Covid-19 situation in Africa exceeds Ebola, WHO alerts

Havana, Aug 18 (Prensa Latina) The present situation in Africa due to the Covid-19 pandemic is worse than that of the Ebola outbreak (2014 – 2016), the World Health Organization (WHO) warned.

In the usual morning press briefing by the Ministry of Public Health (MINSAP) to update Cuba´s epidemiological situation, it was known about WHO´s concern on Covid-19.

'Covid-19 already kills more people than Ebola. The new coronavirus has claimed 11,959 lives compared to the 11,308 that resulted in the worst Ebola outbreak between 2014 and 2016,' Dr. Francisco Duran, National Director of Epidemiology of MINSAP said, when referring to WHO´s data.

The 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was the largest and most complex since the virus was discovered in 1976, with the highest case and death tolls recorded in those years.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected more than 500,000 people in Africa so far this year.

In April, the WHO noted that the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in the final phase of the fight against Ebola outbreak, declared on August 1, 2018, while also dealt with a measles outbreak and the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Up to August 17, a total of 21,689,832 people from 185 countries has been infected with the new coronavirus and 770,273 have died.

Dr. Duran explained that the Americas is the current epicenter of the pandemic, since over 53% of cases reported worldwide are from this territory.

rly/pll/mem/rbp

PRENSA LATINA

Spain records the highest peak of Covid-19 cases in Europe

Madrid, Aug 18 (Prensa Latina) Spain has recorded in the last 14 days the highest peak of Covid-19 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in Europe, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control reported on Tuesday.

According to the data released today by that European Union entity, the Spanish rate is 132.2 infections per 100,000 inhabitants, that is to say, one case per 1,000 people in the last two weeks.

The cumulative incidence of Spain exceeds that of Luxembourg (98.6), Malta (98.2), Romania (88.5) and Belgium (60.8), according to the EU agency headquartered in Sweden, whose figures are provided by each country.

In the rest of the member States of the community bloc and the United Kingdom, the Covid-19 incidence is below 50 cases per 100,000 inhabitants.

Spain's Ministry of Health attributes the peak of Covid-19 cases during the month of July and, especially, so far in August, to the testing strategy deployed across the country, where only from August 7 to 13, experts have carried out over 480,000 PCR tests.

Spaniards hold anti-mask protest in Madrid as Covid-19 cases rise

August 17, 2020 By Agence France-Presse

A man smokes a cigarette with his eyes covered by a face mask as he takes part in a protest against the use of protective masks during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, in Madrid, Spain August 16, 2020. © REUTERS/Juan Medina

Chanting “freedom”, hundreds of people rallied Sunday in Madrid to protest against the mandatory use of facemasks and other restrictions imposed by the Spanish government to contain the coronavirus pandemic.

A crowd of clapping and cheering people gathered beneath an enormous yellow and red Spanish flag that stands in the Plaza Colon in the centre of the city in response to calls on social media.

Protesters held up home-made placards featuring slogans that included “The virus does not exist”, “Masks kill” and “We are not afraid”.

The demonstration drew a variety of attendees, including conspiracy theorists, libertarians and opponents of vaccination.
Pilar Martin, a 58-year-old housewife from the northeastern city of Zaragoza, said she had come to Madrid for the rally because she believed governments around the world were exaggerating the number of infections to curb people’s freedoms.

“They are forcing us to use a mask, they want us to stay home practically locked up. It’s obvious that they are continuously tricking us with talk of outbreaks. It’s all a lie,” she told AFP at the rally.

A number of participants cited a slickly edited documentary dubbed “Plandemic” which has been removed from several social media platforms including YouTube and Facebook because it was found to have false claims, such as that wearing masks can cause harm or that vaccines have “killed millions”.

Many protesters did not wear a mask even though it is required by law in public across Spain, which has seen a surge in new infections since it lifted its three-month lockdown measures on June 21.

Mask-wearing was initially imposed in early May as a requirement for those using public transport, and was later expanded in a country where the virus has killed nearly 29,000 people.

The protest comes two days after the government announced new restrictions to curb the spread of the virus, including the closure of discos and a ban on smoking in public areas when it is not possible to keep at least two metres from other people.

(AFP)

SCIENCE SEZ
There’s little evidence showing which police reforms work

Rapid research is needed to find out what efforts are most effective

#DISARM   #DEMILITARIZE 
#DEFUND #DISBAND

Following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, after a white police officer restrained the unarmed Black man by kneeling on his neck, activists around the country, like these in New York City, have called on civic leaders to defund the police.
DAVID GROSSMAN/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

By Sujata Gupta

JULY 9, 2020 AT 8:00 AM

When criminologist Robin Engel suddenly found herself leading the effort to reform a police department under fire after a white police officer killed an unarmed Black man in July 2015, she looked for some kind of road map to follow. Instead, she found herself in poorly charted territory.

A professor at the University of Cincinnati, Engel had been called on frequently to help police departments around the country manage their response to acts of police violence. This time, the call came from close to home. Campus Officer Ray Tensing, 25, had shot and killed 43-year-old musician Samuel DuBose during an off-campus traffic stop.

Engel recommended that the university hire a high-ranking official to oversee the police department and its immediate response to the crisis, and initiate longer term, comprehensive reforms to prevent future incidents.

Within days, Engel had become that official, reporting directly to the university president and outranking the university’s police chief, despite lacking police experience herself.

She sought input from various community stakeholders, many of whom had been rankled by her appointment to lead the police division. She also turned to her best-known tool — research. She began probing for studies to guide her on the sorts of reforms she could institute, ones with proven track records of changing police behavior in the field. Her search was unfruitful.

“I thought most certainly we would have an evidence base that I could follow,” Engel says. “I was incredibly disappointed at the lack of evidence that was available. I was really disappointed in my own field.”

Among her efforts, Engel scoured the literature for so-called de-escalation programs with a history of success at defusing violence. Her review of that body of work, appearing in January 2020 in Criminology & Public Policy, found 64 de-escalation programs in the United States and elsewhere — but mostly administered to nurses and psychologists. She found no programs that had been tested among police officers. Just three studies showed cause and effect and included randomized control groups, and those showed that such programs led to minimal individual and organizational improvements.

In a February 2020 review in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Engel and colleagues discuss de-escalation trainings and four other reforms that tend to capture the public’s attention following fatal police-civilian encounters: body-worn cameras, implicit bias training (meant to reduce decisions and actions that arise from unconscious stereotypes) (SN: 10/26/15), early intervention systems that identify problematic officers before a crisis and civilian oversight of the police.

Engel was unable to identify a single police reform with convincing evidence of resulting behavior change among officers. Even studies on body-worn cameras, which are numerous, had mixed results. Engel cites a March 2019 review of 70 studies in Criminology & Public Policy by a team of researchers led by Cynthia Lum of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., that gauged the link between camera use and a reduction in force. Just 16 of those studies looked directly at whether or not cameras reduced officers’ use of force; of that subset, some show that the cameras work as a deterrent to use of force whereas others reach the opposite conclusion.An officer with the Minneapolis Police Department wears a body camera as part of his gear while responding to a call in 2019. Police departments across the country have started having their officers wear cameras to film their interactions with civilians, but it’s not clear that the devices reduce violent encounters.DIVERSEY/FLICKR (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Why no data?

The dearth of evidence stems from several factors, Engel says, but chief among them is the pressure for police departments to act fast when an instance of police violence captures national attention. Consider that less than two weeks following the death of George Floyd when white police officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on his neck for several minutes, the majority of city councilors pledged to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department in response to activists’ calls to “defund the police” (SN: 6/5/2020).

Other departments around the country are likewise looking at ways to defund some police services, or reallocate to other agencies functions such as responding to mental health calls or monitoring safety in schools. Previous police brutality incidents have prompted calls for other sorts of reforms. For instance, a 2019 CBS News Survey of 155 police agencies found that almost 70 percent had implicit bias training with over half of those implemented after a white policeman shot and killed Black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014. Some 60 percent of those agencies said they did not have a way to measure the success or failure of such programs.  

A group gathers at a makeshift memorial in Ferguson, Mo., near the site where Black teenager Michael Brown was killed at the hands of a white police officer in August 2014. Brown’s death triggered a wave of police reforms, such as mandatory implicit bias training for police officers.GINO’S PREMIUM IMAGES/ALAMY

“This year it’s defund; what is it going to be next year, five years from now?” says Renée Mitchell, a recently retired police sergeant with a Ph.D. in criminology. She’s also cofounder and president of the American Society of Evidence-Based Policing. Police departments are “flinging out interventions and having no clue about the effects, positive or negative.”

Police research is complicated by the fact that researchers who conduct the sorts of studies needed to evaluate reforms and police officials often have different priorities. Why would a police chief work with an academic who is going to publish papers about the department’s problems that may also receive considerable press attention, asks Erin Kerrison, an empirical legal scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.

What’s more, like some other areas of research related to violence (SN: 5/3/16), money for policing research is relatively limited. Consider that the National Institutes of Health invested about $39 billion for medical research in 2019, while the National Institute of Justice awarded far less than 1 percent of that amount — just under $214 million — for research that same year.

Yet researchers and police officials largely agree that rapid response is necessary to meet the demands of the moment. What research does emerge following George Floyd’s death won’t start coming out for two years, Kerrison says. “There will have been a thousand more George Floyds at that point.”
Needing to act

Which is why, back at the University of Cincinnati Police Division, Engel needed to act, evidence or no evidence. So on the de-escalation front, she selected a program run by Washington, D.C.–based Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit police research and policy organization. She was familiar with the organization, and the content — which emphasized training officers to recognize and effectively communicate with civilians behaving erratically and either unarmed or armed with something other than a firearm — looked promising. Engel then used the program to begin building her own evidence to help fill gaps in the field.

Engel treated reforms at her small university police department of 74 sworn officers as pilot projects that she could then test at larger police departments around the country. In February 2019, she and a team of researchers were able to conduct a larger study of the de-escalation program, when the Louisville Metro Police Department in Kentucky used it to train its 1,250 officers  

.  

Protesters demand justice for Samuel DuBose, who was fatally shot by a white University of Cincinnati police officer during an off-campus traffic stop. The incident led to reforms in the university’s police department.JOHN MINCHILLO/ASSOCIATED PRESSEngel randomized the order in which officers in the nine Louisville precincts were trained. That way, officers in each untrained precinct served as a control until they too underwent training. One benefit of this setup, called a “stepped wedge trial,” is that it doesn’t relegate one block of individuals into a control group that goes without training for the duration of the study. Stepped wedge trials have been used in other settings, such as health care and education. Officers were evaluated before and immediately after the training, and again, four to six months after training. Observations will continue for up to 12 months, with the team looking for changes in police behavior, and frequency and severity around the use of force.

Initial results will be out later this summer, says Engel, who is conducting an analogous study of an implicit bias training program. Also piloted at the University of Cincinnati, the program was rolled out at the NYPD, New York City’s police department.
Working together

Engel stepped down from her role overseeing the University of Cincinnati Police Division in January 2019, but the experience changed her thinking about criminology research. Academics tend to be interested in the philosophical, such as why officers use force, she says. But arguably more important are those nitty-gritty questions about how use of force can be mitigated in real life and in real time.

One challenge to understanding what reforms work is convincing police departments to collaborate with researchers, says Kerrison. She and colleagues outlined how academics can enter into ethical relationships with police departments in an August 2019 paper in Police Practice and Research. Crucial to such partnerships are clearly stated goals from the get-go, or airtight memoranda of understanding. That way, all parties agree in advance on the sorts of findings that will be communicated to the public and in what fashion, and everybody commits to helping police operations throughout the study process.

For instance, police departments can mandate that researchers anonymize their community’s identity in publications. Kerrison herself can’t talk about her relationships with police departments she’s working with due to such agreements. “Everybody has got to have skin in the game,” she says.

Given the challenges with funding and creating such academic-police partnerships, sometimes the clearest path forward may be to train the police officers in how to do science, Mitchell says. At the American Society for Evidence-Based Policing, she and colleagues are launching a four-week training course in 2021 for police officers similar to one already available in the United Kingdom. “Nowhere have our police leaders been taught how to interpret data and how to interpret statistics and how to interpret a research article,” she says. With such training, police departments will be better positioned to collect and evaluate data on their own.

Mitchell likens the model to medicine, where, for example, it would be a breach of ethics for doctors to advise patients with cancer without knowing about relevant evidence-based treatments. “[Policing] should be held to the same standard as the medical field,” she says.

However such research comes about, without it, police responses to crises will default to the quickest solutions, Engel says. “That is a very dangerous position to be in.”

Questions or comments on this article? E-mail us at feedback@sciencenews.org


A version of this article appears in the August 15, 2020 issue of Science News.

CITATIONS



R.S. Engel, H.D. McManus and G.T. Isaza. Moving beyond best-practice: Experiences in police reform and a call for evidence to reduce officer-involved shootings. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 687, February 13, 2019, p. 146. doi: 10.1177/0002716219889328.



R.S. Engel, H.D. McManus and T.D. Herold. Do de-escalation practices work? Criminology & Public Policy. Posted January 31, 2020. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12467.



E.M. Kerrison et al. On creating ethical, productive, and durable research partnerships with police officers and their departments: a case study of the National Justice Database. Police Practice and Research. Vol. 20, August 25, 2019, p. 567. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2019.1657627.



C. Lum et al. Research on body-worn cameras. Criminology & Public Policy. Vol. 18, February 2019, p. 93. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12412.




About Sujata Gupta
Sujata Gupta is the social sciences writer and is based in Burlington, Vt.

Climate change, not hunters, may have killed off woolly rhinos
Ancient DNA indicates the creatures’ numbers stayed mostly constant long after people showed up


Ancient DNA suggests that rising temperatures, not human hunters, wiped out woolly rhinos (illustrated). DANIEL ESKRIDGE/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS

By Bruce Bower

AUGUST 13, 2020 AT 11:00 AM

Rather than getting wiped out by Ice Age hunters, woolly rhinos charged to extinction in Siberia around 14,000 years ago when the climate turned warm and wet, a study of ancient DNA suggests.

Numbers of breeding woolly rhinos stayed relatively constant for tens of thousands of years until at least about 18,500 years ago, more than 13,000 years after people first reached northeastern Siberia, scientists report online August 13 in Current Biology. Yet only a few thousand years later, woolly rhinos died out, probably because temperatures had risen enough to reshape arctic habitats.

These findings build on a previous argument, based on dated fossils, that woolly rhino populations across northern Eurasia began to decline between 40,000 and 35,000 years ago, with surviving animals moving progressively eastward and dying out in northeastern Siberia around 14,000 years ago. Reasons for initial population losses are unclear, though there’s little evidence that human hunters killed substantial numbers of woolly rhinos, the researchers say.

Instead, a shift to warm, rainy conditions, which occurred between roughly 14,600 and 12,800 years ago, “likely played a large role in the rapid decline of this cold-adapted species,” says study coauthor Edana Lord, an evolutionary geneticist at the Centre for Palaeogenetics in Stockholm. During that climate shift, open expanses featuring vegetation that woolly rhinos (Coelodonta antiquitatis) liked to eat were replaced by forests and shrub-dominated tundra. Hunters could have added to woolly rhinos’ woes, but the main extinction distinction goes to climate change, Lord contends.

Researchers have argued for decades about whether climate change or human hunting had a larger effect on worldwide extinctions of large animals such as woolly rhinos and mammoths as the Pleistocene Ice Age approached its end around 11,700 years ago (SN: 11/13/18).

Few examples of ancient DNA have been gleaned from any large Ice Age animals that died out, including woolly rhinos, says evolutionary geneticist Pontus Skoglund of the Francis Crick Institute in London, who did not participate in the analysis. Based on the new study, he says, “there is no evidence so far of human hunting being a deciding factor in woolly rhino extinction.”

A woolly rhino skull shows the short and the long of this extinct creature’s horns.SERGEY FEDOROV

Lord’s group extracted a complete set of nuclear DNA, which is inherited from both parents, from a roughly 18,530-year-old woolly rhino bone. The researchers also isolated woolly rhino mitochondrial DNA, typically inherited from the mother, from 12 fossil bones, a piece of mummified tissue and a strand of hair. Those samples date from 14,100 to more than 50,000 years ago.

An analysis of molecular alterations in mitochondrial DNA samples indicated that two maternal lineages had split from a common ancestor between about 86,000 and 22,000 years ago. That finding supports a scenario consistent with fossil evidence, the researchers say, in which migrating animals settled in two northeast Asian regions, each with a suitable arctic environment. Mitochondrial DNA couldn’t resolve whether numbers of breeding females increased or remained stable around the time of that split.

Based on a comparison of sections of nuclear DNA that contained gene pairs with either matching or differing molecular compositions, the investigators calculated the approximate size of past breeding populations. Woolly rhino breeding numbers increased gradually starting around 1 million years ago and, by about 152,000 years ago, reached a peak of roughly 21,000 animals.

Humans entered northeastern Siberia by around 31,600 years ago (SN: 6/7/19). It’s not known when people first inhabited Siberia year-round, but the new DNA analysis shows that woolly rhinos continued to thrive long after mobile human groups likely knew of the animals’ existence. From around 29,700 to 18,530 years ago, when the animal that yielded nuclear DNA was alive, breeding woolly rhinos numbered about 10,600, the team estimates. Nuclear DNA from woolly rhinos that lived between around 18,000 and 14,000 years ago will be needed to determine when in that brief window of time the population of these animals plummeted.

A range of woolly rhino genes displayed molecular structures that may have helped the animals survive in an arctic environment. One of those genes contributes to cold tolerance. Another gene is involved in the perception of coldness. In a warming environment, Lord suggests, genes tuned to an arctic climate proved a liability.

Questions or comments on this article? E-mail us at feedback@sciencenews.org

CITATIONS

E. Lord et al. Pre-extinction demographic stability and genomic signatures of adaptation in the woolly rhinoceros. Current Biology. Published online August 13, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.07.046.


About Bruce Bower
Bruce Bower has written about the behavioral sciences for Science News since 1984. He writes about psychology, anthropology, archaeology and mental health issues.

Dust can spread influenza among guinea pigs, raising coronavirus questions

Three out of 12 guinea pigs immune to flu spread the virus via airborne particles


A study in guinea pigs hints that viruses like influenza, and potentially the new coronavirus, can spread via dust from virus-contaminated things like blankets or tissue paper.

DEVMARYA/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUS


By Erin Garcia de Jesus

Spewing virus-laden droplets may not be the only way animals can spread some viruses through the air. Viruses like influenza might also hitch a ride on dust and other microscopic particles, a study in guinea pigs suggests.

People can transmit respiratory viruses, like the ones that cause flu and COVID-19, just by talking, coughing and sneezing (SN: 4/2/20). Virus-contaminated surfaces, called fomites, can also cause infection when people touch the surface and then their nose or mouth. Now new research suggests that dust particles kicked up from those contaminated surfaces, called aerosolized fomites, may also spread such respiratory viruses.

“Our work suggests that there is a mode of [virus] transmission that is underappreciated” for influenza, says William Ristenpart, a chemical engineer at the University of California, Davis. “It’s not on [scientists’] radar.”
Sign up for e-mail updates on the latest coronavirus news and research

Though the study, published August 18 in Nature Communications, did not include the new coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2, the finding could have implications for that virus too, Ristenpart says. Researchers are still figuring out all the ways the coronavirus spreads, including debating how much smaller respiratory droplets that remain in the air, called aerosols, might contribute to transmission (SN: 7/7/20). Hantavirus, which causes a deadly respiratory disease, can also be transmitted through kicked up dust that is contaminated with rodent droppings. But that virus doesn’t pass from person-to-person.

In the new study, Ristenpart and his colleagues infected guinea pigs with influenza virus. Two days later, the team found infectious influenza viruses in cages as well as on guinea pig fur, ears and paws. Infected guinea pigs don’t cough or sneeze like people do, so the virus may have spread when the rodents groomed, rubbed their noses or moved around the cage.

The researchers then used a paintbrush to coat virus on animals that had already been infected and were immune. Each virus-covered rodent was put in a cage separate from, but attached to, a cage housing an uninfected companion. The setup ensured that the only way to spread the virus from one animal to another was through the air.

Although the flu-covered immune rodents were not breathing virus into the air, the flu still spread among three of 12 guinea pig pairs. The newly infected animals may have gotten infected from aerosolized fomites in dust kicked up from bedding or fur, the study suggests.

Airborne dust

Some common items people use could be potential vehicles to spread respiratory viruses via aerosolized fomites, or dust kicked up from contaminated surfaces. The graph shows the number of particles emitted per second over time when rubbing together pieces of toilet paper (blue), paper towel (red) and lab wipes (black) to produce dust.
Dust particles emitted from household items over time
  

S. ASADI ET AL/NAT. COMM. 2020

“It’s not that all dust is infectious,” Ristenpart says, but “dust liberated from a virus-laden surface” may be.

In human settings, that dust might come from used tissues, sheets or blankets. Or perhaps from a doctor’s personal protective equipment or a cloth mask. In a preliminary study that has not yet been reviewed by other researchers, Ristenpart and his team found that homemade cotton masks can shed minuscule particles when people breathe, making them a potential source for aerosolized fomites.

It’s unclear what the results might mean for respiratory virus transmission among humans. While it is possible that aerosolized fomites might spread influenza, people would still need to breathe the virus in to get infected, says Julian Tang, a virologist and fluid dynamicist at the University of Leicester in England who was not involved in the work. Dust from guinea pig bedding may be aerosolized much more easily than from a medical professional’s personal protective equipment or bed sheets. So compared with airborne influenza virus — or SARS-CoV-2 — in exhaled breath, “I’m really not convinced that in humans, this aerosolized fomite route will play any [major] role,” Tang says.

Questions or comments on this article? E-mail us at feedback@sciencenews.org

CITATIONS

S. Asadi et al. Influenza A virus is transmissible via aerosolized fomites. Nature Communications. Published online August 18, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17888-w.


About Erin Garcia de Jesus
Erin I. Garcia de Jesus is a staff writer at Science News. She holds a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Washington and a master’s in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Anderson Cooper Confronts MyPillow Guy Over ‘Miracle’ Cure Claims: ‘How Do You Sleep at Night?’

‘SNAKE OIL SALESMAN’

“You have no medical background. You are not a scientist,” Cooper exclaimed. “You are now on the board and going to make money from the sale of this product.”

DAILY BEAST
Updated Aug. 18, 2020

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper tore into MyPillow founder Mike Lindell on Tuesday in an absolutely off-the-rails interview, repeatedly calling the pro-Trump businessman a “snake oil salesman” for peddling an unproven and potentially dangerous supplement as a “miracle” cure for the coronavirus.

VIDEO

https://www.thedailybeast.com/anderson-cooper-confronts-mypillow-guy-over-miracle-cure-claims-asks-him-how-do-you-sleep-at-night?jwsource=cl

Lindell, best known for his ubiquitous ads on Fox News and over-the-top Trump sycophancy, was brought on to discuss the extract he promoted to President Donald Trump recently as a COVID-19 cure.

In a July meeting, Lindell and HUD Secretary Ben Carson sold Trump on an extract from the plant oleander, which is highly toxic. Lindell has said Trump was “enthusiastic” about the extract and wanted the FDA to approve it.

Cooper kicked off the highly combative and at-times unhinged discussion by noting that Lindell not only has no medical or scientific background but that the pillow manufacturer also has a financial stake in a company that would profit from the supplement being widely sold.

“Morally, is that right?” Cooper wondered aloud, prompting Lindell to claim that studies have shown the supplement’s efficacy and “the FDA’s got them all.”

“Why aren’t they publicly out there? Why aren’t they peer-reviewed?” Cooper pressed.

Lindell, meanwhile, acknowledged that while he’s not a doctor, he has had his own “study” done on a thousand people that shows it’s perfectly safe, adding that it’s “the miracle of all time.”

The conversation quickly broke down from there as the CNN anchor repeatedly pointed out that Lindell is not an expert and that he cannot cite any legitimate studies on the extract’s benefits.

“You have no medical background,” Cooper exclaimed as Lindell objected. “You are not a scientist. A guy called in April saying he had this product. You are now on the board and going to make money from the sale of this product.”

“The reason he reached out to you is because you have the ear of the president and could get a meeting with the president and you stand to make money from it,” the veteran newsman added. “How do you sleep at night?!”

Lindell, meanwhile, claimed that Cooper had “misconstrued” the facts because the media is “trying to take away this amazing cure” from the American people, eventually resulting in the CNN host calling out Lindell’s shady past.

VIDEO
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anderson-cooper-confronts-mypillow-guy-over-miracle-cure-claims-asks-him-how-do-you-sleep-at-night?jwsource=cl

THE AUSTERITY AXE HERSELF BACKS BIDEN

Trump has no idea how to run a business’: Billionaire Meg Whitman leads Republicans speaking out against president at DNC

‘For me, the choice is simple. I’m with Joe,’ says CEO of short-term streaming platform Quibi
James Crump @thejamescrump
6 hours ago 8/18/2020

Billionaire Meg Whitman was among four Republicans to endorse Joe Biden for president on the opening day of the Democratic National Convention (DNC).

The DNC is taking place online this year due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, and in a pre-recorded segment on Monday Ms Whitman shared her support for the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The 64-year-old businesswoman said: “I’m a longtime Republican and a longtime CEO. And let me tell you, Donald Trump has no clue how to run a business, let alone an economy.

“Joe Biden, on the other hand, has a plan that will strengthen our economy for working people and small-business owners. For me, the choice is simple. I’m with Joe.”


The current CEO of short-form streaming platform Quibi was one of four Republicans who spoke at the convention on Monday in support of Mr Biden and against president Donald Trump, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Former New Jersey governor Christine Whitman and former Staten Island representative Susan Molinari joined the businesswoman in delivering short messages on Monday, before former Ohio governor John Kasich outlined why he is endorsing Mr Biden for president.

Mr Kasich, who unsuccessfully ran in the Republican presidential primary in 2016, told those watching the convention livestream: “I’m a lifelong Republican, but that attachment holds second place to my responsibility to my country. We’re being taken down the wrong road by a president who has pitted one against the other.”

The 68-year-old added: “Joe Biden is a man for our times, times that call for all of us to take off our partisan hats.”

Ms Whitman, who was the Republican candidate for the governor of California in 2010 and served as a senior member of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012, has now backed the Democratic candidate in the last two presidential elections against Mr Trump.

The businesswoman backed Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election and claimed at the time that “Donald Trump’s demagoguery has undermined the fabric of our national character.”

Ms Whitman’s appearance at the convention surprised Sterling Clifford, who served as the spokesperson for Democrat Jerry Brown’s successful 2010 race against the businesswoman in California.

Mr Clifford told the Times: “I would not in a million years have imagined seeing Meg Whitman at a Democratic convention, but I also never imagined I’d be buying extra stamps to try and save the postal service in the midst of a global pandemic.

“The world is full of surprises, I guess.”

Kamala Harris pick gave Biden's campaign huge surge of enthusiasm, data shows

Social media interactions for the Biden campaign increased over 35% following announcement of Harris as presumptive VP nominee

By Julia Musto | Fox News

The appointment of California Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris to presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden's 2020 presidential ticket provided the former vice president with the largest surge of online enthusiasm he's seen over the course of his campaign, according to new data.

Axios on Tuesday reported on new data, provided exclusively to the outlet by the predictive media intelligence site NewsWhip, and it showed that following the announcement of the addition of Harris, stories about Biden's candidacy received 64 million interactions on social media. Or, to a level that is 35% higher than the biggest voter engagement the campaign has witnessed thus far, it reported.

There were 55 million recorded interactions on stories about Harris -- a number higher than Biden had in any other week, according to NewsWhip's data to Axios.

Additionally, Biden's second-most engaged tweet of his 2020 campaign was his report of Harris' veepstakes win last Tuesday with over 1.02 million engagements, according to KeyHole.

Former Vice President Joe Biden talks with Senator Kamala Harris after the conclusion of the 2020 Democratic U.S. presidential debate in Houston, Texas, U.S., September 12, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Blake - HP1EF9D08FC65

Excitement over Harris could be a key factor for voters, according to the report.

Harris is notably the first Black and Indian American woman to be on a major-party ticket.

And with her record as a former prosecutor, attorney general and senator, Axios reported that Harris could help to hook voters interested in policy issues such as police reform, racial inequality and women's' rights.

The virtual Democratic National Convention (DNC) -- which commenced on Monday -- comes following months of Black Lives Matter protests. By spearheading these issues, Harris could potentially revive Black voter turnout -- which dropped 6% from 2012 to 2016, according to the report.

Video

With Harris's 3.3 million Instagram followers and loyal "#KHive," Harris generated more social media interaction than any other top veep contender, the data showed.

According to the Pew Research Center, Black social media users tend to be far more civically engaged online than White social media users, and they are more than twice as likely to say they have used a hashtag related to a political or social issue in the past mont

VOICES
If you care about the planet, you must dismantle white supremacy

By Tamara Toles O’Laughlin on Jun 15, 2020
Grist / Ponomariova_Maria / Getty Images

The climate movement has its work cut out for it, and not just in terms of decarbonizing the energy sector.

In dozens of cities across America, the streets have been packed with protests about the murder of George Floyd and the long history of police violence against Black men, women, and children. The pain and anger are visceral. Floyd’s death is yet another example of how Black life can be taken without pause — and not just because we are in a pandemic. These demonstrations speak loudly to the ongoing racial injustices that have suffocated Black people for generations — the same factors driving how many Black and brown communities bear a disproportionate portion of the world’s burden of pollution and the worst impacts of climate change.

And yet, legacy factions of the climate movement have not adequately or consistently stood in solidarity with Black-led efforts to stem the systemic causes of harm to Black communities, nor have many incorporated a racial-justice lens into their work. And that must change now, especially as we hope to rebuild a post-pandemic world. There is no “just recovery” from the coronavirus or the climate crisis without a commitment to dismantling the systems of white supremacy that marginalize and destroy the lives of Black people.

As a Black woman and a leader working with 350.org to end the reign of the fossil fuel industry, the main driver of the climate crisis and environmental injustice, I engage with communities at the center of our mission. I work for people and the planet, and for a future rooted in self-determination and bold solutions to climate change. I work against the erasure of Black bodies and intellectual powers from mainstream narratives and our exclusion from decision-making circles, making us casualties of structural oppression in everyday life.

The reality is that the communities being battered by both the coronavirus and climate are also epicenters of over-policing, incarceration, and state-sanctioned violence. In every aspect of our lives, starting in our mothers’ wombs, we are systematically devalued. Black communities face the long-term effects of environmental racism, intentionally zoned into neighborhoods surrounded by factories, highways, pipelines, and compressor stations. Systemic exposure to toxic fumes has caused higher rates of asthma and disease in Black communities, making us more vulnerable to the coronavirus. This adds a grim familiarity to the death-throw pleas of “I can’t breathe,” made by both George Floyd and Eric Garner while they were choked to death by police in Minneapolis and Staten Island, respectively. Those pleas are the latest in a long line of unmet calls for a shared sense of humanity in the face of white-supremacist violence that has been built into the system itself.

It’s time for strong commitments to racial justice from every corner of the climate movement and those concerned with responding to the climate crisis. Any legitimate push for bold climate action must incorporate racial equity and defend Black people. As we talk about solutions ranging from investments in a Green New Deal to phasing out fossil fuels, we must pair that with disinvesting in systems of white supremacy — including the police — that perpetuate racial injustice.

The call to “defund police” isn’t that much of a stretch from divestment from the fossil fuel industry — a commonly accepted rallying cry in many environmental advocacy circles. Divestment from fossil fuels is seen as a smart response to climate risk. It’s about building a world of solutions, with investments in community care and repair such as green jobs and infrastructure, human health-centered resources, and recovery for those most impacted by the climate crisis. And it’s not just about carbon emissions. Racism is deeply embedded in the business model of the fossil fuel industry. In order to extract resources, there are always “sacrifice zones,” usually Black, Indigenous, or other communities of color that are put in harm’s way and plunged into a violent and multigenerational cycle of economic disinvestment. The history of devastation and the disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis on people of color are well known.

For those reasons and more, we didn’t just call for leaders to regulate the fossil fuel industry, we called for it to be dismantled for the sake of a livable future.

Similarly, calls to defund the police are about reducing the scope, size, and role of ineffective and racist law enforcement in favor of investments in education, healthcare, trauma, healing work, and community solutions. The idea is the same — make way for a world of visionary care by repairing harms caused to the communities made vulnerable by business as usual.


As today’s uprisings move from city to city, I have been cautiously optimistic about the multiracial and multigenerational protestors taking to the streets. They demand justice for George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and Tony McDade, naming several of the many Black people who’ve been killed by police this year alone. Our opportunity in this justice-driven uprising is to completely transform the way we organize around climate solutions and commit to explicitly and permanently addressing systemic extraction, defending Black lives, and dismantling white supremacy.

The future of our planet demands that we recognize inequity and defend our communities against compound injustice. In this moment of grief, we are reminded that the system is not broken, but rather operating as designed — which begs the questions: Are you willing to hold accountable all of the systems built off white supremacy — from the fossil fuel industry to racist policing to the prison industrial complex — in defense of the planet? Are you willing to interrogate your complicity in the systems built on white supremacy and commit to dismantling it?

I certainly hope so. Because the same communities that have been impacted by over-policing, pollution, and fossil fuel extraction need to be at the decision-making table to take action on bold climate policies to ensure that the transition to a renewable-energy economy is just and equitable. It’s time for everyday allyship and solutions rooted in liberation and justice that outlast this latest display of institutional malice against Black communities.

We cannot stay silent. If you care about the climate, neither can you. There are many ways to get involved, whether from home or on the streets, including the upcoming Juneteenth weekend of actions organized by the Movement for Black Lives. Join the movement. Our collective liberation depends on it.

Grist / Courtesy of 350.org
Tamara Toles O’Laughlin is an advocate for people and planet and the North America director for the global climate campaign 350.org.

Post-COVID, should countries rethink their obsession with economic growth?

Grist / Amelia Bates

COVER STORY
Growing Pains
Post-COVID, should countries rethink their obsession with economic growth?

By Shannon Osaka on Aug 11, 2020

In 1968, a small group of elite academics, industrialists, and government officials gathered at a Roman villa to discuss “the predicament of mankind.” They called themselves the Club of Rome, and, in a largely impenetrable document filled with bizarre flow charts and words like “problematique,” they laid out a plan to analyze the major issues facing humanity with the new technology of computer modeling.

“We proceed from the belief that problems have ‘solutions,’” they wrote. Their goal was to find them.

The result, a 200-page book called The Limits to Growth published in 1972, forever changed the contours of the burgeoning environmental movement. The thesis was simple: The planet simply could not sustain current rates of economic and population growth. “The most probable result,” the group predicted, “will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.” In other words, humanity would have to hit the brakes — or suffer the collapse of society as we know it.

The book was met with scorn and a pile-on in the mainstream media. Three economists writing in the New York Times called it “an empty and misleading work” that was “little more than polemical fiction.” Henry Wallich, an economist and columnist for Newsweek, wrote that it amounted to “a piece of irresponsible nonsense.”

Nevertheless, the ideas that sprang out of that meeting in Rome gained traction. A year later, a geologist testifying before Congress quipped, “Anyone who believes growth can go on forever is either a madman or an economist.” The environmental historian David Worster wrote in 2016 that The Limits to Growth was “the book that cried wolf. The wolf was the planet’s decline, and the wolf was real.”

Half a century after The Limits to Growth, the future of the planet certainly doesn’t look bright. Since the book was published, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has shot up, from around 327 parts per million in 1972 to 416 parts per million today. (Scientists had warned that passing 350 parts per million risked dangerous warming.) Global temperatures, meanwhile, have climbed almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1 degree Celsius, since pre-industrial times — fueling extreme weather events, catastrophic heat waves in the Arctic, and steadily rising sea levels. Last year, a United Nations report found that humans are altering the planet so thoroughly that up to 1 million species face extinction.

Firefighters fight to extinguish forest fires near the village of Batagay, Sakha Republic in Yakutia. Russian Emergency Ministry / AFP / Getty Images



One of the Club’s chief concerns — that runaway population growth would torch the environment — has fallen out of favor in recent years. (After all, birth rates in developed countries, which use the most resources and have the largest environmental footprint, are on the decline.) But economic growth is another beast entirely. For decades, environmentalists have squabbled over whether the production of more and more stuff, year after year, is to blame for the mess the planet is in. The green movement has split into those who believe growth can continue under new, more sustainable conditions, and an increasingly vocal minority who believe that “green growth” is at best an oxymoron, at worst a distracting fantasy.

These two camps have remained in an uneasy alliance, working toward common goals of conservation and clean energy. Now as the COVID-19 pandemic cripples the world’s economy — which is expected to shrink by at least 6 percent this year — the debate over growth has been thrust into the spotlight. Fifty years after Limits to Growth, many economists and environmentalists are reconsidering its lessons, questioning whether economic growth is in fact compatible with a sustainable world — and if not, how else governments can measure the success (or failure) of modern societies.

There are whole industries built on the idea that the way to save the planet is to paint the economy green. Replace plastic plates with compostable ones. Trade in a gas-guzzling Jeep for a Toyota Prius. In other words, most economists believe that the world’s economies can continue to produce more, but in a “green” way: more housing, more electronics, more cars — but also more solar panels, more wind turbines, and more electric vehicles. “Greening growth is necessary, efficient, and affordable,” declared the World Bank in a 2012 report.

These “green-growthers” argue that new low-carbon technologies, combined with a steady shift toward producing more services (think day-care centers or community theater), can make continued growth sustainable. This kind of “have your cake and eat it too” mentality has become the dominant way of thinking about how to turn the giant, fossil-fuel spewing world economy around.

But others think economic growth, no matter how green, imperils the planet. They believe governments should either purposefully shrink their economies — an idea often known as “degrowth” — or, at the very least, not grow any further. “Material growth cannot continue indefinitely because planet Earth is physically limited,” wrote the ecological economist Tim Jackson in his 2009 book Prosperity with Growth. “Living well on a finite planet cannot simply be about consuming more and more stuff.” (The Club of Rome, for its part, suggested that civilizational collapse could be averted if society came to accept “self-imposed” limits.)

The degrowth camp has largely stayed on the fringes of environmental thought. In recent years, however, as the climate crisis has intensified, its critique has crept into the mainstream, with degrowth-focused books, journals, and conferences. The idea has also found a home in activist circles: It’s popular among members of the U.K.-based group Extinction Rebellion, who brought the city of London to a halt in October with protests against the government’s sluggish response to climate change. You can hear its influence in speeches by Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish activist. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,” she said during a United Nations climate summit last year. “How dare you!”

Extinction Rebellion environmental activists stage a loud demonstration in July outside the Bank of England to protest against the distribution of funds to carbon-intensive industries. Wiktor Szymanowicz / NurPhoto / Getty Images



The most radical members of this group think wealthy, developed countries should shrink their economies to fit within ecological limits — curbing consumption and energy use enough to save huge swaths of the planet from destruction and prevent runaway climate change. “Degrowth signifies a desired direction, one in which societies will use fewer natural resources and will organize and live differently than today,” writes Giorgos Kallis, an ecological economist at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, in Degrowth: A New Vocabulary.

How such a transition could be made politically palatable, or managed without impoverishing millions and setting off widespread unrest in the United States, Europe, and China, is largely left to the imagination.

Others within the movement take a moderate approach, calling for a re-balancing of priorities (health care and education instead of corporate profit) as opposed to throwing the economy into reverse. Tim Jackson, the author of Prosperity without Growth and a professor of sustainable development at the University of Surrey in England, considers himself a supporter of “post-growth,” which suggests turning away from growth, instead of actively trying to suppress it. “Would it not be better,” he writes, “to halt the relentless pursuit of growth in the advanced economies and concentrate instead on sharing out the available resources more equitably?”

At the heart of debates between green-growthers and degrowthers lies a simple question: Can the global economy — that giant engine which has spent centuries sucking down fossil fuels and spitting up material goods — be separated from environmental destruction?

Historically, big industries have relied on coal and oil — and so pollution, especially carbon emissions, has followed the economy’s lead. During downturns, like the Great Recession, emissions drop — sometimes precipitously, only to resurge when the economy turns around. Take the COVID-19 pandemic: As shutdowns put millions out of work in April, worldwide carbon emissions plunged by 17 percent. By mid-June, however, as cars returned to city streets and businesses cautiously reopened, emissions were nearly back to their pre-pandemic levels.

In April, during the COVID-19 lockdown, light traffic passes on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles during what would normally be the evening rush hour. Mario Tama / Getty Images

Green-growthers argue that technology and innovation can break this pattern — that is, growth can be “decoupled” from rising emissions. There have been a few promising examples in recent decades: Between 2000 and 2014, the United States and 20 other countries saw their gross domestic product rise even as their carbon emissions fell. In the U.S., the decline was thanks to a dramatic shift from coal to natural gas and renewables; in Europe, carbon taxes and a move away from heavy industry dragged down emissions. On a larger scale, the world economy grew around 3 percent per year from 2014 to 2016, yet global carbon emissions didn’t budge.

Critics of economic growth, however, see these as exceptions that prove the rule. Splitting emissions from growth is “totally outside historical experience,” Jackson told Grist. “That doesn’t mean it can’t be done, technically — but it does mean that it’s incredibly difficult, and that it’s very different from anything that we’ve done before.”

Jackson said that even though countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have temporarily separated emissions from growth, the bigger picture hasn’t changed much. In the roughly two-and-a-half decades since industrialized countries signed the Kyoto Protocol to slash carbon emissions, fossil fuel pollution has risen by a staggering 50 percent. And since that two-year breather ended in 2016, carbon emissions have been creeping up again. “Absolute decoupling,” Jackson wrote in Prosperity without Growth, “is nowhere to be seen.”

But what if setting growth free from CO2 emissions will just take more time, and more technology — bigger batteries, for example, and cheaper solar panels? Cameron Hepburn, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Oxford, points out that there have been many instances in history where society has replaced a heavily polluting technology with a more efficient, cleaner technology — shifting from, say, kerosene lamps to incandescent lights to LED bulbs — without sacrificing growth. Why should the quest for fossil fuel-free energy be any different? “The thing I object to most is the idea that, just because it hasn’t been done yet, it can’t be done,” Hepburn said. He points out that degrowth hasn’t been tried, either — and so the hypothetical choice for governments is between two relatively unproven pathways.

Experimental solar panels hang in the window of a Saule company laboratory in Wroclaw, Poland. Janek Skarzynski / AFP / Getty Images

Still, Hepburn’s argument makes some environmentalists uncomfortable. Sure, green growth sounds great — why not have more of everything, and save the planet at the same time? — but the transformation from the current economy to a new, cleaner one, would have to take place at a breakneck pace to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. This year, the coronavirus pandemic will likely cut global carbon emissions somewhere between 5 and 8 percent, the biggest drop since World War II. But to keep warming below 1.5 degrees C (or 2.7 degrees F) — widely considered by scientists as the point at which climate impacts go from bad to terrible — the world would have to decrease emissions by 7.6 percent every year from now until 2030. Nothing like that has ever happened before.

While decoupling growth from emissions seems to some like a pipe dream, slashing growth to stem emissions presents other problems. Some 1.9 billion people live on less than $3.20 a day, and around a third of them, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, try to survive on just $1.90 a day. It’s easy to talk about the problems that come with a growing economy when you live in a relatively affluent, developed country. Given the large numbers of people impoverished worldwide and the ever-present threat of climate change, Hepburn argues that green growth is the only way out.

Degrowth advocates, of course, aren’t oblivious to global poverty. In fact, many think that developing countries should continue to grow to lift their populations out of poverty, even if it means their emissions rise. To balance the impact on the overall planet, Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, makes the case that richer countries would have to do more with less. The United States, for instance, produces around $65,000 of economic goods and services per person. “Imagine cutting the GDP per capita of the U.S. down to less than half its present size, in real terms,” Hickel wrote in a blog post, referring to gross domestic product, the preeminent measure of economic activity. That would put Americans roughly on par with Europeans. “I live in Europe,” Hickel added. “It’s hardly a dystopia.”

Of course, chopping an economy in half doesn’t sound appealing when you’re already struggling to get by. Forty percent of households in the U.S. make less than $40,000 a year, and 15 percent earn less than $20,000. It’s hard to imagine telling those households to cut back when America’s one-percenters earn at least half a million every year — and own around 40 percent of the country’s wealth.

Members of National Nurses United union wave “Medicare for All” signs during a 2019 rally in front of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Washington. Bill Clark / CQ Roll Call / Getty Images

A cadre of ecological economists has suggested that a stronger safety net could help people in wealthier countries learn to get by with less. In a 2011 paper, Peter Victor, a professor emeritus at Toronto’s York University, used computer modeling to demonstrate that if Canada cut its economy by half over three decades, while also expanding adult education, anti-poverty programs, and other benefits, the country could reduce poverty and unemployment even while producing much, much less.

The majority of economists and politicians say, “‘There is no alternative; we have to go for growth in a market economy,’” Victor told Grist. “Well, that’s such a mind-numbing perspective. We try to make these models available so that people can get a better idea of what the alternatives are.”




While the idea of purposefully shrinking the economy is still a fringe position, more and more thinkers are getting on board with the idea of “post-growth,” or shifting away from growth as a dominant measure of human and societal well-being. Jackson, for example, wants to focus on “prosperity,” which could include growing food and making clothing, as well as even walking, reading, and building relationships. “I just kept coming back to the fact that, at the end of the day, GDP was trumping everything,” Jackson said. “All the decisions you might want to make about the quality of people’s working lives or doing something about climate change — they were all just being trumped by the pursuit of GDP.”

And he’s not the only one. University of Oxford economist Kate Raworth, for example, argues that the ideal economy should incorporate the ecological limits of the earth, providing shelter, health care, education, food, etc., while not compromising clean water, air, or soil. Herman Daly, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, has proposed a “steady-state” economy that neither grows nor shrinks. (It’s akin to John Stuart Mill’s idea of a “stationary state” that could support “moral and social progress” and “room for improving the Art of Living.”)

And some countries are getting on board with alternative views of successful societies. Under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has lately become famous for eliminating COVID-19, New Zealand has created a “well-being budget” to complement GDP, which includes 61 indicators such as trust in government, water quality, general life satisfaction, and the unemployment rate. The South Asian country of Bhutan has been measuring “gross national happiness” since the 1970s, assessing living standards, health, education, and psychological well-being.

A banner making a reference to Gross National Happiness hangs in a field during a cultural event to celebrate the birth date of Bhutan’s fourth king at a local school in Thimphu on June 2, 2013. Roberto Schmidt / AFP / Getty Images

There may be another reason that these alternatives are gaining popularity, at least among academics: Despite the best efforts of the world’s governments, growth has in recent decades been sluggish, especially for developed countries. The highest rate of global growth ever recorded was 4.15 percent in 1964. Since 2006, it has rarely topped 2 percent.

“It’s incredible,” said Danny Dorling, a professor of geography at the University of Oxford: “Every decade there’s less growth from the decade before. And every time it happens, people go, ‘Oh, that’s due to the oil shock, or, that’s due to the crash of 2008 and 2009.’ But I think we’ve been heading for a long time towards zero growth.”

Dorling thinks that we are reaching the end of “the Great Acceleration” — that period of rising prosperity and population growth that followed World War II. Similarly, Princeton University economist Robert Gordon writes in The Rise and Fall of American Growth that the period from 1870 to 1970 constituted a “special century” in which rapid technological innovation (electric lights, flushing toilets, the birth of the automobile) and new energy sources fast-tracked economic growth. That century, Gordon argued, was thrilling and unique — there was virtually no economic growth for thousands of years before 1770 — and is unrepeatable.


Dorling doesn’t think the end of growth is necessarily a bad thing. “If you think that economic growth can and should rise year after year,” Dorling writes in his new book Slowdown, “then you will find the synchronized slowdown of today as frightening as the screak of the sharp slamming on of the brakes of a train.”

But it could offer opportunities to live and work differently. It’s “not the end of history,” Dorling continues, “just the end of the roller coaster.”

The coronavirus pandemic, now resurgent across much of the world, has injected a sense of urgency around discussions of economic growth. In May, a group of more than 1,100 degrowth advocates signed a manifesto calling on governments to seize the moment to shift toward a “radically different kind of society, rather than desperately trying to get the destructive growth machine running again.”

When everything seems to be falling apart, the question of how to rebuild becomes more pressing than ever. In the United States alone, nearly 33 million people are now claiming unemployment benefits, with another 8 million falling out of the workforce. According to recent reports, the country’s GDP shrank by 9.2 percent between April and June, the worst contraction on record. Meanwhile, the World Bank projects that COVID-19 could force 71 million people into extreme poverty.

In June, hundreds of unemployed Kentucky residents wait in long lines outside the Kentucky Career Center in Frankfort for help with their unemployment claims. John Sommers II / Getty Images


For some, the virus has reinforced a conviction that ideas that first sprung from the Club of Rome were wrong: Zeroing out economic growth won’t solve the world’s biggest problems. Hepburn, the Oxford environmental economist, pointed out that even deep recessions couldn’t slow carbon emissions for long. “Look at the rebounds that are happening already,” he said. “Chinese emissions are now above pre-corona.” What’s more, the difficulty of enforcing and maintaining lockdowns shows the challenges of overhauling an entire society to live with less. “The idea that we would just voluntarily dial back in order to get environmental outcomes is just fantasy,” he said. “People don’t want to give up the things that they enjoy.”

But for others, COVID-19’s complete devastation of the economy, combined with its (very) brief reprieve from pollution, points to much deeper problems. After all, some of the richest countries in the world — including the United States — have failed miserably to protect their poorest and most vulnerable from a highly infectious disease. “There already is a tendency to want to rush back to normal,” Jackson said. “But there’s also a very narrow window of being able to say: ‘Is normal really what we want to rush back to?’