May 20, 2020
As Trump's "reopening" endangers lives, Democrats must advance policy that gives working people something to fight for, argues In These Times' Sarah Lazare.
Friday, May 22, 2020
US Sanctions On Iran Fueled By Hate And Money
May 19, 2020
John Bolton brought Richard Goldberg from the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies to serve as a senior advisor for the National Security Council, ensuring that sanctions against Iran will intensify even as Iran is wracked by COVID-19.
Trump’s praise of an anti-Semite’s ‘good bloodlines’ triggers furious backlash
May 22, 2020 By David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
- Commentary
President Donald Trump once again is dog-whistling to his base. While delivering a campaign-style speech at a Michigan Ford auto plant that’s been retooled to manufacture personal protective gear, Trump decided to take a walk into history and praise the company’s founder, the infamous anti-Semite Henry Ford.
Henry Ford gave America the Model T, mass production, and after death, the non-profit Ford Foundation, but he also was an anti-Semite who reportedly blamed Jewish people for World War I and World War II, published anti-Semitic propaganda, and was a Nazi sympathizer.
“Ford is the only American mentioned by name in Hitler’s notorious ‘Mein Kampf,’” according to Religion News Service.
President Trump has repeatedly called Ford “legendary.”
On Thursday, Trump praised the anti-Semitic Nazi sympathizer for having “good bloodlines.”
The President says the founder of Ford has good bloodlines.. If you’re not familiar with Henry Ford, I would encourage you to read more about him and specifically his actions during WW2 pic.twitter.com/vniaOSR2sX
— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) May 21, 2020
Social media users grew furious.
You know who also believed in “good bloodlines”? Adolf Hitler. That’s who. https://t.co/jtsD7w09K3
— PTM (@portugaltheman) May 21, 2020
Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer who wrote “The International Jew, the World’s Foremost Problem.”
Hitler called Ford an “inspiration” & gave him the highest Nazi medal for foreigners.
Trump praising Ford’s “good bloodlines” = a dog-whistle to antisemites & white nationalists. https://t.co/478q3Oq67r
— Bend the Arc: Jewish Action (@jewishaction) May 21, 2020
Trump talked about “good bloodlines” while at the Ford factory…
Know who else talked about “good bloodlines”?
Nazis.
— Red, Noble Committee Marketing Director (@Redpainter1) May 21, 2020
The president just described nazi sympathizer Henry Ford as a man with “Good bloodlines.” https://t.co/AdnAd2vX7o
— Molly Jong-Fast
(@MollyJongFast) May 21, 2020
“Henry Ford, good bloodlines, good bloodlines. If you believe in that stuff, he had good blood.”
Ford hated Jews to the point that Hitler literally once said “I regard Henry Ford as my greatest inspiration.”
Our Pres is a white supremacist https://t.co/ZNTka0rsTG
— Matt Braunger (@Braunger) May 21, 2020
Folks, he does this a lot. He really is a miseducated eugenicist, with bad blood lines. https://t.co/O4RfzPEa0A
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) May 21, 2020
Surprising NO ONE, @realDonaldTrump says that the virulent anti-Semite and Nazi-sympathizer, Henry Ford, has “good bloodlines.”
“Henry Ford, good bloodlines, good bloodlines. If you believe in that stuff, he had good blood.”
Ford hated Jews to the point that Hitler literally once said “I regard Henry Ford as my greatest inspiration.”
Our Pres is a white supremacist https://t.co/ZNTka0rsTG
— Matt Braunger (@Braunger) May 21, 2020
Folks, he does this a lot. He really is a miseducated eugenicist, with bad blood lines. https://t.co/O4RfzPEa0A
— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) May 21, 2020
Surprising NO ONE, @realDonaldTrump says that the virulent anti-Semite and Nazi-sympathizer, Henry Ford, has “good bloodlines.”
#RacistInChief #RacistGOP https://t.co/7vbzJ9jk6k
— Dr. Dena Grayson (@DrDenaGrayson) May 21, 2020
Talking about Ford and his good bloodlines is seriously f’ed up. This is anti-semitic and pro-Nazi. https://t.co/whujGR4uVX https://t.co/22KVKa4SOS
— Janet Johnson (@JJohnsonLaw) May 21, 2020
Henry Ford definitely believed in that stuff https://t.co/jg8nA80KHZ
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) May 21, 2020
This isn’t one of those “what the fuck is he saying” Trump rambles. He specifically calls out Henry Ford with eugenics terminology. This is blatant signaling to his fascist base.
The President is a fucking NAZI. https://t.co/nGpMvOIzIo
— Gareth M. Skarka (@gmskarka) May 21, 2020
— Dr. Dena Grayson (@DrDenaGrayson) May 21, 2020
Talking about Ford and his good bloodlines is seriously f’ed up. This is anti-semitic and pro-Nazi. https://t.co/whujGR4uVX https://t.co/22KVKa4SOS
— Janet Johnson (@JJohnsonLaw) May 21, 2020
Henry Ford definitely believed in that stuff https://t.co/jg8nA80KHZ
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) May 21, 2020
This isn’t one of those “what the fuck is he saying” Trump rambles. He specifically calls out Henry Ford with eugenics terminology. This is blatant signaling to his fascist base.
The President is a fucking NAZI. https://t.co/nGpMvOIzIo
— Gareth M. Skarka (@gmskarka) May 21, 2020
Trump ‘should apologize’ for praising ‘antisemite’ Henry Ford:
ADL
The CEO of the Anti-Defamation League suggested President Donald Trump to apologize for comments made during a tour of a Ford factory in Michigan.
Trump praised the “good bloodlines” of Henry Ford, resulting in harsh criticism online.
ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt responded to Trump’s comments on Twitter.
“Henry Ford was an antisemite and one of America’s staunchest proponents of eugenics,” Greenblatt noted.
“The President should apologize,” he counseled.
In case Trump “doesn’t know why” he should apology, Greenblatt include a link to ADL’s briefing on Ford.
Henry Ford was an antisemite and one of America's staunchest proponents of eugenics.
The President should apologize.
If he doesn't know why, our backgrounder on Ford's legacy will help:https://t.co/U3uxpdEDto https://t.co/0CdzCGLKvu
The President should apologize.
If he doesn't know why, our backgrounder on Ford's legacy will help:https://t.co/U3uxpdEDto https://t.co/0CdzCGLKvu
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) May 22, 2020
THE IRONY IS THAT THE FORD BLOODLINE ENDED IN AN EDSEL
Fox News’ Sean Hannity: Trump can take hydroxychloroquine because he ‘built the hospitals’
(LIKE THE MAYO CLINIC, JOHN HOPKINS, BOSTON GENERAL, MOUNT SAINI, DANNY THOMAS ST. JUDE, ETC. ETC.)
May 21, 2020 By Roger Sollenberger, Salon
Fox News host Sean Hannity, who has no medical or pharmacological background, has used his radio and television platforms this week to repeatedly promote an unproven drug treatment for the new coronavirus despite FDA warnings against doing so outside of a hospital setting or clinical trial due to a risk of heart rhythm problems.
“There is one thing you cannot conclude here: that it’s going to kill you,” Hannity said of hydroxychloroquine on his radio show
Hannity’s blitz came in defense of President Donald Trump, who faced widespread public backlash following his stunning claim at a Monday press conference that he had been taking hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc every day for the last two weeks in an attempt to ward off potential infection.
“All I can tell you is so far, I seem to be OK,” the president said at the time.
In defense of the oldest president in U.S. history’s decision to take the drug — which multiple studies have linked to heart failure, leading the FDA to issue its rare warning last month — Hannity heavily leaned on studies by one doctor, rheumatology expert Dr. Daniel Wallace of the Cedars-Sinai hospital. Though not an expert in infectious respiratory diseases, Wallace has written extensively on the drug in his lupus patients.
“He knows more about this than anybody else but the money line that he makes,” Hannity said of Wallace. “The risk taking 400 mg of hydroxychloroquine in a day and a 600 mg hydroxychloroquine loading dose for 60 days — the risk is nil unless you have an allergic rash or upset stomach. That’s it — that’s the worst that can happen.”
One of Wallace’s more extensive studies found that “56% of the 2,783 patients responding had experienced GI problems which they attributed to HCQ.”
“Despite 56% of patients experiencing GI problems, only 15% of patients had reported any unwanted symptoms to their physician,” Wallace found.
However, Wallace did not conclude that such symptoms were mild from this data. Beyond heart problems, hydroxychloroquine has been linked to paranoia and psychosis.
Wallace instead advised patients to speak with their physicians about their symptoms.
“This suggests that an opportunity may exist for stronger clinician–patient communication regarding symptom management,” he wrote.
Hannity cited another doctor on his radio show, the TV host Mehmet Oz, who has been repeatedly called out by medical professionals as a “quack” for pushing discredited “miracle” health products.
“There was a long period of time where Dr. Oz was asking anybody that took hydroxychloroquine, that had lupus or rheumatoid arthritis or had taken it as an anti-malarial — that had gotten or contracted COVID-19,” Hannity said. “They couldn’t find hardly any people.”
“There were instance — but they seemed very rare — just like they looked at the instances of countries where the drug is used to stop or prevent malaria,” he added.
“At the end of the day, there is one thing you cannot conclude here: that it’s going to kill you,” Hannity concluded.
Colleague Neil Cavuto told Fox News viewers the exact opposite following Trump’s Monday confession.
“If you are in a risky population here and you are taking this as a preventative treatment to ward off the virus, or in a worst-case scenario, you are dealing with the virus and you are in this vulnerable population, it will kill you. I cannot stress enough — this will kill you,” Cavuto said, drawing swift blowback from fellow Fox personalities and the president himself.
In a separate radio segment, Hannity blamed Democrats and the press for spreading what he alleged were “conspiracy theories” about Trump’s claim.
“They get the conspiracy theories over at MSDNC, the conspiracy theory state-run socialist television network of the Democratic Socialist Party. This time, claiming the president’s doctor is lying. The President’s not actually taking hydroxychloroquine. Uh, OK. Joe, you’ve lost it as usual. Or forgetting the foremost expert in the country Dr. Daniel Wallace out of Cedar Sinai (sic),” he said.
Hannity, who courted heavy criticism for repeatedly promoting the treatment on his show until recent contravening studies appeared to lead him to stop hyping it, was careful to caveat his advice.
“I’m not a doctor. I’m not advising you to take the drug. But that guy with those credentials — he seems like the foremost expert in the country. I’d take his word for it,” Hannity said. “So you can stay informed, know the risks, consult with your doctor and you ultimately decide.”
Hannity also took a shot at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who said she was concerned about Trump’s use of the drug because he was “morbidly obese.”
“But then you get Nancy Pelosi, ‘Oh, the president — it’s risky, it’s dangerous, it’s morbidly obese,'” Hannity said. “Well, some people can be morbidly stupid.”
A few days after President Trump first hawked the unproven drug treatment in a March 19 White House press briefing, an Arizona man died and his wife were hospitalized after ingesting chloroquine phosphate — a chemical the woman had used in her koi pond to treat fish for parasites — in an attempted effort to protect themselves against infection from COVID-19.
“Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure,” the woman later said.
She added that her advice would be: “Don’t take anything. Don’t believe anything. Don’t believe anything that the president says . . . Call your doctor.”
Hannity, however, took the opposite track this week.
“The president says he’s fine,” he said. “How about we let him make the choice himself. Let every American make the choice.”
“Same thing with opening,” he added. “We just ask that you wear a mask for a short period of time.”
(LIKE THE MAYO CLINIC, JOHN HOPKINS, BOSTON GENERAL, MOUNT SAINI, DANNY THOMAS ST. JUDE, ETC. ETC.)
May 21, 2020 By Roger Sollenberger, Salon
Fox News host Sean Hannity, who has no medical or pharmacological background, has used his radio and television platforms this week to repeatedly promote an unproven drug treatment for the new coronavirus despite FDA warnings against doing so outside of a hospital setting or clinical trial due to a risk of heart rhythm problems.
“There is one thing you cannot conclude here: that it’s going to kill you,” Hannity said of hydroxychloroquine on his radio show
Hannity’s blitz came in defense of President Donald Trump, who faced widespread public backlash following his stunning claim at a Monday press conference that he had been taking hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc every day for the last two weeks in an attempt to ward off potential infection.
“All I can tell you is so far, I seem to be OK,” the president said at the time.
Hannity sought to justify the president’s actions in primetime on Fox News by making the misleading claims that Trump had built, manned and adequately stocked hospitals with medical equipment.
“Trump built the hospitals, manned the hospitals and sent them all the medical equipment they needed,” Hannity said. “Now, the president himself — he’s made the decision along with his doctors to take hydroxychloroquine as a preventative treatment.”
In defense of the oldest president in U.S. history’s decision to take the drug — which multiple studies have linked to heart failure, leading the FDA to issue its rare warning last month — Hannity heavily leaned on studies by one doctor, rheumatology expert Dr. Daniel Wallace of the Cedars-Sinai hospital. Though not an expert in infectious respiratory diseases, Wallace has written extensively on the drug in his lupus patients.
“He knows more about this than anybody else but the money line that he makes,” Hannity said of Wallace. “The risk taking 400 mg of hydroxychloroquine in a day and a 600 mg hydroxychloroquine loading dose for 60 days — the risk is nil unless you have an allergic rash or upset stomach. That’s it — that’s the worst that can happen.”
One of Wallace’s more extensive studies found that “56% of the 2,783 patients responding had experienced GI problems which they attributed to HCQ.”
“Despite 56% of patients experiencing GI problems, only 15% of patients had reported any unwanted symptoms to their physician,” Wallace found.
However, Wallace did not conclude that such symptoms were mild from this data. Beyond heart problems, hydroxychloroquine has been linked to paranoia and psychosis.
Wallace instead advised patients to speak with their physicians about their symptoms.
“This suggests that an opportunity may exist for stronger clinician–patient communication regarding symptom management,” he wrote.
Hannity cited another doctor on his radio show, the TV host Mehmet Oz, who has been repeatedly called out by medical professionals as a “quack” for pushing discredited “miracle” health products.
“There was a long period of time where Dr. Oz was asking anybody that took hydroxychloroquine, that had lupus or rheumatoid arthritis or had taken it as an anti-malarial — that had gotten or contracted COVID-19,” Hannity said. “They couldn’t find hardly any people.”
“There were instance — but they seemed very rare — just like they looked at the instances of countries where the drug is used to stop or prevent malaria,” he added.
“At the end of the day, there is one thing you cannot conclude here: that it’s going to kill you,” Hannity concluded.
“If you are in a risky population here and you are taking this as a preventative treatment to ward off the virus, or in a worst-case scenario, you are dealing with the virus and you are in this vulnerable population, it will kill you. I cannot stress enough — this will kill you,” Cavuto said, drawing swift blowback from fellow Fox personalities and the president himself.
In a separate radio segment, Hannity blamed Democrats and the press for spreading what he alleged were “conspiracy theories” about Trump’s claim.
“They get the conspiracy theories over at MSDNC, the conspiracy theory state-run socialist television network of the Democratic Socialist Party. This time, claiming the president’s doctor is lying. The President’s not actually taking hydroxychloroquine. Uh, OK. Joe, you’ve lost it as usual. Or forgetting the foremost expert in the country Dr. Daniel Wallace out of Cedar Sinai (sic),” he said.
Hannity, who courted heavy criticism for repeatedly promoting the treatment on his show until recent contravening studies appeared to lead him to stop hyping it, was careful to caveat his advice.
“I’m not a doctor. I’m not advising you to take the drug. But that guy with those credentials — he seems like the foremost expert in the country. I’d take his word for it,” Hannity said. “So you can stay informed, know the risks, consult with your doctor and you ultimately decide.”
Hannity also took a shot at Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who said she was concerned about Trump’s use of the drug because he was “morbidly obese.”
“But then you get Nancy Pelosi, ‘Oh, the president — it’s risky, it’s dangerous, it’s morbidly obese,'” Hannity said. “Well, some people can be morbidly stupid.”
A few days after President Trump first hawked the unproven drug treatment in a March 19 White House press briefing, an Arizona man died and his wife were hospitalized after ingesting chloroquine phosphate — a chemical the woman had used in her koi pond to treat fish for parasites — in an attempted effort to protect themselves against infection from COVID-19.
“Trump kept saying it was basically pretty much a cure,” the woman later said.
She added that her advice would be: “Don’t take anything. Don’t believe anything. Don’t believe anything that the president says . . . Call your doctor.”
Hannity, however, took the opposite track this week.
“The president says he’s fine,” he said. “How about we let him make the choice himself. Let every American make the choice.”
“Same thing with opening,” he added. “We just ask that you wear a mask for a short period of time.”
‘For the lives of our mothers’: Covid-19 sparks fight for maids’ rights in Brazil
Millions of domestic workers have been told to keep working or been laid off without pay. Now their families are fighting back against a ‘structurally racist’ system
Millions of domestic workers have been told to keep working or been laid off without pay. Now their families are fighting back against a ‘structurally racist’ system
Jo Griffin@jogriffin2 THE GUARDIAN Tue 5 May 2020
A campaign called ‘for the lives of our mothers’ is demanding maids be given paid leave from work. Photograph: Dado Galdieri/Bloomberg/Getty
For as long as Juliana França can remember, on weekdays her mother, Caterina, has made the four-hour round bus trip from the working-class area of Baixada Fluminense, outside Rio de Janeiro, to the city’s affluent South Zone to work as a maid.
But when Covid-19 arrived in Brazil, França begged her to stay at home.
“I was afraid. I called her pleading with her not to go. I was crying,” says França. She feared her 57-year-old mother’s life could be at risk if she kept going to work at two different homes, but knew she would lose her income if she didn’t.
França rallied the sons and daughters of other maids to launch the campaign “for the lives of our mothers”, with a manifesto calling for guaranteed protection for the health and jobs of the country’s domestic workers during the pandemic.
Their petition demanding that all of Brazil’s maids – mainly poor, mostly black women – be granted immediate “paid quarantine” has gathered more than 87,000 signatures and touched a nerve in a country where the working arrangements for maids are often seen as a legacy of slavery and reflection of deep inequality.
The campaign comes amid a furious debate about class and privilege in Brazil after 63-year-old housekeeper Cleonice Gonçalves became the first person in Rio to die of coronavirus, which she is believed to have caught from her employer in the upmarket area of Leblon. Her employer had reportedly just returned from holiday in Italy but Gonçalves had no idea that she was ill and was not offered the chance to stay away.
Since then domestic workers across the country have shared stories of employers arbitrarily dismissing them, or giving them orders such as, “Just come at a different time so you can avoid rush hour”, or refusing to stick to health guidelines. Some say their employers have demanded they move in to ensure they don’t get infected elsewhere, even though this would mean leaving their own families.
“My boss wouldn’t let me go [stay off work] so I could stay at home and not get this disease. But neither did she buy a mask or alcohol [sanitiser],” writes one woman in a Facebook group for domestic maids that has 162,000 followers.
Domestic workers in Brazil often face prejudice and lack job protection. Photograph: Mauro Pimentel/AFP
Another writes: “I’m at home. My boss let me go so I wouldn’t pass on the virus [if I got it] but she told me she wasn’t going to pay me for the time I was off. I don’t know what to do … Can she really do that – send me home and not pay my wages?”
The day after Gonçalves died, the government recommended that employers put domestic workers on paid leave from all but “indispensable” services. A provisional law has been introduced allowing employers to reduce maids’ hours and suspend their contracts for up to 60 days, with an emergency fund to cover loss of income.
However, some employers insist that domestic workers keep providing the services they don’t want to take care of themselves. The situation is especially precarious for the millions of domestic workers without formal papers, including more than 2 million diaristas (daily workers), whose average wage of 120 reais (£17) a day may sustain their whole family.
Brazil has more domestic workers than any any other country – over 7 million. Maids have steadily gained rights in recent years, and in 2018 the country ratified the International Labour Organization convention on domestic workers. But legal loopholes have left many working without the formal status that protects them. Prejudices towards maids are laid bare on sites like A Minha Empregada, which retweets insults and criticism made by those they work for.
Our bodies are affected daily by this racist societyJuliana França
The national union of domestic workers (Fenetrad) has stressed the danger many are now facing. “Domestic workers are among those most exposed to the risks of contracting Covid-19. They use public transport, are in regular contact with others … and don’t have the option of working from home, especially daily maids.
“They earn on average less than the minimum wage and only around 30% have a formal contract, leaving them more exposed to abuse and violation of their rights.”
Underpinning this vulnerability, says França, is racism. “We have a history of almost four centuries of slavery in this country. That means that in 2020, we live in a society that is structurally racist. You are going to say to me: ‘But I didn’t enslave anyone’, but you benefit from the privileges inherited through this context of slavery. Just as our bodies – black and from the periphery – are affected daily by this racist society.”
Volunteers in Rio’s Santa Marta favela have been working to sanitise the streets. Diaristas who travel from the slums on public transport to work on multiple sites, are vulnerable to infection. Photograph: Léo Corrêa/AP
In an article for the daily newspaper Folha de São Paulo, the former maid turned rapper and author known as Preta Rara wrote: “Who do the lives of domestic workers matter to, apart from themselves and their families? They want our labour at any cost but they have no empathy with our lives.”
During the pandemic, this lack of empathy could cost lives, she wrote. “This is the moment to practise empathy for someone who has spent their life leaving everything clean and organised for you and your family. In the era of the pandemic, empathy will be vital to stop the spread of disease.”
'We're abandoned to our own fate': coronavirus menaces Brazil's favelas
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/14/were-abandoned-to-our-own-luck-coronavirus-menaces-brazils-favelas
After Caterina’s employers were shown the manifesto from França’s campaign, they agreed to give her paid time off. “She is safe at home, though anxious about the virus,” says França, who believes her campaign will help usher in lasting change for domestic workers.
“When we have gone through this pandemic, we will be stronger in our demand for the rights for domestic workers because this situation has proven how these women, especially daily maids, are neglected by the state. We will secure a law that ensures proper support for domestic workers in future situations like this.”
For as long as Juliana França can remember, on weekdays her mother, Caterina, has made the four-hour round bus trip from the working-class area of Baixada Fluminense, outside Rio de Janeiro, to the city’s affluent South Zone to work as a maid.
But when Covid-19 arrived in Brazil, França begged her to stay at home.
“I was afraid. I called her pleading with her not to go. I was crying,” says França. She feared her 57-year-old mother’s life could be at risk if she kept going to work at two different homes, but knew she would lose her income if she didn’t.
França rallied the sons and daughters of other maids to launch the campaign “for the lives of our mothers”, with a manifesto calling for guaranteed protection for the health and jobs of the country’s domestic workers during the pandemic.
Their petition demanding that all of Brazil’s maids – mainly poor, mostly black women – be granted immediate “paid quarantine” has gathered more than 87,000 signatures and touched a nerve in a country where the working arrangements for maids are often seen as a legacy of slavery and reflection of deep inequality.
The campaign comes amid a furious debate about class and privilege in Brazil after 63-year-old housekeeper Cleonice Gonçalves became the first person in Rio to die of coronavirus, which she is believed to have caught from her employer in the upmarket area of Leblon. Her employer had reportedly just returned from holiday in Italy but Gonçalves had no idea that she was ill and was not offered the chance to stay away.
Since then domestic workers across the country have shared stories of employers arbitrarily dismissing them, or giving them orders such as, “Just come at a different time so you can avoid rush hour”, or refusing to stick to health guidelines. Some say their employers have demanded they move in to ensure they don’t get infected elsewhere, even though this would mean leaving their own families.
“My boss wouldn’t let me go [stay off work] so I could stay at home and not get this disease. But neither did she buy a mask or alcohol [sanitiser],” writes one woman in a Facebook group for domestic maids that has 162,000 followers.
Domestic workers in Brazil often face prejudice and lack job protection. Photograph: Mauro Pimentel/AFP
Another writes: “I’m at home. My boss let me go so I wouldn’t pass on the virus [if I got it] but she told me she wasn’t going to pay me for the time I was off. I don’t know what to do … Can she really do that – send me home and not pay my wages?”
The day after Gonçalves died, the government recommended that employers put domestic workers on paid leave from all but “indispensable” services. A provisional law has been introduced allowing employers to reduce maids’ hours and suspend their contracts for up to 60 days, with an emergency fund to cover loss of income.
However, some employers insist that domestic workers keep providing the services they don’t want to take care of themselves. The situation is especially precarious for the millions of domestic workers without formal papers, including more than 2 million diaristas (daily workers), whose average wage of 120 reais (£17) a day may sustain their whole family.
Brazil has more domestic workers than any any other country – over 7 million. Maids have steadily gained rights in recent years, and in 2018 the country ratified the International Labour Organization convention on domestic workers. But legal loopholes have left many working without the formal status that protects them. Prejudices towards maids are laid bare on sites like A Minha Empregada, which retweets insults and criticism made by those they work for.
Our bodies are affected daily by this racist societyJuliana França
The national union of domestic workers (Fenetrad) has stressed the danger many are now facing. “Domestic workers are among those most exposed to the risks of contracting Covid-19. They use public transport, are in regular contact with others … and don’t have the option of working from home, especially daily maids.
“They earn on average less than the minimum wage and only around 30% have a formal contract, leaving them more exposed to abuse and violation of their rights.”
Underpinning this vulnerability, says França, is racism. “We have a history of almost four centuries of slavery in this country. That means that in 2020, we live in a society that is structurally racist. You are going to say to me: ‘But I didn’t enslave anyone’, but you benefit from the privileges inherited through this context of slavery. Just as our bodies – black and from the periphery – are affected daily by this racist society.”
Volunteers in Rio’s Santa Marta favela have been working to sanitise the streets. Diaristas who travel from the slums on public transport to work on multiple sites, are vulnerable to infection. Photograph: Léo Corrêa/AP
In an article for the daily newspaper Folha de São Paulo, the former maid turned rapper and author known as Preta Rara wrote: “Who do the lives of domestic workers matter to, apart from themselves and their families? They want our labour at any cost but they have no empathy with our lives.”
During the pandemic, this lack of empathy could cost lives, she wrote. “This is the moment to practise empathy for someone who has spent their life leaving everything clean and organised for you and your family. In the era of the pandemic, empathy will be vital to stop the spread of disease.”
'We're abandoned to our own fate': coronavirus menaces Brazil's favelas
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/14/were-abandoned-to-our-own-luck-coronavirus-menaces-brazils-favelas
After Caterina’s employers were shown the manifesto from França’s campaign, they agreed to give her paid time off. “She is safe at home, though anxious about the virus,” says França, who believes her campaign will help usher in lasting change for domestic workers.
“When we have gone through this pandemic, we will be stronger in our demand for the rights for domestic workers because this situation has proven how these women, especially daily maids, are neglected by the state. We will secure a law that ensures proper support for domestic workers in future situations like this.”
What would negative interest rates mean for mortgages and savings?
Variable-rate mortgages may fall a little, and it seems unlikely banks will charge to hold savings
Hilary Osborne THE GUARDIAN Thu 21 May 2020
What happens to my mortgage?
If it’s a fixed-rate mortgage, nothing. And most households are on this type of deal – in recent years around nine in 10 new mortgages have been taken on a fixed rate.
If it is a variable-rate mortgage – a tracker, or a mortgage on or linked to a lender’s standard variable rate – the rate could fall a little if the base rate is cut. But the drop is likely to be limited by terms and conditions. David Hollingworth, of the mortgage brokers London & Country, says trackers sold very recently have in some cases had a “collar” that prevents the lender from having to cut the rate at all. Skipton building society, for example, has a tracker at 1.29 percentage points above the base rate that can only go up.
Older mortgages often have a minimum rate specified in the small print. Nationwide building society, for example, will never reduce the rate it tracks below 0% – so if your mortgage is at base rate plus 1 percentage points, it will never fall below 1%. Santander specifies in some mortgages that the lowest rate it will ever charge is 0.0001%.
You will need to dig out your paperwork to see how low your mortgage rate could go.
Will new mortgages be free?
In Denmark, mortgages with negative interest rates went on sale last year. Borrowers with Jyske Bank were lent money at a rate of -0.5%, which meant the sum they owed fell each month by more than the sum they had repaid. There is no reason why UK lenders could not follow suit, although so far there is no sign that any will.
In the meantime, fixed-rate mortgages are getting cheaper and may continue to fall in price. Big lenders including HSBC and Barclays have reduced fixed-rates this week and more may follow. Hollingworth says borrowers now have a choice of five-year fixed rates below 1.5%, with HSBC’s deal now at 1.39%.
Tracker mortgages have been pulled and repriced with larger margins, to cushion lenders against falling rates. If rates are cut again, expect more of that, as well as the collars already seen on some deals.
A negative base rate means banks and building societies have to pay to keep money on deposit, and it is designed to discourage them from doing so and make them keen to lend.
Fears over what might happen to property prices mean they are still likely to lend very carefully, but they should not need to restrict the range and number of mortgages on offer. Some lenders that reduced their maximum mortgages while they were unable to do valuations have started to offer loans on smaller deposits, although the choice of 90% loans is very limited. “Lenders do have appetite to lend,” says Hollingworth.
What happens to my savings?
Savings rates have already been hit by the two base rate cuts in March and most easy-access accounts from high street banks are already paying just 0.1% in interest.
Andrew Hagger, the founder of the financial information website Moneycomms, says he thinks it is unlikely banks will start charging people to hold their everyday savings. “Many would just withdraw cash and possibly keep it in the house, thus opening a can of worms around security and break-ins,” he says. “However, if the Bank of England did introduce negative rates, I’m sure we would see even more savings accounts heading towards zero.”
Rachel Springall, from the data firm Moneyfacts, says: “The most flexible savings accounts could face further cuts should base rate move any lower or if savings providers decide they want to deter deposits.”
She is not ruling out a charge for deposits. “Some savings accounts could go down this path – similar to how some banks charge a fee on a current account,” she says.
Wealthy savers are likely to be the first who would face a charge. Last year UBS started charging its ultra-rich clients a fee for cash savings of more than €500,000 (£449,000), starting at 0.6% a year and rising to 0.75% on larger deposits. And at the Danish Jyske Bank, similar charges apply.
“It could be that super-rich clients in the UK get charged a similar fee as the commercial banks may wish to discourage large cash holdings which they are having to pay for,” says Hagger.
What about loans and credit cards?
Personal loan rates are already low and are usually fixed, so you will not see your monthly repayments fall if rates go down. Credit card rates are usually low for new customers, but rise far above the base rate once introductory periods have ended, so will not be anywhere close to falling into negative territory.
Hagger says he does not expect card or loan rates to plummet in the near future, “as I think banks will continue to tighten their credit underwriting – I think they’ll be more concerned about rising bad debt levels due to a surge in unemployment, for the remainder of 2020 at least.”
This month Virgin Money closed the credit card accounts of 32,000 borrowers after carrying out “routine affordability checks”. It later reversed the decision, but this could be a sign that lenders are reviewing their customer bases and trying to reduce their risk.
Variable-rate mortgages may fall a little, and it seems unlikely banks will charge to hold savings
Hilary Osborne THE GUARDIAN Thu 21 May 2020
You will need to dig out your paperwork to see how low your mortgage rate could go. Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA
The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has paved the way for negative interest rates, saying officials are actively considering all options to prop up the economy.
The Bank’s base rate stands at 0.1%, the lowest level on record, so it would not take much to take it into negative territory. The UK would not be the first country to have a negative rate at its central bank – Japan and Sweden are among those that have done so.
The governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has paved the way for negative interest rates, saying officials are actively considering all options to prop up the economy.
The Bank’s base rate stands at 0.1%, the lowest level on record, so it would not take much to take it into negative territory. The UK would not be the first country to have a negative rate at its central bank – Japan and Sweden are among those that have done so.
What happens to my mortgage?
If it’s a fixed-rate mortgage, nothing. And most households are on this type of deal – in recent years around nine in 10 new mortgages have been taken on a fixed rate.
If it is a variable-rate mortgage – a tracker, or a mortgage on or linked to a lender’s standard variable rate – the rate could fall a little if the base rate is cut. But the drop is likely to be limited by terms and conditions. David Hollingworth, of the mortgage brokers London & Country, says trackers sold very recently have in some cases had a “collar” that prevents the lender from having to cut the rate at all. Skipton building society, for example, has a tracker at 1.29 percentage points above the base rate that can only go up.
Older mortgages often have a minimum rate specified in the small print. Nationwide building society, for example, will never reduce the rate it tracks below 0% – so if your mortgage is at base rate plus 1 percentage points, it will never fall below 1%. Santander specifies in some mortgages that the lowest rate it will ever charge is 0.0001%.
You will need to dig out your paperwork to see how low your mortgage rate could go.
Will new mortgages be free?
In Denmark, mortgages with negative interest rates went on sale last year. Borrowers with Jyske Bank were lent money at a rate of -0.5%, which meant the sum they owed fell each month by more than the sum they had repaid. There is no reason why UK lenders could not follow suit, although so far there is no sign that any will.
In the meantime, fixed-rate mortgages are getting cheaper and may continue to fall in price. Big lenders including HSBC and Barclays have reduced fixed-rates this week and more may follow. Hollingworth says borrowers now have a choice of five-year fixed rates below 1.5%, with HSBC’s deal now at 1.39%.
Tracker mortgages have been pulled and repriced with larger margins, to cushion lenders against falling rates. If rates are cut again, expect more of that, as well as the collars already seen on some deals.
A negative base rate means banks and building societies have to pay to keep money on deposit, and it is designed to discourage them from doing so and make them keen to lend.
Fears over what might happen to property prices mean they are still likely to lend very carefully, but they should not need to restrict the range and number of mortgages on offer. Some lenders that reduced their maximum mortgages while they were unable to do valuations have started to offer loans on smaller deposits, although the choice of 90% loans is very limited. “Lenders do have appetite to lend,” says Hollingworth.
What happens to my savings?
Savings rates have already been hit by the two base rate cuts in March and most easy-access accounts from high street banks are already paying just 0.1% in interest.
Andrew Hagger, the founder of the financial information website Moneycomms, says he thinks it is unlikely banks will start charging people to hold their everyday savings. “Many would just withdraw cash and possibly keep it in the house, thus opening a can of worms around security and break-ins,” he says. “However, if the Bank of England did introduce negative rates, I’m sure we would see even more savings accounts heading towards zero.”
Rachel Springall, from the data firm Moneyfacts, says: “The most flexible savings accounts could face further cuts should base rate move any lower or if savings providers decide they want to deter deposits.”
She is not ruling out a charge for deposits. “Some savings accounts could go down this path – similar to how some banks charge a fee on a current account,” she says.
Wealthy savers are likely to be the first who would face a charge. Last year UBS started charging its ultra-rich clients a fee for cash savings of more than €500,000 (£449,000), starting at 0.6% a year and rising to 0.75% on larger deposits. And at the Danish Jyske Bank, similar charges apply.
“It could be that super-rich clients in the UK get charged a similar fee as the commercial banks may wish to discourage large cash holdings which they are having to pay for,” says Hagger.
What about loans and credit cards?
Personal loan rates are already low and are usually fixed, so you will not see your monthly repayments fall if rates go down. Credit card rates are usually low for new customers, but rise far above the base rate once introductory periods have ended, so will not be anywhere close to falling into negative territory.
Hagger says he does not expect card or loan rates to plummet in the near future, “as I think banks will continue to tighten their credit underwriting – I think they’ll be more concerned about rising bad debt levels due to a surge in unemployment, for the remainder of 2020 at least.”
This month Virgin Money closed the credit card accounts of 32,000 borrowers after carrying out “routine affordability checks”. It later reversed the decision, but this could be a sign that lenders are reviewing their customer bases and trying to reduce their risk.
Microplastic pollution in oceans vastly underestimated – study
Particles may outnumber zooplankton, which underpin marine life and regulate climateDamian Carrington Environment editor THE GUARDIAN
@dpcarrington Fri 22 May 2020
The research on microplastics in rivers, published in the journal Global Change Biology, analysed the droppings and regurgitated pellets of white-throated dippers at 15 river sites in south Wales. The scientists said the results were startling.
They found that the birds, which feed on river insects, were eating about 200 pieces of plastic a day. These were mostly fibres, and a quarter were larger than 500 microns.
The team also found that the dippers were feeding thousands of plastic fibres to their nest-bound chicks during their development. Previous research by the scientists had shown that half of the river insects contain microplastic fragments.
Prof Steve Ormerod, of Cardiff University, who led the work, said: “In almost 40 years of researching rivers and dippers, I never imagined that one day our work would reveal these spectacular birds to be at risk from the ingestion of plastics. It is a measure of how this pollution problem has crept up on us.
“Dippers are the world’s only songbirds able to dive and feed on river insects, but that wonderful adaptation also means they have no escape from this pollution.”
The impact on the health of the birds is not yet understood. “It is imperative we understand whether microplastics add to the other pollution problems that affect dippers and other river organisms, and we use that knowledge to guide remedial action,” Ormerod said.
SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/05/long-read-africas-exploding-plastic.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/05/pollution-birds-ingesting-hundreds-of.html
Particles may outnumber zooplankton, which underpin marine life and regulate climateDamian Carrington Environment editor THE GUARDIAN
@dpcarrington Fri 22 May 2020
Plastic pollution is known to harm the fertility, growth and survival of marine life. Photograph: Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP via Getty Images
The abundance of microplastic pollution in the oceans is likely to have been vastly underestimated, according to research that suggests there are at least double the number of particles as previously thought.
Scientists trawled waters off the coasts of the UK and US and found many more particles using nets with a fine mesh size than when using coarser ones usually used to filter microplastics. The addition of these smaller particles to global estimates of surface microplastics increases the range from between 5tn and 50tn particles to 12tn-125tn particles, the scientists say.
Plastic pollution is known to harm the fertility, growth and survival of marine life. Smaller particles are especially concerning because they are the same size as the food eaten by zooplankton, which underpin the marine food chain and play an important role in regulating the global climate. The new data suggests there may be more microplastic particles than zooplankton in some waters.
“The estimate of marine microplastic concentration could currently be vastly underestimated,” said Prof Pennie Lindeque, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK, who led the research.
She said there may well be even smaller particles than those caught by the fine mesh nets, meaning the numbers “could be even larger again”.
Another new study shows how microplastics have entered the food chain in rivers, with birds found to be consuming hundreds of particles a day via the aquatic insects on which they feed.
Microplastic pollution has contaminated the whole planet, from Arctic snow and mountain soils to many rivers and the deepest oceans. It is also being consumed and inhaled by people, and the health impacts are as yet unknown.
Research published in the last month has found microplastics in greater quantities than ever before on the seabed and suggested that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of microplastics could be blowing ashore on the ocean breeze every year.
The research by Lindeque’s team, published in the journal Environmental Pollution, used nets with mesh sizes of 100 microns (0.1mm), 333 microns and 500 microns. They found 2.5 times more particles in the finest net than in the 333 micron net, which is the kind usually used to filter microplastics, and 10 times more than in the 500 micron net.
The surface trawls off the coast of Plymouth in the UK and the coast of Maine in the US showed similar results, suggesting they are representative of waters near populated land. The particles were dominated by fibres from textiles such as ropes, nets and clothing.
“Using an extrapolation, we suggest microplastic concentrations could exceed 3,700 particles per cubic meter – that’s far more than the number of zooplankton you would find,” Lindeque said. These tiny animals are among the most abundant species on the planet.
Dr Ceri Lewis, a marine biologist at Exeter University, who was part of the team, said: “Understanding more about the smaller microplastics is important as it is these smaller particles that are more likely to be ingested by the zooplankton that form the basis of marine food webs.”
Microplastics can spread via flying insects, research shows
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/19/microplastics-can-spread-via-flying-insects-research-shows
The abundance of microplastic pollution in the oceans is likely to have been vastly underestimated, according to research that suggests there are at least double the number of particles as previously thought.
Scientists trawled waters off the coasts of the UK and US and found many more particles using nets with a fine mesh size than when using coarser ones usually used to filter microplastics. The addition of these smaller particles to global estimates of surface microplastics increases the range from between 5tn and 50tn particles to 12tn-125tn particles, the scientists say.
Plastic pollution is known to harm the fertility, growth and survival of marine life. Smaller particles are especially concerning because they are the same size as the food eaten by zooplankton, which underpin the marine food chain and play an important role in regulating the global climate. The new data suggests there may be more microplastic particles than zooplankton in some waters.
“The estimate of marine microplastic concentration could currently be vastly underestimated,” said Prof Pennie Lindeque, of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK, who led the research.
She said there may well be even smaller particles than those caught by the fine mesh nets, meaning the numbers “could be even larger again”.
Another new study shows how microplastics have entered the food chain in rivers, with birds found to be consuming hundreds of particles a day via the aquatic insects on which they feed.
Microplastic pollution has contaminated the whole planet, from Arctic snow and mountain soils to many rivers and the deepest oceans. It is also being consumed and inhaled by people, and the health impacts are as yet unknown.
Research published in the last month has found microplastics in greater quantities than ever before on the seabed and suggested that hundreds of thousands of tonnes of microplastics could be blowing ashore on the ocean breeze every year.
The research by Lindeque’s team, published in the journal Environmental Pollution, used nets with mesh sizes of 100 microns (0.1mm), 333 microns and 500 microns. They found 2.5 times more particles in the finest net than in the 333 micron net, which is the kind usually used to filter microplastics, and 10 times more than in the 500 micron net.
The surface trawls off the coast of Plymouth in the UK and the coast of Maine in the US showed similar results, suggesting they are representative of waters near populated land. The particles were dominated by fibres from textiles such as ropes, nets and clothing.
“Using an extrapolation, we suggest microplastic concentrations could exceed 3,700 particles per cubic meter – that’s far more than the number of zooplankton you would find,” Lindeque said. These tiny animals are among the most abundant species on the planet.
Dr Ceri Lewis, a marine biologist at Exeter University, who was part of the team, said: “Understanding more about the smaller microplastics is important as it is these smaller particles that are more likely to be ingested by the zooplankton that form the basis of marine food webs.”
Microplastics can spread via flying insects, research shows
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/19/microplastics-can-spread-via-flying-insects-research-shows
The research on microplastics in rivers, published in the journal Global Change Biology, analysed the droppings and regurgitated pellets of white-throated dippers at 15 river sites in south Wales. The scientists said the results were startling.
They found that the birds, which feed on river insects, were eating about 200 pieces of plastic a day. These were mostly fibres, and a quarter were larger than 500 microns.
The team also found that the dippers were feeding thousands of plastic fibres to their nest-bound chicks during their development. Previous research by the scientists had shown that half of the river insects contain microplastic fragments.
Prof Steve Ormerod, of Cardiff University, who led the work, said: “In almost 40 years of researching rivers and dippers, I never imagined that one day our work would reveal these spectacular birds to be at risk from the ingestion of plastics. It is a measure of how this pollution problem has crept up on us.
“Dippers are the world’s only songbirds able to dive and feed on river insects, but that wonderful adaptation also means they have no escape from this pollution.”
The impact on the health of the birds is not yet understood. “It is imperative we understand whether microplastics add to the other pollution problems that affect dippers and other river organisms, and we use that knowledge to guide remedial action,” Ormerod said.
SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/05/long-read-africas-exploding-plastic.html
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/05/pollution-birds-ingesting-hundreds-of.html
Young climate activists call for EU to radically reform farming sector
Fridays for Future to publish letter urging reform of common agricultural policy ahead of European commission meeting
Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
Fridays for Future to publish letter urging reform of common agricultural policy ahead of European commission meeting
Fiona Harvey Environment correspondent
THE GUARDIAN Fri 22 May 2020
Greta Thunberg speaks to participants of Fridays for Future demonstration in Hamburg in February. Photograph: Christian Charisius/AP
The EU’s farming sector needs radical reform, and the common agricultural policy (CAP) must be rewritten if the climate crisis is to be tackled, a group of young climate activists will urge.
Fridays for Future, founded by teenagers in the wake of Greta Thunberg’s school strikes, will confront the European commission’s vice-president, Frans Timmermans, online to call for new plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and replace subsidies based on the amount of land farmed with payments for farmers supplying public goods, such as clean water, clean air and lower carbon emissions.
“[We] demand a pathway to climate neutrality for the EU’s agricultural and food sector,” the activists wrote in an open letter published ahead of the virtual meeting. “We need to transform direct payments into payments for public goods. Public money needs to flow into the transition to sustainable, climate-friendly and peasant [sic] agriculture. We need a new evidence-based and just CAP.”
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
Read more
The CAP is worth close to €60bn a year, and costs roughly €114 annually per citizen. However, the system has been blamed for the increase in intensive farming, overuse of pesticides and poor attention to soil conservation and wildlife protection.
Earlier this week, the EU published its biodiversity strategy, which would devote €20bn a year to boosting wildlife, and require the planting of 3bn trees in the next decade, but stopped short of the sweeping reform of the CAP that campaigners want.
“Current agropolicy is an immediate threat to our future,” Tilman von Samson, one of the activists, told the Guardian. “Not only because the CAP is inactive in reducing emissions – much worse, it is gambling away the potential for hope that lies in agriculture [which] can be a climate buffer.”
Reform to subsidies could reward farmers for conserving carbon in their soil and vegetation, which would benefit nature as well as helping the EU to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The EU’s farm to fork strategy would cut pesticide use, boost organic farming and halve the use of antibiotics on farm animals by 2030, as well as improving farming practices to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Fridays for Future wants the EU to go further as part of its European Green Deal, the centrepiece of the bloc’s strategy which is meant to steer Europe to net zero emissions by 2050. The European commission is trying to push the policy ahead of crunch climate talks, called Cop26, postponed to next year from their original date of this November in Glasgow.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the commission, hailed the green deal plan as Europe’s equivalent of the US putting a man on the moon in the last century, a transformative proposal that would reach into every aspect of people’s lives, from energy and transport to food and nature.
But von Samson told the Guardian: “Everything that has been discussed yet is incompatible with the Paris Agreement, and the future into which the current CAP proposals will lead us are as far from one another as the man on the moon and his home planet. We want to remind the commission of their responsibility. If they want to make a real change, they have to start with a new CAP.”
The EU’s farming sector needs radical reform, and the common agricultural policy (CAP) must be rewritten if the climate crisis is to be tackled, a group of young climate activists will urge.
Fridays for Future, founded by teenagers in the wake of Greta Thunberg’s school strikes, will confront the European commission’s vice-president, Frans Timmermans, online to call for new plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and replace subsidies based on the amount of land farmed with payments for farmers supplying public goods, such as clean water, clean air and lower carbon emissions.
“[We] demand a pathway to climate neutrality for the EU’s agricultural and food sector,” the activists wrote in an open letter published ahead of the virtual meeting. “We need to transform direct payments into payments for public goods. Public money needs to flow into the transition to sustainable, climate-friendly and peasant [sic] agriculture. We need a new evidence-based and just CAP.”
Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories
Read more
The CAP is worth close to €60bn a year, and costs roughly €114 annually per citizen. However, the system has been blamed for the increase in intensive farming, overuse of pesticides and poor attention to soil conservation and wildlife protection.
Earlier this week, the EU published its biodiversity strategy, which would devote €20bn a year to boosting wildlife, and require the planting of 3bn trees in the next decade, but stopped short of the sweeping reform of the CAP that campaigners want.
“Current agropolicy is an immediate threat to our future,” Tilman von Samson, one of the activists, told the Guardian. “Not only because the CAP is inactive in reducing emissions – much worse, it is gambling away the potential for hope that lies in agriculture [which] can be a climate buffer.”
Reform to subsidies could reward farmers for conserving carbon in their soil and vegetation, which would benefit nature as well as helping the EU to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The EU’s farm to fork strategy would cut pesticide use, boost organic farming and halve the use of antibiotics on farm animals by 2030, as well as improving farming practices to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Fridays for Future wants the EU to go further as part of its European Green Deal, the centrepiece of the bloc’s strategy which is meant to steer Europe to net zero emissions by 2050. The European commission is trying to push the policy ahead of crunch climate talks, called Cop26, postponed to next year from their original date of this November in Glasgow.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the commission, hailed the green deal plan as Europe’s equivalent of the US putting a man on the moon in the last century, a transformative proposal that would reach into every aspect of people’s lives, from energy and transport to food and nature.
But von Samson told the Guardian: “Everything that has been discussed yet is incompatible with the Paris Agreement, and the future into which the current CAP proposals will lead us are as far from one another as the man on the moon and his home planet. We want to remind the commission of their responsibility. If they want to make a real change, they have to start with a new CAP.”
We now have the proof: greening the economy doesn't come at the price of prosperity
Fiona HarveyFri 22 May 2020 07.00 BSTLast modified on Fri 22 May 2020 07.12 BST
‘Electric vehicle charging points are needed around the world, and the slack in public transport can be used to upgrade rail networks.’ Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA
Everest is once again visible from Kathmandu, after decades shrouded in pollution. Greenhouse gas emissions have fallen to levels last seen in 2006. Nature has returned to our streets with a quack and a flurry, and people are waking to birdsong in inner cities as the roar of traffic recedes.
Clear skies bring little cheer at the food bank, however. Birdsong might lift the heart, but it won’t pay the rent.
The environmental renaissance that has come with lockdown shows both the necessity of cleaning up our filthy air and atmosphere, and the dangers of associating economic ruin with environmental gain. Daily greenhouse gas emissions fell by a quarter in many countries when the lockdown bit hardest, according to the first comprehensive study this week, and by early April were 17% down on last year. At the same time, the global economy plunged 6% and half the global workforce now face the loss of their livelihoods, says the International Labour Organisation.
Coronavirus fallout to slow global growth in renewable energy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/20/coronavirus-fallout-to-slow-global-growth-in-renewable-energy
Everest is once again visible from Kathmandu, after decades shrouded in pollution. Greenhouse gas emissions have fallen to levels last seen in 2006. Nature has returned to our streets with a quack and a flurry, and people are waking to birdsong in inner cities as the roar of traffic recedes.
Clear skies bring little cheer at the food bank, however. Birdsong might lift the heart, but it won’t pay the rent.
The environmental renaissance that has come with lockdown shows both the necessity of cleaning up our filthy air and atmosphere, and the dangers of associating economic ruin with environmental gain. Daily greenhouse gas emissions fell by a quarter in many countries when the lockdown bit hardest, according to the first comprehensive study this week, and by early April were 17% down on last year. At the same time, the global economy plunged 6% and half the global workforce now face the loss of their livelihoods, says the International Labour Organisation.
Coronavirus fallout to slow global growth in renewable energy
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/20/coronavirus-fallout-to-slow-global-growth-in-renewable-energy
Getting people back to work will mean rapidly rising carbon emissions, as it did after the financial crisis of 2008, unless strong action is taken by governments. Already, emissions are climbing: they will be only 4% down on the year if lockdowns are lifted next month.
For environmentalists, it may seem tedious to have to explain yet again why it makes economic sense to save the planet – there wouldn’t be an economy without the environment, so if we trash it “growth” will cease to have much meaning. But we teeter on the threshold of what could be the greatest depression for centuries. People who are losing their jobs and homes, with only politicians’ promises to put in their bank account, have every right to ask whether now is the time to prioritise the climate – or couldn’t it wait a year or two while we sort out this catastrophe first?
That question has a clear answer: a green recovery can produce higher returns on public spending and create more jobs in both the short term and the long term, compared to the alternative of pouring stimulus cash into the fossil fuel economy.
For environmentalists, it may seem tedious to have to explain yet again why it makes economic sense to save the planet – there wouldn’t be an economy without the environment, so if we trash it “growth” will cease to have much meaning. But we teeter on the threshold of what could be the greatest depression for centuries. People who are losing their jobs and homes, with only politicians’ promises to put in their bank account, have every right to ask whether now is the time to prioritise the climate – or couldn’t it wait a year or two while we sort out this catastrophe first?
That question has a clear answer: a green recovery can produce higher returns on public spending and create more jobs in both the short term and the long term, compared to the alternative of pouring stimulus cash into the fossil fuel economy.
Those findings come from a study of the potential for a green recovery, based on a survey of finance ministries and central bankers, and a comparison with the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, conducted by the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist Lord Stern, and leading economists from Oxford University.
After the financial crisis in 2008, calls for a green recovery were partially successful. About 16% of the global stimulus spending was green, including subsidies for renewable energy, seed funding for research and development, and new technology such as electric vehicles.
That proportion may seem small, and the effects of the rest of the spending – much of which went on carbon-intensive projects such as concrete construction and coal – were soon apparent: carbon emissions, which had fallen 1.4%, rebounded by a record amount of nearly 6% in 2010.
Yet the green stimulus bore fruit. Renewable energy expanded, and the cost of wind and solar power fell far faster than predicted, to the point where both forms of power are now competitive with fossil fuel generation, without the need for subsidy.
If that was possible from just 16% of stimulus spending, what could be done if the proportions were reversed? We are much better prepared to create green jobs now, according to the Oxford study. Shovel-ready projects, from insulating homes to widening cycle lanes, abound. Electric vehicle charging points are needed around the world, and the slack in public transport can be used to upgrade rail networks.
Car companies, with government incentives, could hasten the move from petrol and diesel engines. The renewable energy industry has progressed in the last decade, making home solar installation cheap and offshore wind farms viable. All of these are labour intensive and would provide quick returns on taxpayer cash.
There are fledgling industries that could soar with a government boost. Fatih Birol, the widely respected executive director of the International Energy Agency, points to hydrogen and batteries as two major areas “now ready for the big time”. Hydrogen, in the form of ammonia, will be key to decarbonising shipping, but take-up has been slow due to lack of investment.
If governments get it right, the structural changes needed to bring emissions to net zero in the next 30 years will come with a gain in jobs and security. But more needs to be done to ensure that people see the positive, rather than associate falling emissions with falling prosperity. Much of the public discussion so far has focused on attaching “green strings” to bailouts for established industries such as airlines, fossil fuels and car manufacturing. Those are certainly needed – as the failure to attach conditions after the 2008 crisis clearly shows – but can seem like punishing industries already on their knees. Workers on airlines and in shale fields are workers too, with mortgages to pay and families to care for. Shrugging off the loss of their jobs as the casualties of a cleaner future is not good enough: there must be a clear path to high-quality alternatives.
After the financial crisis, capital did not reel for long – the initiative was soon recaptured by austerity advocates and increasingly by populists who persuaded voters in many countries that the rollback of the state was the price of fiscal stability. The same forces are still in place: Donald Trump’s White House has already seized the excuse to repeal dozens of regulations on clean air and water, threatening to reverse environmental protections to a pre-Nixon state. If things are to be different this time, people need reassurance on jobs above all, and hymns to nature must be sung to the backing hum of industry.
Fiona Harvey is the Guardian’s environment correspon
After the financial crisis in 2008, calls for a green recovery were partially successful. About 16% of the global stimulus spending was green, including subsidies for renewable energy, seed funding for research and development, and new technology such as electric vehicles.
That proportion may seem small, and the effects of the rest of the spending – much of which went on carbon-intensive projects such as concrete construction and coal – were soon apparent: carbon emissions, which had fallen 1.4%, rebounded by a record amount of nearly 6% in 2010.
Yet the green stimulus bore fruit. Renewable energy expanded, and the cost of wind and solar power fell far faster than predicted, to the point where both forms of power are now competitive with fossil fuel generation, without the need for subsidy.
If that was possible from just 16% of stimulus spending, what could be done if the proportions were reversed? We are much better prepared to create green jobs now, according to the Oxford study. Shovel-ready projects, from insulating homes to widening cycle lanes, abound. Electric vehicle charging points are needed around the world, and the slack in public transport can be used to upgrade rail networks.
Car companies, with government incentives, could hasten the move from petrol and diesel engines. The renewable energy industry has progressed in the last decade, making home solar installation cheap and offshore wind farms viable. All of these are labour intensive and would provide quick returns on taxpayer cash.
There are fledgling industries that could soar with a government boost. Fatih Birol, the widely respected executive director of the International Energy Agency, points to hydrogen and batteries as two major areas “now ready for the big time”. Hydrogen, in the form of ammonia, will be key to decarbonising shipping, but take-up has been slow due to lack of investment.
Decarbonisation is our future. It must be factored into the coronavirus recoveryPradeep Philip and Will Rayward-Smithhttps://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2020/may/18/decarbonisation-is-our-future-it-must-be-factored-into-the-coronavirus-recovery
If governments get it right, the structural changes needed to bring emissions to net zero in the next 30 years will come with a gain in jobs and security. But more needs to be done to ensure that people see the positive, rather than associate falling emissions with falling prosperity. Much of the public discussion so far has focused on attaching “green strings” to bailouts for established industries such as airlines, fossil fuels and car manufacturing. Those are certainly needed – as the failure to attach conditions after the 2008 crisis clearly shows – but can seem like punishing industries already on their knees. Workers on airlines and in shale fields are workers too, with mortgages to pay and families to care for. Shrugging off the loss of their jobs as the casualties of a cleaner future is not good enough: there must be a clear path to high-quality alternatives.
After the financial crisis, capital did not reel for long – the initiative was soon recaptured by austerity advocates and increasingly by populists who persuaded voters in many countries that the rollback of the state was the price of fiscal stability. The same forces are still in place: Donald Trump’s White House has already seized the excuse to repeal dozens of regulations on clean air and water, threatening to reverse environmental protections to a pre-Nixon state. If things are to be different this time, people need reassurance on jobs above all, and hymns to nature must be sung to the backing hum of industry.
Fiona Harvey is the Guardian’s environment correspon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)