wrongly and unjustly convicted! God Bless America!'

Ms Kardashian tweeted to Ms Johnson 'so proud of you!!!' after viewing the advert.

Trump has also overseen the separation of families crossing the US-Mexico border during his presidency. Dozens of parents were split from their children and sent to jail while their sons and daughters were taken into foster care.

The policy was changed in 2018 following a powerful lobby, which included his wife and US first lady Melania. She also launched a 'Be Best' initiative focusing on the well-being of children.

Despite the outcry, others heralded Trump's advert as a success. One tweeted: 'Over 100 million Americans saw this glorious Super Bowl ad by President Trump... Promises made. Promises kept.'

Another said: 'Powerful! Well done sir!'. And a third remarked that the advert was 'simply brilliant'. 

Trump releases second re-election campaign Super Bowl commercial




Trump's second video saw the president stray back onto nationalistic ground. He showed images of the US army (left), navy (centre) and air force (right) alongside the words stronger, safer and more prosperous

The second clip also shows President Trump and Mike Pence standing in front of American flags at a rally


Crowds of people cheering and brandishing American flags and vote Trump placards were also shown in the advert

The President's second advert, played after the Super Bowl, took him back onto home turf by stressing his nationalistic credentials.

It begins with Trump walking towards a US flag before showing pictures of the US army, navy and air force as the words 'stronger', 'safer' and 'more prosperous' flash across the screen.

The video then reminds voters that the economy has swelled under Trump and unemployment has reached a 49-year low.

Some Twitter users again were not impressed, stating the ad 'made me vomit', 'really sucks' and 'the world is laughing at you'.

However, others were more convinced and called for 'four more years of you!', as well as saying 'God bless you President Trump!' and 'You're the best President Trump, with the Lord's love and prayers'.

Economic growth under the president has remained at a steady two to three per cent of GDP, although this is expected to slow due to trade tensions.

Wages have also climbed more than three per cent before slowing again, which may be linked to tax cuts.

Doritos takes top spot in Super Bowl ads, political commercials at bottom: polls
Sheila Dang



FILE PHOTO: Feb 2, 2020; Miami Gardens, Florida, USA; Recording artist Shakira performs during the halftime show of the game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Kansas City Chiefs in Super Bowl LIV at Hard Rock Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Jasen Vinlove-USA TODAY Sports/File Photo

(Reuters) - A Doritos commercial featuring the hit song “Old Town Road” and a tear-jerking ad from Google were the top commercials among viewers during Sunday’s Super Bowl LIV, while presidential campaign ads were ranked the least favorite, according to two viewer polls.

While the Kansas City Chiefs defeated the San Francisco 49ers in the game in Miami, commercials with all-star casts and politicians battled it out during the ad breaks in the biggest advertising event of the year.

Hip-hop artist Lil Nas X and actor Sam Elliott had a dance-off in a scene set in the American Old-West in a commercial for Doritos’ “Cool Ranch” flavor. The ad ranked No. 1 in a poll from market research firm Ipsos, which conducted a live study of viewers watching the game.

In a game that saw many advertisers go for big laughs, Alphabet Inc’s Google stood out with a heartfelt ad about a man asking the Google assistant to remember details about his wife Loretta, such as her favorite flowers and that she liked to hum showtunes, as he loses his memory. The ad came in second in the Ipsos poll.

Google’s ad was a hit and had an overwhelmingly positive reaction online, according to TV advertising measurement firm iSpot, which analyzes online comments and tweets.

The tech giant is known for heartwarming stories that show how its services can change lives, such as a short film about Saroo Brierley, who was accidentally separated from his family as a child in India, and was able to find them again decades later by using Google Maps to search his hometown. Brierley’s story became a movie in 2016.


An unprecedented showing of politics in the Super Bowl threatened to overshadow brand advertisers, but viewers voted the commercials down in polls.

President Donald Trump aired a campaign commercial during the first quarter of the game promoting his record on criminal justice reform, which featured Alice Johnson, who was released from prison after being granted clemency. The campaign ad was ranked last place of a total of 62 commercials in USA Today Ad Meter, which polls viewers during the game.

Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg, who is running for the party nomination, fared only slightly better at 60th place in the Ad Meter ranking. The commercial showcased his record on gun control issues and featured gun violence activist Calandrian Simpson Kemp whose son George was shot and killed at 20 years old.


Reporting by Sheila Dang

Megxit fails to win over Canada: Three quarters of Canadians still do NOT want to pay for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's security as they are not representing the Queen

Seventy-seven per cent believe the Canadian taxpayer does not have to pay

Couple settled in British Columbia after stepping down as senior royals

There has been no official announcement about who will cover the cost

By RAVEN SAUNT FOR MAILONLINE 3 February 2020 


The majority of Canadians still do not want to pay for Harry and Meghan's security as they are not representing the Queen.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex settled in British Columbia following their step down from their roles as senior royals last month.
But seventy-seven per cent of Canadians believe the taxpayer does not have to pay for the couple's security because they are not in in the country as representatives of the monarch.

Seventy-seven per cent of people believe the Canadian taxpayer does not have to pay for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex because they are not in Canada as representatives of the Queen

It is thought that only 19 per cent of Canadians would not object to their country assuming a share of the security costs, according to the statistics by Nanos Research for CTV.

Canadian authorities have indicated that discussions are underway about who would foot the bill now that Harry and Meghan have officially left the royal family.

There has not yet been any official announcement.

More than two-thirds of Canadians feel that the privacy of the couple, along with eight-month-old Archie, will be better respected in Canada than it was in Britain.

But Harry and Meghan, who are now living in Victoria on Vancouver Island, are taking no chances.

Last month they issued a legal warning to the media over photographs of the duchess out hiking with Archie and two dogs.

Their lawyers claimed the images were taken without Meghan's consent, the BBC reported, and the couple were prepared to take legal action.

However, Scotland Yard officers guarding the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have recently said that they are treated 'like skivvies' and forced to do 'menial tasks' like picking up takeaways and groceries, it has been claimed.

Highly-trained protection staff have also allegedly been seen buying food from an organic delicatessen, a favourite of Meghan's, and picking up coffees from fast food outlet Tim Hortons.

The Duke and Duchess's security is estimated to cost taxpayers in Canada and the UK between £3million and £6million a year as staff work round the clock two weeks at a time.

There has been no official announcement about the question of security for Prince Harry and Meghan, or who will cover the bill, now that they have officially left the royal family

Canada is currently a parliamentary monarchy and Queen Elizabeth II is the reigning head of state.

Only 32 per cent of those surveyed were strongly in favour of maintaining links with the royal family and their country's status as a constitutional monarchy.

And instead 35 per cent would be more or less strongly in favour of abolishing links with the British monarchy.

More than 1,000 Canadians submitted response to the survey that was conducted by telephone and online.

---30---

The invisible ideology trashing our planet

An interview with George Monbiot, ahead of his talk at the Gillian Lynne Theatre in London on 11 February 2020.


Brendan Montague | 3rd February 2020


If you get into debt buying your child branded trainers, if you fear redundancy, if you suffer anxiety about the future of the planet and you blame yourself for all of these things then you are showing symptoms of drowning in the “insidious” and “sinister” ideology of neoliberalism.

The escalating environmental and social crises that confront us - climate breakdown, collapse in biodiversity, the threat of war - are all failures of a worldview that puts profit making, the markets and economic growth ahead of human happiness. This is the George Monbiot prognosis.

The journalist and campaigner will be speaking at a three-hour special event at the Gillian Lynne Theatre in London on Tuesday, 11 February 2020 under the title The Invisible Ideology Trashing Our Planet. Monbiot's speaking tour will continue on Thursday, 12 March 2020 at the UBSU Richmond Building in Bristol.

Intersectionality

The invisible ideology referred to is neoliberalism. But when I caught up with Monbiot at his home in Oxford this week he had already extended the scope of his speech to include capitalism and consumerism. This is the unholy trinity: capitalism is the father, consumerism the son and neoliberalism is the wholly ghost.

Neoliberalism is difficult to define. But in general terms, it is a school of thought within economics that asserts that free market capitalist is the best mechanism for making decisions in our modern, complex societies. The state should not intervene. This means fewer regulations, from banking to food. It means not providing health and social care. It means cutting taxes. Neoliberalism dominates the thinking of the world’s leaders, at a time when it undermines the efficacy of the state to deal with climate breakdown.

I ask Monbiot what neoliberalism means for climate advocacy and campaigning, and in particular whether it is relevant to contemporary discussions and debates taking place within Extinction Rebellion (XR). He hesitates, not wanting to “abuse” his position as Britain’s most influential environment journalist to sway the climate direct action movement. But I press him for an answer.

“As I see it, XR tried very hard to remain a single issue movement and to say, ‘we are not taking a justice position, we are not going to take a political position, we just want people to respect the science and introduce the policies that are in accordance with the science’. I understand that, because they wanted to reach as many people as possible.

“But there is obviously a tension between that and the intersectionality that our many issues demand and the necessity to understand the political context in which we operate and the political change required in order for us to operate.

Hegemonic

“I do not think we need to flinch from the fact that to take effective action on climate breakdown requires a change of leadership, a change in government, it requires political change and it very much requires ideological change. We fool ourselves if we think we can change the policies without attending to the political framing in which these policies are discussed."

He adds: “These have to be political campaigns as well as environmental campaigns. There is a lot of recognition [within XR] about where the constraints have been and lots of intelligent people having great conversations about how it evolves. It cheers me to see so many interesting discussions happening.”

So, I ask, does XR need to be anti-neoliberal?

“Obviously, if anything XR wants to happen is to happen, then we have to overthrow neoliberal ideology. The idea of government being so activist that it is going to transform our whole economy and go to zero carbon by 2025, and change our political system, even acknowledge the importance of a political system in making decisions, all that is directly counter to neoliberalism. If a political scientist was to analyse XR’s three demands and its charter they would say, this is a profoundly anti-neoliberal programme’.”

I asked whether neoliberalism also presents a challenge in terms of the XR proposal to have a citizens’ assembly with members chosen through sortition (which is similar to the way we select members of a jury in the criminal justice system). If neoliberalism is hegemonic, is all pervasive, then even the great British public will be trapped within its assumptions. Monbiot points out that the civil service will also be immersed in, and will have an interest in upholding, neoliberal ideology.

Capitalism

“I have never been in favour of a pure sortition system,” Monbiot responds. “What it does is give tremendous power to the civil service, because the civil service are the permanent officials who understand how the system works, who have a long term stake in that system, whereas the people who are chosen by sortition haven’t. T[he citizens] are not trying to get in at the next election - they will not have a long term political programme. That makes the bureaucracy tremendously and dangerously powerful. A mixed system - in the widest possible sense - has got more to say for it.”

I’m interested in the fact that Monbiot has extended the horizon of his talk from neoliberalism to include capitalism. I want to know whether a non-neoliberal capitalism is now possible. Why did it take Monbiot so long to come to attacking capitalism head on? “There was an element of fear involved.”

“Directly attacking capitalism is blasphemy today. It’s like pronouncing that there is no god in the 19th century. But of course we recognise those who did so as pioneers whose voices were necessary. I suddenly realised that for years I had been talking about variants of capitalism. I had been talking about corporate capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, crony capitalism.

“But then it suddenly struck me that maybe it is not the adjective, but the noun. It makes a difference, the form of capitalism, but all forms drive us to the same destination, albeit at different rates. So neoliberal capitalism accelerates natural destruction. But Keynsian social democratic capitalism still gets us there, but maybe a little more slowly because it has more regulatory involvement and less inequality.

So John Maynard Keynes, the influential economist who advocated government management of the economy, make a return? Can we stage a tactical retreat? Or has capitalism reached a point where neoliberalism red in tooth and claw is necessary for capitalist profit generation?

Power

“We cannot go back to [Keynes],” Monbiot responds. “It is growth based. The whole point of Keynesian economics is to maintain the rate of growth - not too fast, not too slow - and we know that even a steady rate of growth is progress towards disaster. But also, in its first iteration in the years after the Second World War it was very effectively destroyed, principally by finance capital working out ways to destroy capital controls, foreigh exchange controls.

“The idea that we can relaunch a Keynesian capitalism and not have it destroyed by people who have already destroyed it once, who have not forgotten those lessons, and who are in a much more powerful position to destroy it today….that’s just dreaming. That is magical thinking. You cannot go back in politics, you have constantly to devise new models.”

So Monbiot argues that capitalism now is neoliberal capitalism. Also that XR is by necessity a direct challenge to neoliberalism. The inference - although he does not say this directly - is that XR can only achieve its aims by challenging capitalism itself.

Interestingly, Monbiot defines not just neoliberalism but also capitalism and consumerism as ideologies in his talk. Neoliberalism is defended as a practice, or as the contemporary paradigms in economics. But it also understood by many as an ideology. Calling capitalism and consumerism ideologies is novel, or at least unusual.

“Part of the insidious power of these ideologies is that they are the water in which we swim - the plastic soup in which we swim. They are everywhere. They affect our decision making every day, they affect the way we see ourselves.

Collective

"They are difficult to see not because they are so small but because they are so big. We are immersed in these incredibly powerful ideologies. The most powerful ideologies never announce themselves as ideologies, they are not recognised as ideologies. That is where their power lies. Our first step is to recognise them as ideologies.”

So the question arises: can we ever escape ideology? Karl Marx, the philosopher communist, believed that through a rational, logical, analysis of the economy and of society he had punched through “bourgeois” or capitalist ruling class ideology and glimpsed momentarily a non-ideological reality. But if we argue that we are not ideological, that we are free entirely of any illusions, is this not proof positive that we are so deeply immersed that we cannot even see the edges of our own delusion?

“I don’t think you can be [ideologically free]. We’re so governed by our social environment, and our social environment will always be saturated by ideology. To be ideology free would be to become an island, you would have to be completely isolated from all other human beings - and even then you would probably create your own ideology. You often hear people stand up and say, ‘I have no ideology’. And that is just self deception.”

Monbiot presents a compelling argument. We have come to the end of the interview. I take one last sip of tea. We say our goodbyes. And I am back out on the street. The cold air is refreshing. I think about the fact that I am even now contained entirely within ideology, neoliberal ideology.

I am willing to believe that we will never escape ideology - a grand narrative that explains who we are, where we are, what we are. If this is the case, we as individuals and as a collective humanity must choose our ideology wisely.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. A feature based on this George Monbiot interview - focused on neoliberalism as the ideology of disconnection - will feature in the May/June issue of Resurgence & Ecologist magazine.

Drugs, war inextricably tied, Watson panel says
Professor Peter Andreas explains how, through war, six drugs gained popularity

By AANCHAL SHETH STAFF WRITER Friday, January 31, 2020

LEON JIANG / HERALD

A panel at the Watson Institute discussed Professor Peter Andreas’ book, “Killer High: A History of War in Six Drugs,” and the five dimensions of war and drugs, such as “war while on drugs.”

Six drugs — cocaine, tobacco, opium, amphetamines, alcohol and caffeine. In “Killer High: A History of War in Six Drugs,” Peter Andreas, professor of international studies and political science and professor of international and public affairs, details how these six drugs have sparked, fueled and been popularized by war for hundreds of years.

Andreas spoke on his recently launched book at the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs Thursday. “War made drugs and drugs made war,” Andreas told The Herald.

Andreas explored the relationship between drugs and war through a“five-dimensional approach,” he said. The first dimension explores “war while on drugs,” which includes the use of drugs during wartime to cope with stressful situations and celebrate victories, Andreas said. The second consists of “war through drugs,” entailing the use of drugs as a weapon of war. Another example is funding wars through alcohol, tobacco, cocaine and opium revenue. The third dimension deals with “war for drugs,” which addresses conflict motivated by desire for access to or control of drug markets. The fourth dimension, “war against drugs,” uses military and strategic resources to fight drugs, an approach that began with President Nixon declaring war on drugs in 1971.
The final dimension is “drugs after war,” which covers the change in consumer outcomes and preferences because of war. Andreas questioned why the United States is a coffee-drinking nation rather than a tea-drinking one. “Because we won the American Revolution, when the Brits went on to tea, we went on to coffee. … The very taste that we take for granted is actually the result of war,” Andreas explained during the discussion. Panelist C.J. Chivers, a writer for the New York Times and combat veteran, also spoke to this aspect of Andreas’ research, noting that prescribed drugs are deeply concerning for veterans after war, who receive limited or no counseling on the proper use of pharmaceuticals.

Andreas began his research for “Killer High” seven years ago. When he initially began writing, Andreas had a “bias towards thinking it’s about cocaine and heroin.” But Andreas was surprised by the importance of legal drugs. “It was pretty eye-opening to discover how important caffeine and alcohol and tobacco have been historically,” he added. Andreas also said that the word “coffee” was mentioned more times in soldiers’ diaries than the words “gun,” “cannon” or “rifle.” Despite Andreas’ research on the harm drugs have caused, he has an addiction of his own. “Caffeine is my drug of choice.”

Andreas wanted to find the “sweet spot” between writing good scholarship and accessible reading material for non-specialists. Panelist Angelica Duran-Martinez PhD’13, associate professor of political science at University of Massachusetts Lowell, said that the topics were presented so accessibly that she has assigned this book as a reading for her students. Chivers also held up his copy of Andreas’ book, which had handwritten notes scrawled over the pages. “When I get to the end of the book and I’ve used up two ink pens, it’s probably a sign that it’s a hell of a book,” he said.

---30---

RHODE ISLAND

Activists protest Chase Bank’s ties to fossil fuels

Protesters demand JPMorgan Chase divest from fossil fuels, ask customers to close accountsBy BEN GLICKMAN SENIOR STAFF WRITER Monday, February 3, 2020

Roughly 35 demonstrators gathered in front of Chase Bank on Thayer for the latest in a series of nationwide Stop the Money Pipeline protests.

Protesters waved colorful signs — painted with messages like “protect the lungs of the planet” and “defund fossil fuels” — outside Chase Bank’s Thayer Street location Friday. The sound of chants and songs filled the air as mid-day traffic slowed, some drivers honking and waving their hands in support. One protester brought a guitar.

Activists with Climate Action Rhode Island were calling for Chase to cut its fossil fuel industry investments.

The gathering of about 35 people was the latest in a series of nation-wide protests called Stop the Money Pipeline,  which aim to disrupt the financing of the fossil fuel industry. The protestors demanded that Chase fully divest from fossil fuels and, in the meantime, asked that customers close their accounts with the bank.

Between 2016 and 2018, JPMorgan Chase invested nearly $196 billion in the fossil fuel industry — more than any other U.S. bank, Justin Boyan, current president of Climate Action RI, said, citing a report last year on fossil fuel investments, which was published by a group of environmental organizations including the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network and BankTrack.

Other major banks have reduced investments in fossil fuels, including HSBC in 2018 and BlackRock last year, Boyan added.

“Sustainability is an important part of serving our communities,” Carolyn Evert, vice president of Northeast regional communications at JPMorgan Chase, wrote in an email to The Herald. “Also, we recognize the complexity of climate change issues and actively engage with a diverse set of stakeholders to understand their views.”

Evert wrote that JPMorgan Chase is committed to converting to “renewable energy for 100 percent of our global power needs by the end of 2020 and to facilitate $200 billion in clean financing by 2025.”

Kendra Anderson, former president and current chair of fundraising for Climate Action RI, spoke to the protesters and led chants on a megaphone. Anderson is currently running for RI State Senate in District 31.

“The investing that Chase is doing is suicide investing,” she said. “There’s no reason for it to go on any longer.”

Shortly after the protest began, a single-file stream of protestors walked through the crowd outside the branch, and into the building. They held signs in the shape of gravestones, each inscribed with a event caused by climate change — and their corresponding death tolls.

Inside the bank, protesters read their specific natural disaster out loud — ending the statement with “funded by Chase” — and laid down on the floor. So-called “die-ins” have become a popular form of public protest amongst climate change activists.

Police arrived on-site several minutes later and escorted the protesters out of the building.

Employees of the Chase bank present at the protest declined to comment.

Some of the protesters outside are regularly involved with Climate Action RI, while others joined in after walking by.

Will Nakshian has been to four other protests with Climate Action. He said he’s protesting for his two children.

Nakshian had never been an activist and was never involved in politics — but that changed after he read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report in 2018. “When I heard about what could happen to (my children’s) future, I became very concerned,” Nakshian said. 

Sunrise Members confront state house speaker

Protestors oppose Speaker Matiello’s commentary on climate crisis

By KATIE CHEN SENIOR STAFF WRITER Friday, January 31, 2020

NAOMY PEDROZA / HERALD

Student protesters, who work to promote environmental justice and stop the climate crisis, decided to interrupt Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello (D-Cranston) during a fundraiser. The protesters sang and hold up banners with statements opposing climate change.

At the Crowne Plaza in Warwick, Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello (D-Cranston) was holding a fundraiser when a group of students from the Sunrise Movement Providence started to sing.

The student protesters, who work to promote environmental justice and stop the climate crisis, decided to interrupt the Democratic state representative’s event following comments he made earlier this month about climate change, according to a Sunrise Providence press release.

“There’s nothing Rhode Island can do to address climate change in a way that’s real or impactful … all you can do is harm your economy and not improve your climate unless the entire nation joins in,” Mattiello told the Boston Globe at their Legislative Kickoff Panel Jan.15.

After singing and holding up banners with statements opposing climate change, staff and security asked the protesters to leave. The Herald did not enter the fundraiser but was also asked to leave the hotel before the protest began.

“We are just appalled by Mattiello’s recent comments about the climate crisis and thinking that Rhode Island can’t do anything about it,” Emma Bouton ’20, Sunrise Providence actions lead and co-hub coordinator, told The Herald.

Speaker Mattiello could not be reached for comment by press time.

Attendees of the fundraiser had mixed reactions to Mattiello’s climate comments.

“I think he’s exactly right. I think he’s spot on, in fact. Climate change is a global issue. … Rhode Island’s carbon footprint is so fractional that it almost doesn’t even register,” said Jonathan Shaer, executive director of the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association and fundraiser attendee.

“I don’t know how to take that. … I haven’t really thought about the climate change issue with him, and I’d have to do a little more sitting on it,” said Vice President of the Rhode Island State Association of Firefighters Scott Robinson.

In addition to his remarks about climate change, Mattiello has also been under fire for requesting an audit of the Rhode Island Convention Center Authority while one of his friends dealt with a personnel issue there, according to WRPI.

Protesters believe his comments set a bad example.

“If that’s what they’re hearing from their leaders, people start to think that (climate change) is an impossible crisis, even though the reality is we have the technology, we’re just lacking the political will to implement it. It’s just confusing and disheartening to people, and we need our leaders to step up,” Bouton said.

Despite being one of the most powerful leaders in Rhode Island’s Democratic Party, Mattiello has a history of conflict with University students over the more conservative parts of his platform, The Herald previously reported. Students from groups Thoughts Prayers Action and Brown Progressive Action Committee canvassed against Mattiello when he ran for reelection in 2018.

Sunrise members, who have fought for top Democrats to reject fossil fuel money, were arrested last month after calling on Gov. Gina Raimondo to take the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge.

“What tonight makes clear to us is that Speaker Mattiello has chosen his wealthy donors — including numerous fossil fuel executives — over our futures,” Bouton wrote in the Sunrise Providence press release.

---30---

Capitol Alert
Teens drench themselves in fake oil in climate change protest at California pension fund


BY ANDREW SHEELER JANUARY 30, 2020 


See young activists drag 'oil tanker' down Capitol Mall in protest of CalSTRS
Activists from Youth vs Apocalypse march from the state Capitol to the CalSTRS building West Sacramento to call on divestment of funds from the fossil fuel industry, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020. BY DANIEL KIM

Dozens of young people staged a dramatic march from the Capitol to the headquarters of California’s teacher pension fund on Thursday, imploring CalSTRS to withdraw its investments from oil and gas companies.

The children, some drenched in mock oil, participated in a “die-in” at CalSTRS headquarters in West Sacramento, where they said their generation would suffer from the effects of climate change.

“We’re the ones that are vulnerable,” Sophia Jacobs, 12, of Berkeley said.


Their protest marked the latest effort by environmental advocacy groups to press California’s public pension funds to divest from fossil fuel industries.

Local News at Your Fingertips

Get unlimited digital access for just $3.99 a month to #ReadLocal anytime, on any device.GET OFFER

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System with a $250 billion portfolio and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System with $400 billion in assets generally oppose divesting from legal industries, and each has an environmental sustainability strategy that acknowledges the risks of climate change.


Nonetheless, each fund is facing pressure to do more.

“We know that climate change will affect our portfolio and we have an investment team dedicated to managing climate risk and investing in solutions,” CalSTRS Chief Executive Officer Jack Ehnes said in a written statement. “We partner with other investors to push for companies to reduce their carbon emissions. The board is hearing items today and tomorrow that will keep us on the path to full funding while addressing climate risks, so we can deliver pensions far into the future.”

California state Treasurer Fiona Ma, a member of both pension boards, has called for CalSTRS to divest $6 billion from fossil fuel companies.

Gov. Gavin Newsom in September signed an executive order that called on CalPERS, CalSTRS and the University of California Retirement Plan to work with his office in shifting “investments to companies and industry sectors that have greater growth potential based on their focus of adapting to and mitigating the impacts of climate change, including investments in carbon-neutral, carbon-negative and clean energy technologies.”

---30---

Protecting wolves in Finland
Grassroots appeal in the European Court of Justice to protect endangered wolves in Finland.Sari Kantinkoski | 16th January 2020


Wolves and other large carnivores were near extinction or extinct in several countries in Europe by the early 1900s.

In Finland, wolves continued to be freely hunted until 1973 and only few individuals were roaming in boreal forests. When Finland became a member state of the European Union in 1995, wolves became a protected species in Finland.

Poaching is considered to be as one of the main reasons why wolves have not managed to reach favorable conservation status in Finland in twenty years of their recovery.

Prohibition

The Habitats Directive of the European Union includes wolves as a protected species. The Directive protects wolves at different levels in different parts of Finland.

Outside of the designated reindeer husbandry area, wolves are strictly protected, meaning that all hunting, disturbing and harming of these animals is prohibited.

Finland was sued by the Commission of the European Union in the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in 2005 because it had not fulfilled its obligations of wolf conservation.

The Court decided that “by authorizing wolf hunting on a preventive basis, without it being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious damage within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1)(b) of that directive.”

In 2005, Finland also released the first management plan for wolves. The plan introduced several preventive methods and measures to protect the Finnish wolf population of about 200 individuals, but the implementation of those measures was handled very poorly.

Management

Before the decision of the CJEU, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry launched a so-called management hunt of wolves in 2006 and the next year, the population collapsed from 220-250 individuals to 200 wolves and continued to deteriorate to 120-135 wolves in 2013.

There was no action taken to prevent poaching, damage to livestock or dogs, the spreading of misinformation or the increasing antagonism towards wolves during 2007-2014.

The conflict worsened in 2013, when 12 hunters at Perho, Ostrobothnia were convicted of illegal hunting of wolves. One of the convicted was a member of a National Wildlife Council in Finland. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry began to update the management plan for wolves in 2014.

The new update of the management plan was supposed to concentrate on the preventive methods to support the recovery of the wolf population in Finland. In workshops, several stakeholders including representatives of hunting, agriculture, and conservation interest groups agreed on electric fencing, compensatory payments, territorial collaborative management and the importance of the role of accurate information, among other things.

But instead of going forward with what was agreed upon in the workshops, the Ministry decided to launch a management hunt of wolves as a two-year experiment.

WorkAs a result of the derogation procedures of the Wildlife Agency in Eastern Finland, we established NGO Tapiola in November 2014, to intervene by legal action and to question the decision making regarding the wrongful interpretations of the Habitats Directive.

Soon we realized that our new organization had its hands full of work. We gave a statement to the Ministry concerning the new management plan and the hunting quota of 29 wolves, which had unexpectedly appeared along with the plan.

Simultaneously the Wildlife Agency released the information regarding the application process for permissions. The last day for giving statements concerning the quota was on 22 January 2015, and all the permissions for 24 wolves were granted on 23 January 2015.

With only a small budget and without any assistance from lawyers, we appealed all the permissions. Two Administrative Courts prohibited the implementation of the licenses for five wolves. We argued that hunting violated the Habitats Directive Article 16 (1)(e) derogation preconditions in allowing the hunt to take place during the breeding season.

Also, the Directives requirements- “selective basis”, “limited extent” and “under strictly supervised conditions” weren’t met during the hunt. 17 wolves were killed in the management hunt.

Appeal

The appeal process can take several months, sometimes even years. As a result of the “first round”, all the courts, besides the Administrative court of Hämeenlinna (Northern Tavastia), claimed that legally Tapiola was not an authorized local NGO with a right to appeal. But when also the Court of Hämeenlinna rejected our appeal, none of them were successful.

Gathering information and scientific data was an essential part of our commitment to prove every single of the claims we made.

Therefore, we collected data of population development, mortality, biology, scientific studies and research, legislation, legal praxis, preventive methods, police orders, etc. At the end of 2015, we changed our organizational structure into an association with six district organizations under one national umbrella organization.

The management hunt of wolves continued as planned in January 2016, with a quota of 46 wolves. Eventually 44 of them were killed.

Our district organizations appealed, and this time all the Administrative courts rejected either our appeals or our right to appeal. The Administrative Court of Eastern Finland concluded that we had no right to appeal, even though, there was a contradictory decision from a year earlier given to another local organization.

We decided to take our case to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) of Finland. The SAC took our case and confirmed our right to appeal. As per our suggestion, the court also decided to ask for a preliminary ruling from European Union Court of Justice in November 2017.

Last resort

The process actually started when the CJEU asked for a written observation in March 2018. In the end the observation was a 20-page long document, with 30 attachments and 55 references. After the written observations, the Court invited us to an oral hearing which was held in Luxembourg in January 2019.

The Advocate General gave his opinion in May 2019 which gave reason for the Ministry to plan the management hunting again. The ministry had launched earlier the same year the third version of the management plan of wolves.

Hunting was once again on the table, until the ruling of the EUCJEU came out on October 10th2019. The CJEU’s decision respected the Habitats Directive and its spirit and purpose, which is to protect species. It confirmed that derogation is allowed only in rare cases, when there is no other satisfactory alternative, and there is scientifically valid evidence that derogation is an effective solution to the problem.

In other words, killing is always the last resort, while other alternatives are primary. The court also highlighted the precautionary principle and noted that recommendations in permissions were not legally binding, thus allowing the killing of breeding and collared individuals.

The Court also underlined, that reaching a favorable conservation status requires a long-term observation and highlighted the need for biological evidence. In larger context, the management hunting of wolves did not follow the Directive’s requirements for when exceptions from strict protection was permissible.

ProtectionsThe ruling of the CJEU concerns all species that are strictly protected under the Habitats Directive Annex IV and all the member states of the European Union.

Why did we do this? We did it because we had to. The administration gave us no choice, since there was no genuine effort to listen to the environmental organizations and no honest intention to fulfil the Directive’s obligations. We succeeded only because we were right. We had a case and the means to prove it. The CJEU was not interested in who we were, but what we had to say.

The ruling of the CJEU authoritatively interprets the Habitats Directive and must be followed in every decision concerning strictly protected species in lawmaking, administrative decision making, as well as by courts.

The “Fellowship of The Ruling” must go on, we have still work to do. We continue to monitor that endangered species will have the full protection provided by the Habitats Directive in Finland.

At the moment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has set up a committee to find solutions on how to implement managemental hunting despite the ruling and without going into infringement proceedings with the EU Commission.

This Author

Sari Kantinkoski is a founding member of ANC Tapiola. She is a Bachelor of Environmental Science and her main subject is the environmental change and policy. Her current occupation is a nature surveyor, specialized in mammals and dragonflies. She lives on the West Coast of Finland and has a wolf pack “of her own” living nearby, which she has monitored for several years. Tapiola was established in 2014. Priorities of the organization are habitats, endangered species and large carnivore.

Image: Juha Sjöholm, wolves at Ähtäri Zoo.


Help us keep The Ecologist working for the planet

The Ecologist website is a free service, published by The Resurgence Trust, a UK-based educational charity. We work hard - with a small budget and tiny editorial team - to bring you the wide-ranging, independent journalism we know you value and enjoy, but we need your help. Please make a donation to support The Ecologist platform. Thank you!

And the Oscar goes to ... Planet Earth?

Reuters
February 2, 2020

From plant-based meals to repeat tuxedos and water bottle bans, Hollywood has come to embrace sustainability in an awards season usually known for excess.

Some of Hollywood’s biggest stars, many of whom are vocal about environmental issues, are now turning words into action on red carpets and at gala dinners as they crisscross the United States for award shows and appearances.

Dinners at the Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild and Critics’ Choice Awards in January served up vegan fare, while the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has banned plastic water bottles at all Oscar events and said all food served will be sustainably farmed.

“Consuming animals is no longer just a personal choice. It is having a drastic and vast consequence on the rest of the world and all of us,” said “Joker” best actor Oscar nominee Joaquin Phoenix, a lifelong vegan who encouraged organizers of the Golden Globes to switch to an entirely plant-based menu for the first time.

Others are ditching planes and private jets for electric or hybrid cars as they travel to film festivals in California and beyond

“Stranger Things” actor Brett Gelman is among those who say they have been spurred to review their lifestyles. “I plan to change a great deal in my diet and the way I use energy, composting, the way I purchase clothing. … I’m certainly not taking any private jets,” Gelman told reporters last month.

Inspired by teen activist Greta Thunberg, Jane Fonda is bringing her Fire Drill Fridays climate change protest from Washington to Los Angeles, two days before next Sunday’s Oscar ceremony.

To be sure, there is still a way to go. While celebrity gift bags this season include items like a “self-watering, self-fertilizing farmstand” they also offer cruises on luxury yachts.

Guests at the MusiCares gala dinner for rock band Aerosmith last month were served steak and chicken, on the same plate, and “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” actress Alex Borstein quipped that she planned to head to a steak house after a vegan dinner at the Critics’ Choice Awards in January.

‘NO HOLLYWOOD ON A DEAD PLANET’The youth arm of the group Extinction Rebellion plans a protest at the famous Hollywood sign on the eve of the Academy Awards, aimed at persuading the entertainment industry to do more.

“Some stars of Hollywood are aware of the scale of the climate crisis, and some have started to take action. … But we do not believe that Hollywood as a whole has taken an acceptable stance on the climate crisis,” the group said in a statement, announcing the protest.

“There is no Hollywood on a dead planet,” the group added.

Daniel Hinerfeld, director of content partnerships at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the publicity around initiatives like vegan dinners “shows the power that Hollywood has to start conversations, to set trends, and to shift attitudes.”

But he urged the industry to do more and to use its storytelling powers to highlight climate change.

“We really need to see more film and TV that really is dealing with all of the incredibly complicated and dramatic and potentially comedic aspects of climate change, which is this huge drama,” Hinerfeld said.

Red carpet fashion may be slow to catch up, despite the influence of designers like Jean Paul Gaultier, whose Paris retirement show in January featured upcycled haute couture, including skirts made out of silk ties.

Phoenix, who has won a slew of awards this year, won kudos in January for his plans to stick with the same tuxedo throughout the season.

“He chooses to make choices for the future of the planet. He has also chosen to wear this same tux for the entire award season to reduce waste,” tweeted designer Stella McCartney, who provided the tux.

It remains to be seen whether other stars will follow suit, or choose recycled gowns for the world’s biggest red carpet at the Oscars.

Rising New York-based designer Daniel Silverstein, who creates clothing from remnants and scraps, says he has not so far had any red carpet approaches for his Zero Waste Daniel label, although he is prepared to give A-listers the benefit of the doubt.

“People in Hollywood and the music industry are fanatical about using ethical beauty products. So I am sure there is a lot of sustainability under the surface that we don’t even realize,” he said.

“What I would hope to see more of is people with a platform using their opportunity to talk about their personal style and to change the conversation.”

 (Reporting by Jill Serjeant and Jane Ross Additional reporting by Lisa Richwine Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Des Moines protest: Climate change activists march through Des Moines

Danielle Gehr, Des Moines Register Published Feb. 1, 2020

Blair Frank led a group chant, "One global family," as climate change activists filled up Locust Street between 5th and 4th avenues Saturday around noon. 

(Photo: Danielle Gehr / The Register)

Hundreds of climate activists filled portions of downtown Des Moines on Saturday to address what they believe is a lack of media coverage of climate issues.

The "Climate Crisis Parade" began on Locust Street between Fifth and Fourth avenues, just outside the building that houses the Des Moines Register.

Before marching through the street, some of the participants stood in the road and addressed the crowd with a sense of urgency, saying the media has failed to cover global warming and its effects. Seventy groups sponsored the event Saturday and about 400 people marched through downtown to the Iowa Events Center.

► Wetter springs, hotter summers: Climate change threatens Iowa farm economy

► More: Students demand action on climate during a rally at Iowa Capitol

► More: Iowa scientists warn of 'sobering extreme heat' for the Midwest

Danielle Gehr is a breaking news reporter at the Des Moines Register. She can be reached by email at dgehr@dmreg.com, by phone at 515-284-8367 or on Twitter at @Dani_Gehr.