SCIENTISTS: BACTERIA COULD SURVIVE TRIP TO MARS ON OUTSIDE OF SPACECRAFT

GERALT VIA PIXABAY/FUTURISM
A DAY AGO__JON CHRISTIAN__FILED UNDER: OFF WORLD

The Hitcher

Researchers in Japan say that a sample of bacteria managed to survive in the vacuum of space, on the exterior of the International Space Station, for three entire years — raising the possibility that errant organisms could unknowing hitch a ride to Mars on an exploration mission.

“The results suggest that [bacteria] could survive during the travel from Earth to Mars and vice versa, which is several months or years in the shortest orbit,” said Akihiko Yamagishi, a professor of molecular biology at Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences who worked on the research, in a press release about the research.
Mars Tho

According to a new paper about the research published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology, the bacteria in question is called Deinococcus, which tends to form small colonies and is resistant to ultraviolet radiation.


Yamagishi has previously investigated the hearty Deinococcus’ ability to survive miles above the Earth’s surface using balloons and aircraft.
Panspermia

Yamagishi’s research was motivated by the theory of panspermia, which posits that life is capable of spreading through space, perhaps by hitching a ride on meteorites.

“The origin of life on Earth is the biggest mystery of human beings,” Yamagashi said. “Scientists can have totally different points of view on the matter. Some think that life is very rare and happened only once in the Universe, while others think that life can happen on every suitable planet. If panspermia is possible, life must exist much more often than we previously thought.”


READ MORE: Bacteria could survive travel between Earth and Mars when forming aggregates [EurekAlert]

More on panspermia: New Evidence That Life on Earth Could Have Come From Outer Space


Could life have started on Mars before coming to Earth? Possibly, new study suggests

Japanese study tackles hypothesis of panspermia, where life could travel between planets

Nicole Mortillaro · CBC News · Posted: Aug 26, 2020

New research suggests that bacteria could survive in space and could have even come from Mars to Earth. (NASA/GSFC)
How life arose on Earth remains a mystery, though many theories have been proposed. Now a new study by Japanese scientists has reinvigorated the discussion around panspermia: The idea that life may have reached Earth from Mars.

The panspermia hypothesis suggests life may have arisen on another planet, with bacteria travelling through space, hitching a ride on a piece of rock or other means, eventually making its long-distance journey to Earth. Mars is a particularly appealing source, as studies suggest it was once potentially habitable with a large hemispheric ocean.

However, the biggest challenge has been determining if bacteria could survive the harsh interplanetary — or even intragalactic — journey.

To answer that question, a group of Japanese scientists, in participation with the Japanese space agency, JAXA, conducted an experiment on the International Space Station.

In the new study, published Wednesday in the journal Frontiers of Microbiology, researchers found, with some shielding, some bacteria could survive harsh ultraviolet radiation in space for up to 10 years.
Protective shield

For their experiment, the team used Deinococcal bacteria, well-known for tolerating large amounts of radiation. They placed dried aggregates (think of them as a collection of bacteria) varying in thickness (in the sub-millimetre range) in exposure panels outside the space station for one, two and three years beginning in 2015.

Early results in 2017 suggested the top layer of aggregates died but ultimately provided a kind of protective shield for the underlying bacteria that continued to live. Still, it was unclear whether that sub-layer would survive beyond one year.


NASA launches mission to Mars
28 days ago

NASA launched its next-generation Mars rover, Perseverance, which will endeavour to collect samples of Martian soil and rocks during a months-long mission. They will be the first material brought back to earth from another planet and could provide evidence about the possibility of life on Mars. 1:53

The new three-year experiment found they could. Aggregates larger than 0.5 mm all survived below the top layer.

Researchers hypothesized that a colony larger than one millimetre could survive up to eight years in space. If the colony was further shielded by a rock — perhaps ejected after something slammed into a planet such as Mars — its lifespan could extend up to 10 years.

Akihiko Yamagishi, a professor at Tokyo University in the department of pharmacy and life sciences who was principal investigator of the Tanpopo mission designed to test the durability of microorganisms on the ISS, said one of the important findings is that microbes could indeed survive the voyage from Mars to Earth.

"It increases the probability of the process, [making it] much higher," Yamagishi said in an interview.

Once life took hold in Earth's oceans, it thrived. (Great Barrier Reef National Park Authority/Reuters)

"Some think that life is very rare and happened only once in the universe, while others think that life can happen on every suitable planet. If panspermia is possible, life must exist much more often than we previously thought."

There are two important factors, he believes: Mars and Earth come relatively close together in their orbits every two years, which would allow time for transfer of bacteria; and the RNA World theory.

The theory hypothesizes that Earth was once composed of self-replicating ribonucleic acids (RNA) before deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and other proteins took hold. Yamagishi believes that RNA could have once existed on Mars before conditions for life arose on Earth and potentially travelled towards Earth bringing along RNA which began to seed our planet.
Not 'ironclad proof'

This isn't the first experiment to see whether bacteria could survive in space.

In past experiments, where microbes were mixed with clay, sugar or other elements, the bacteria died. However, this is the most promising finding to date supporting the panspermia hypothesis.

While some research suggests bacteria could survive a trip embedded in rock, this is the first of its kind to suggest they could survive without that kind of aid, what the researchers term "massapanspermia."

However, it's not an open and shut case.

"Actually proving that it could happen is another thing, so I wouldn't say that this is ironclad proof," said Mike Reid, a professor at the University of Toronto's Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics who wasn't involved in the Japanese study. "It's certainly leading in that direction."

Surface of Mars shows scars of glaciers just like Canada's High Arctic: study
It's Alive! Algae Survive 16 Months Exposure To Space

Does Reid believe life could have made its way from Mars to Earth?

"If you'd asked me 20 years ago, I would have said no, of course not. But now, it's a little hard to say," he said. "I think we won't be able to answer that question until we've had a really thorough look at the surface of Mars ... did it ever have life ... and was it like us?"

The answer to that question could come in the form of NASA's Perseverance mission to Mars that launched on July 30. One of the main goals of the state-of-the-art rover is to look for past signs of life on the red planet, taking samples to be returned to Earth at a later date.

While promising, the Japanese research team acknowledged that, while their research strengthens the case for panspermia, other factors need to be considered, such as whether bacteria could survive the descent through Earth's atmosphere.

Canadian company creates concrete from carbon dioxide in the air
Isabella O'Malley
Digital Reporter, Environmental Scientist


Thursday, August 27th 2020, 6:00 am - A Canadian cleantech company is fighting climate change by capturing carbon dioxide from a plentiful and perhaps obvious resource - the air we breathe.

Concrete’s omnipresence is undeniable and roughly 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in a structure that contains this material. Most of our built environment, including homes, schools, hospitals and buildings, was created with concrete because of its strength and relatively cheap cost. It is also incredibly versatile, which is why it is the second most widely used substance on Earth after water.

This use has come at a cost.

The concrete industry is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions globally and generates the most carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per dollar of revenue. Approximately 8 per cent of humanity’s carbon footprint comes from concrete and the only sources of greenhouse gases that are higher come from coal, oil and gas.

Most of the greenhouse gas emissions from concrete come from manufacturing cement, which is concrete’s primary ingredient. Limestone and clay are heated to 1,400°C to start the calcination process, which releases 50 per cent of concrete’s carbon emissions. The fossil fuels that heat the limestone account for 40 per cent and the fuel used for mining and transporting the concrete make up 10 per cent of the carbon emissions.

TRAP THE CARBON INSTEAD
Our reliance on concrete won’t disappear anytime soon, so CarbonCure, a Canadian cleantech company, designed a technology that injects captured CO2 from the air to permanently store it in concrete.

The company sources CO2 from industrial gas suppliers, which is then injected into wet concrete during the mixing process. As the materials are mixed, the CO2 undergoes a mineralization process that converts the gas into nano-sized minerals that strengthen the concrete and reduces the amount of cement needed. This procedure comes without compromising performance.


carboncure concrete Concrete made with CarbonCure technology was used to build the East Deicing Apron at Calgary International Airport in 2019. Credit: CarbonCure

“By using CarbonCure and manufacturing CO2 mineralized concrete, producers reduce the carbon footprint of their concrete by an average of 4-6 per cent,” said CarbonCure during an interview with The Weather Network.

“Every cubic metre of CO2 mineralized produced with CarbonCure reduces carbon emissions by 17 kg; so an average building made with CO2 mineralized concrete would reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 120,000 kg. That's equivalent to the carbon absorbed by 160 acres of forest in a year, or the emissions generated from driving 480,000 km.”

CarbonCure was founded in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2012 and has since contributed to several large-scale projects using its technology, including the construction of one of its own buildings. Four years after the company formed, the Ambassatours Headquarters was built with 93,900 kg of CO2 that was captured from the air.

Another notable project that saved an impressive 160,000 kg of CO2 is the East Deicing Apron at the Calgary International Airport, which is equivalent to 85 hectares of forest absorbing CO2 in a one year period. The new centralized deicing pad was built in 2019 and involved the second-largest pour of CarbonCure concrete in a single project and the largest quantity to be used at a Canadian airport.


CONCRETE PRODUCTION EXPECTED TO GROW
Experts predict that growth in concrete production will coincide with global urbanization and economic development, which is why sustainable alternatives are needed to lower its exorbitant impact on the climate.

A study conducted by McKinsey & Company found that scaling innovative technologies can help the concrete industry reduce its 2017-level CO2 emissions by over 75 per cent by 2050. The company says that concrete will likely remain the top construction material globally due to the availability of limestone and cement, but the COVID-19 pandemic is providing opportunities for alternative sustainable materials.

“As players address the challenges of uncertain demand, they have an opportunity to reset strategies: identifying the best path toward decarbonization, assessing digital and technological advancements to invest in, and rethinking their products, portfolios, partnerships, and construction methodologies—areas we explore later,” McKinsey & Company states.

“Forward-thinking players could have an opportunity to leapfrog and become the industry front-runners.”

The study concludes that innovative approaches, including new technologies and alternative building materials, will be “indispensable” to achieve carbon reduction targets by 2050.

LGBT rights

How Trump's chief pink-washer is setting back LGBT+ equality  Mark Gevisser

Only a week after his ad endorsing the president’s pro-gay credentials, Richard Grenell seems to have forgotten his brief

Fri 28 Aug 2020
 

LGBT+ adviser Richard Grenell recording his speech for the Republican convention. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP


Richard Grenell, who spoke at the Republican party’s convention on Wednesday night, is an openly gay former US ambassador to Germany who has just been appointed the Trump campaign’s senior adviser on LGBTQ+ outreach. But just a week after Grenell launched a campaign advertisement in which he describes Trump as “the most pro-gay president in American history”, he remained utterly silent on the matter at the convention podium, choosing instead to focus his speech on the president’s “America first” foreign policy.

This is unsurprising, given not only Trump’s evangelical Christian base, but also how easy it is to disprove the claims made by Grenell in the earlier ad. In it, he distorts timelines and mashes up facts to present Joe Biden as a homophobe and Trump as some kind of rainbow warrior. He even claims that the US president initiated a global campaign to decriminalise homosexuality at the United Nations last year.
Advertisement

Trump, in fact, uttered a single sentence on the issue at the 2019 UN general assembly, as part of Grenell’s high-profile but empty global decriminalisation campaign. At a UN meeting he convened, Grenell said he wanted the 69 countries in which homosexuality was still illegal to be called out “on a daily basis”, and according to state department insiders, Grenell lobbied furiously for aid to these countries to be suspended if they did not drop their anti-gay laws.

If the global dynamics over LGBTQ+ rights in the past decade have shown one thing, it is that such intervention only strengthens the efforts of homophobic leaders, buttressing their claims that anti-gay policies protect their peoples’ “traditional values” and “cultural sovereignty” from the immoral west. It thus only makes life worse for LGBTQ+ people on the ground. When David Cameron was prime minister in 2011, he mooted that international aid should be conditional on decriminalisation: this caused a marked uptick in hostility to LGBTQ+ people in some African countries, and almost all the continent’s leading activists signed a statement disassociating themselves from the notion. In a similar vein, the Russian activist Igor Yasin wrote in 2013: “Russia needs its own Stonewall, not western sanctions.”

During Barack Obama’s term, the US government generally understood this, and trod carefully. It moved multilaterally and stayed in the background at the UN, working hard to support local activists. Particularly during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. Proactive US missions actually made a difference to LGBTQ+ activists around the world – although there were some notable mis-steps, such as the hosting of an LGBT Pride event in Pakistan in 2011, two months after the US assassination of Osama bin Laden on that country’s soil.

Some of this work has continued in the Trump years, but as elsewhere in US foreign policy, any notion of multilateralism has been thrown to the wind. And many of Grenell’s fellow Trump supporters, including conservative gay Republicans, deny that transgender people exist at all; abroad as at home, the US government has stepped away from any association with trans rights.

Meanwhile, the pro-gay stick can be used as another weapon against the US’s enemies. Listen, for instance, to Grenell’s words in his campaign ad: “President Trump fully supported our fight to crush the homophobic and barbaric Islamic terrorist organisation Hezbollah and the Iranian regime that supports them.”

This is an increasingly common tactic: rightwing European politicians, such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, use the alleged homophobia of Muslims to justify their anti-immigration policies, while Israel uses its pro-LGBTQ+ policies to garner support in the US and western Europe, and to promote itself as a beacon of tolerance in a hostile neighbourhood. By promoting gay rights, activists claim, Israel “pink-washes” its human rights abuse of Palestinians. Now Grenell has become a pink-washer for Donald Trump: he chases the gay vote in the US (albeit not during the RNC) by suggesting that the “American” values Trump seeks to defend – against immigrants, and foreign powers, of course – include the protection of gay people. This is all the more egregious because of the Trump administration’s actual record: its opposition, for instance, to the LGBTQ+ employment discrimination cases ruled on by the supreme court in June, on the basis of a protection of religious freedom.

In contrast, Joe Biden’s extensive LGBTQ+ platform sets out to build on the gains made during the Obama era. It also tries to strike a balance in foreign policy between, on the one hand, the “aggressive” use of “pressure tactics” such as global Magnitsky sanctions, and “culturally appropriate information campaigns” and helping local organisations and activists on the other. And, in Congress, Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris is a co-sponsor of the Greater Leadership Overseas for the Benefit of Equality (Globe) Act, which sets out a comprehensive vision for the role that the US should play in promoting global LGBTQ+ equality.

Biden and the Globe act also emphasise the importance of immigration reform for LGBTQ+ people seeking asylum in the US. As I watched Grenell put on a rainbow-coloured “Make America Great Again” cap in his pro-Trump campaign ad, I thought of Camila Díaz Córdova, who was murdered in El Salvador in 2018. A few months previously she had petitioned for asylum in the US, armed with documentation of previous threats on her life, because she was transgender. She was deported before she was given the chance to argue her case.

• Mark Gevisser is the author of The Pink Line: The World’s Queer Frontiers

THE GUARDIAN

UPDATED 
Pandemic has brought Canadians together, pushed Americans apart, poll suggests

88% of Canadians said they approved of country's response to COVID-19

The Canadian Press · Posted: Aug 27, 2020


Families in Toronto’s east end Danforth neighbourhood bang pots and pans on April 15 as part of a nightly salute to health-care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. A new survey suggests two-thirds of Canadian respondents feel more united than before the outbreaks. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

Canadians believe the COVID-19 crisis has brought their country together, while Americans blame the pandemic for worsening their cultural and political divide, a new international public opinion survey suggests.

Fully two-thirds of Canadian respondents to the Pew Research Center study released Thursday say they believe Canada is more united as a result of the coronavirus, while 77 per cent of U.S. participants feel precisely the opposite is true south of the border.

"In the U.S., where a patchwork of coronavirus-related restrictions reflects broad disagreement over the best path to economic recovery while mitigating the spread of the virus, roughly three-quarters say that the U.S. is more divided than before the coronavirus outbreak," the centre said in a release.

"In contrast, nearly three-quarters in Denmark say there is more unity now than before the coronavirus outbreak. More than half in Canada, Sweden, South Korea and Australia also say their countries have become more united since the coronavirus outbreak."

A similar bilateral gap emerged when those surveyed were asked about how their respective countries responded to the emergency.
In Canada, 88 per cent of respondents said they approved of their country's response to COVID-19, compared with just 47 per cent of Americans who feel the same way about how the U.S. has responded.

The difference of opinion in the U.S. was tied to the political affiliations of those who took part in the survey, said Kat Devlin, one of the Pew research associates who compiled the report. Of those identified as Republican, 76 per cent cheered the government response, compared with 25 per cent of Democrats.

Political splits

"In a way, in the U.S., we do see these political splits among the two main political parties that may affect the overall views of the U.S. compared with in Canada."

A separate online poll conducted over the weekend by Leger for the Association for Canadian Studies asked Canadian and Americans alike which of the two countries they believed had better handled the outbreak.

Fully 87 per cent of Canadian respondents said their country's response had been "much" or "somewhat" better than that in the U.S., while only 38 per cent of Americans agreed. Nearly as many — 37 per cent — gave the U.S. higher marks than Canada, while 25 per cent gave no answer.


The Pew survey also found a distinct link between respondents disappointed in the response to the pandemic in their country and the likelihood they felt divisions had worsened.

"In every country surveyed, those who think their country has done a bad job of dealing with the coronavirus outbreak are more likely to say that their country is now more divided."

The disparate versions of reality in the U.S. when it comes to COVID-19 have been on clear display over the last two weeks as America's political parties, their eyes squarely on the Nov. 3 presidential election, have used their national conventions to spin competing narratives.

Joe Biden's Democrats have excoriated Donald Trump's response to the pandemic and ensuing economic crisis, accusing the president of "devastating, inexcusable management" and his operatives of lying "through their teeth" about it.

Republicans, meanwhile, insist the crisis is under control, even as the death toll — 183,000 people to date out of a world-leading six million cases — continues to rise.

Regardless of their political affiliation, Americans surveyed agreed that divisions in the U.S. have widened since the pandemic began, Devlin said.

"This is actually one question where Republicans and Democrats are somewhat united in their answers," she said. "About three-quarters at least in both parties do feel this sense of national division here."

Women, who typically do more unpaid work at home such as child care, reported a disproportionate impact from the pandemic in 12 of 14 countries surveyed. (Katerina Georgieva/CBC)

The Canadian portion of the Pew study involved 1,037 respondents across the country who were surveyed by phone between June 15 and July 27, and the American section had 1,003 U.S. participants who took part between June 16 and July 14.

Both components of the survey carry a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

14 countries

The survey, which involved participants from 14 countries including the U.K., France, Italy, Australia, Japan and South Korea, also found a majority of respondents believe the global spread of COVID-19 could have been mitigated with stronger international co-operation. That sentiment was especially strong in Europe, which was hit hard by the virus in the earliest days of the pandemic, particularly in Italy and Spain.

In the U.S., where Trump has largely taken a go-it-alone approach, 58 per cent of respondents said the number of American cases could have been reduced had the country worked more closely with other countries.

Women who took part in the survey reported a disproportionate impact from the pandemic in 12 of the 14 represented countries. In Canada, 69 per cent reported that their lives had changed either a "great deal" or a "fair amount," compared with 57 per cent of men.

"Women around the world typically do more unpaid work at home than their male counterparts, such as child care and housework, and this may be amplified by closure of schools and day care centres to combat the spread of COVID-19," Pew reported.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has also said that more women than men around the world are employed part-time, "which is more likely to have been interrupted by the pandemic."

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/08/27/most-approve-of-national-response-to-covid-19-in-14-advanced-economies/

At RNC, Trump gave ‘what may have been the worst convention speech of my lifetime’
For the first time in memory, Donald Trump was a bore

 John Podhoretz | New York Post

But then, just as he did in the worst weeks of April and May, he found himself stumbling in his self-justification. At one point he garbled his words and said, “Thanks to advances, we have pioneered the fatality rate” — when he wanted to say that pioneering advances have led to an 80 percent drop in the fatality rate since April. A convention speech watched by tens of millions is not the greatest time to slip up in this way. You don’t want your most memorable moment to be a mistake 

UCP LIES
Collapsed oil prices and an increase in spending amid the COVID-19 pandemic have pushed Alberta into a historic projected deficit of $24.2 billion.

The UCP government’s fiscal update, presented Thursday in the legislative assembly by Finance Minister Travis Toews, shows a projected deficit for 2020-21 that is $16.8 billion more than was previously forecast. The February budget had predicted a $6.8 billion deficit, however the government revised that to $7.3 billion in March.

Toews said the pandemic and energy price war “blindsided our economy, just as it was beginning to show signs of improvement and approaching pre-recession levels of economic activity,” pointing to markers such as increased drilling rig activity and building permits.

University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach said Toews’ speech gave a false impression of what the situation looked like before the pandemic hit.

For instance, GDP growth was forecast at 2.7 per cent in October’s budget and revised to 2.5 per cent in February.

“Even their own budget documents had downgraded their 2020 outlook, employment was decreasing, bank projections for GDP growth for Alberta were decreasing, we had negative growth in 2019,” he said Thursday.

“All of these things, … if you watch the finance minister’s speech, you’d have no sense that that was true.”

NDP Opposition finance critic Shannon Phillips said the government failed to create jobs before the pandemic and was neglecting to make the investments in health care, education and child care that the economy needs to recover.

“We do not work if child care doesn’t work. We do not work if the school plan does not work …The choice here instead has been to give away large sums of money to already wealthy corporations in the hopes that they would create jobs, which they were not doing before the pandemic,” said Phillips.

Earlier this year, the government accelerated its corporate tax cut to eight per cent from 10 per cent, which took effect July 1. Thursday’s fiscal update said that move will reduce government revenue by between $200 million and $300 million.

POSTMEDIA  



Many Albertans remember the iconic image of former premier Ralph Klein holding up the “Paid In Full” sign to symbolize a debt-free Alberta government.

“I’m very, very proud to announce that Alberta has slain its debt,” the late premier told a cheering crowd on July 12, 2004.

Albertans, in fact, lead the nation in consumer debt. Plus, many people in our province are living paycheque to paycheque. Nearly half of Albertans say they are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.  

Another credit rating agency, TransUnion, reported last November that Alberta used to fall below the national average delinquency rate. That changed in the second half of 2015

See the provincial delinquency rates here. 

Average debt in Calgary is $28,421 excluding mortgages, while Edmonton's average debt is $26,479 compared to average consumer debt nationwide of $21,458. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-calgary-consumer-debt-equifax-1.3484940

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/road-ahead-brooks-alberta-debt-deficit-politics-1.4574465


'Ralph Bucks' 14 years later: Could the Prosperity Bonus have saved Alberta’s bottom line?

Matthew Black  CTVNewsEdmonton.ca Digital Journalist
  Tuesday, January 14, 2020



The Prosperity Bonus checks were mailed to all Albertans who were residents of the province as of September 1 and filed a 2004 tax return.

EDMONTON -- It’s hard to imagine now, but this time 14 years ago Alberta literally had more money than it knew what to do with.

A series of seemingly unending oil-fueled budget surpluses eventually peaked at $8.7 billion in June of 2006.

With so much cash on hand, Premier Ralph Klein announced the Alberta Prosperity Bonus in September of 2005: a one-time $400 rebate for every Albertans carved out of $1.4 billion of the provincial surplus.


“He came up with a typical populist approach,” said MacEwan University political scientist Chaldeans Mensah.

“Ralph was simply trying to placate his base, ordinary Albertans, to reward them for the difficulties he’d put them through to balance the books.” 

VIDEO: 'Ralph Bucks' come to Alberta

While the “Ralph Bucks” initially proved popular with many, the policy wasn’t enough to sustain Klein’s political future, or shelter the province’s bottom line from the boom-and-bust energy industry and the financial slump that was to come.

“It was strongly supported by ordinary Albertans but the political establishment had some issues with the approach,” said Mensah.

HOW TO SPEND?

Cheques started arriving in mailboxes during January of 2006, sparking sudden spending splurges.

“Dear Albertan: Enclosed is your Alberta 2005 Resource Rebate. This $400 per-person rebate is being provided by the Government of Alberta as a non-taxable, one-time bonus to all Albertans in recognition of their role in building this province," the letter accompanying the check read.

"Congratulations, and thank you for helping build this province.”



With inflation, $400 in 2006 equates to just under $500 in present-day value.

“To be perfectly honest, a lot of people will be going out to buy an iPod,” university student Dan Arnold said in 2006.

“A big shopping spree,” said Grade 8 student Shelby Airth when asked how she would spend her bonus.

Her mother was less enthused, saying “every kid I know is pumped about the $400 that they're getting. That money should go towards offsetting high energy bills, but of course these guys don't see that.”


Savvy businesses picked up on the boom as well, including the Fairmont group of hotels which offered $400 packages encouraging Albertans to "Stay with the Fairmont and let Ralph pick up the tab!"

Others called for a more charitable use for the bonus, with websites like ProsperityInPerspective encouraging donations to local causes.

“I think Albertans are intelligent enough to spend their own money and that’s what this is,” Deputy Premier Shirley McClellan told CTV News in 2005.

CASH BOON BACKLASH

But the cash giveaway wasn’t a smash hit.

The Opposition and others called for a more planned approach to spending the surplus including on ideas like a provincial endowment fund, heightened education funding and a high-speed rail line linking Calgary and Edmonton.

"What's the point of even having a budget? What has happened to the discipline that this government was known for?" asked then-Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.

Even the right-leaning Calgary Herald took issue with an op-ed headline reading,

“Nice gesture, wrong message.”

“Our issues were very different than they are today,” remembers Scott Hennig with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

He wrote an Edmonton Journal editorial opposing the bonuses as a bait-and-switch shortly after they were announced in September of 2005.

“If your government unfairly imposes a regressive $528 ‘premium’ and then refunds you $400 of that money as a ‘prosperity rebate,’ do you thank it?”

In 2005, Hennig called for an end to the province’s health care premiums, saying it would have amounted to an annual $884-million tax break.

“It would have meant more to a lot of people,” he said looking back years later.

“We thought it was a really ham-fisted way to give a tax cut.”



RALPH BUCKS LEGACY

Hennig says had the government of the day handled its surpluses differently, the province would be in very different economic shape today.

“Even with oil prices down we’d be nowhere near deficit if they’d taken corrective action,” he said.

“It was all very avoidable had they had more modest spending and put it into long-term savings.”

Politically, any popularity boost Klein got from the bonuses was short-lived, within his party at least.

Two months after the cheques were mailed out he announced his intention to resign after his fourth term on Oct. 21, 2007, some 19 months later.

“He was beginning to lose his edge,” said Mensah. “The Ralph edge, the common touch.”

But by the end of March, the Progressive Conservatives had had enough with delegates giving Klein an underwhelming 55 per cent show of support at a party leadership review.

“It was a combination of bumbling leadership … [Klein] ran into problems with his health care reforms and he had some clashes in the legislature,” said Mensah.

“He was done in by the party establishment.”

Klein eventually resigned near the end of September of 2005.

Oil prices crashed in 2008 and the province has posted deficits in every year since, save for one.

“I don’t think any other government is going to follow that path,” said Mensah. “That path was a unique period in Alberta’s history where the government was simply flush with all the money coming in.”

“In hindsight, we see that was not an appropriate approach given what we are now facing as a province.”

With files from the Canadian Press

.

Thanks largely to rapid spending increases that actually began in the later stages of the Klein era, Alberta’s net assets started falling in 2008-09.

By 2016-17 the province had burned through all its net assets and started racking up debt.

Alberta has been adding an average of nearly $10 billion in debt annually since 2015-16, and provincial net debt is projected to hit $35.6 billion this year (2019-20).

The Kenney government’s recently-released 2020 budget calls for gradual deficit-elimination and a substantial slowdown in the pace of debt accumulation.

But energy prices have fallen so far that the budget’s revenue projections are no longer worth the paper they’re printed on.

And stock markets have crashed.

And the coronavirus, trade wars and other factors threaten to trigger a global recession.

So what happens if Alberta’s debt accumulation continues at something like its current pace?

Alberta’s net debt has climbed to almost $8,200 per person, which puts us in spitting distance of British Columbia ($8,782) and Saskatchewan ($10,210).

If Alberta continues to rack up debt in the next five years like it has over the past five — now a plausible scenario — the government’s net debt will hit $85.1 billion by 2024 or $18,500 per Albertan.

Under this scenario, Alberta will carry more debt per person than any Maritime province, where fiscal problems are well documented.

And while it once seemed unthinkable, formerly “debt free” Alberta is in danger of catching Quebec, once the poster-child for fiscal mismanagement, in per-person debt, hitting approximately $20,500 by the middle of the decade.

The consequences of this type of debt accumulation would be painful.

Government debt interest, negligible as recently as 2009, has climbed to $2 billion annually.

The 2020 budget forecasts an increase to $3 billion annually by 2022-23 — but again, that now looks very optimistic.

It’s been two decades since Ralph Klein held up his “debt-free” sign.

Since then, irresponsible choices have derailed Alberta’s finances.

BY THE PC PARTY NOW REBRANDED UCP

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-opinion-alberta-careening-towards-fiscal-disaster

1999 ALBERTA BUDGET

Revenue Variability – Alberta has been described as having one of the most volatile economies in North America. We are vulnerable to swings in commodity prices and changes in the North American and world economies. While the economy has become more diversified over the last decade, unexpected changes, especially in energy prices, continue to have a significant effect on government revenues. Alberta’s revenue has varied, and will continue to vary, considerably  

Overestimating revenue is a recipe for disaster in Alberta. It resulted in $21 billion of debt being accumulated from 1985-86 to 1993-94. A debt that Albertans are still repaying. It is critical for the government and Albertans to maintain a longer-term perspective on what is affordable. What appears to be affordable one year may not be the next. The events of the last year clearly demonstrate why Alberta needs to be prudent in its budgeting. As a result of weaker world economic growth and low oil prices, provincial government revenue declined from $17.8 billion in 1997-98 to $16.6 billion in 1998-99 – a decline of $1.2 billion or 7%. 

If 1998-99 spending had been based on 1997-98 revenue, we would have had a $1.2 billion deficit. Annual Percentage Change in Revenue 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 (per cent) "A legislatively mandated revenue cushion provides additional comfort to withstand price volatility in the energy sector and possible revenue downturns." - Moody's Investors Service September 1998 from year to year. During the 1990s, revenue grew by an average of 7% in six of the nine years. However, in the other three years, it declined by an average of 4.5%. Protection Against Uncertain Revenue – Revenue cushions were required in the Deficit Elimination Act and the Balanced Budget and Debt Retirement Act to help protect against revenue variability. They ensured that spending was not based on overly optimistic revenue forecasts and provided insurance against in-year revenue declines. Since first introduced in Alberta, similar concepts have been adopted by a number of other governments in Canada. However, the complicated calculation formula and method of presentation of the revenue cushion made it difficult for the public to understand what the ‘real’ forecast of government revenue was and what debt payment was really expected at year end. Also, due to the way the cushion was determined, its size varied considerably over the last few years. It ranged from about 4% of revenue in 1996-97 and 1997-98 to only 2.7% in 1995-96 and 1998-99

1

OPINION

Rio's latest mistake: Putting a price on the priceless

Elizabeth Knight Business columnist
August 28, 2020

The biggest problem with this week’s response from Rio Tinto to its management-made destruction of an archaeological treasure is that it put a $7 million price on destroying something that was priceless.

Three senior executives, including the chief executive Jean-Sebastien Jacques, had a portion of their bonuses docked and were absolved of any blame because, as Rio says, the mistakes had been made collectively over a number of years under different management regimes.

Rather than quelling concerns and placating stakeholders, including traditional owners, shareholders and the broader international archaeological community, the findings of Rio’s internal investigations into the destruction at Juukan Gorge would be incendiary.

While Rio’s board and management are sticking with the line that there is nothing more to see here, even they must understand that this issue is a slow burner, and is far from over yet.


Anger over Rio's destruction of the Juukan Gorge and its subsequent handling of the matter keeps building.CREDIT:MICHELE MOSSOP

That $7 million price tag won’t even hit the sides when it comes to accountability.

When it comes to corporate governance and accountability it was Graeme Samuel, the co-author of the report into the Commonwealth Bank’s Prudential Inquiry, who distilled a board’s decision making into answering two questions: Could we? And should we?
The Rio management knew it could legally blow up the Juukan caves. Yet the second question some anonymous Rio person or group asked instead of 'should we?' unfortunately was ' when can we’?

It is now up to the shareholders to impose their own governance standards on Rio’s board and management.

AustralianSuper boss Ian Silk has this week set the standard, saying that $7 million of punishment is not enough to compensate for the Juukan destruction. In doing so publicly he was signalling to other major shareholders that he would like a bit of company on the ethical high stool.

Others, like Hesta, are becoming a bit more courageous. "[Rio's report] doesn't address strongly who is ultimately responsible for ensuring adherence to its standards and for ongoing oversight, and that is something we continue to engage on’, its chief executive Debby Blakely said.

"We do remain concerned about the gap in their public commitments and their actions, and we want to continue to engage on that."

Does the company feel that £4 million is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage?Louise Davidson, Australian Council of Superannuation Investors

Meanwhile, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ Louise Davidson’s eyebrows were also raised at the findings from Rio’s internal investigation.

"Remuneration appears to be the only sanction applied to executives. This raises the question – does the company feel that £4 million ($7 million) is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage?

"The report from the Rio Tinto board review does not deliver any meaningful accountability for the destruction of some of the most significant cultural sites in Australia. The company should explain why greater accountability was not applied in light of this disaster," she said.

AustralianSuper seeks tougher penalties for Rio Tinto cave blast

A string of other investors including Aberdeen and Legal & General have also voiced their concerns, albeit not as strongly.

Over the past couple of days, having read the Rio report the UK’s Local Authority Pension Fund Forum described the company’s actions as an appropriate first step, but said it was looking to see what further action is taken when the findings from the current Senate inquiry are released.

Meanwhile, the really big owners of Rio’s British and Australian shares are the international investment giants BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These are passive investors that tend to talk big on their environmental, social and governance credentials but have a spotty history when it comes to pushing these issues or voting against boards.

One thing Rio does have in its favour is the Chinese-owned Chinalco as a 14.6 per cent shareholder. Last year it voted, unsuccessfully, against the board’s share buyback proposal, but this was because it was prohibited from taking its stake over 15 per cent. It's considered less concerned though about Rio's social licence to mine culturally sensitive areas.

If there is sufficient groundswell from investors in Rio to vote against directors at next year’s annual meeting it could be enough to embarrass one or two into not seeking re-election.

But history has shown boards tend to throw their chief executives under the bus before it comes to that.

Nation 'woefully unprepared' for climate change, business groups warn

By Nick O'Malley
August 28, 2020 — 

Australia is "woefully unprepared" for the scale of the climate change threats it faces, and suffers from a public debate focused too much on the cost of action rather than the costs of failing to act, says a coalition of environment and business groups.

"There is no systemic government response (federal, state and local) to build resilience to climate risks," says a paper published by the Australian Climate Roundtable, which includes climate groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and business bodies including the Business Council of Australia, Australian Industry Group and the Australian Aluminium Council.


Black Summer: Fires jump the Monaro Highway outside Bredbo, near Cooma.CREDIT:DEAN SEWELL

"Action is piecemeal, unco-ordinated, does not engage business, private sector investment, unions, workers in affected industries, community sector and communities, and does not match the scale of the threat climate change represents to the Australian economy, environment and society," the group said.

"Even with ambitious global action in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, Australia will experience escalating costs from the climate change associated with historical emissions," said the paper, written after months of consultation between the member groups


OPINION
GLOBAL WARMING
Draining the nation's energy: how Canberra lags industry on green power

"These costs will be significant and will require a concerted national response to manage these now unavoidable climate related damages."

The Roundtable is calling for climate change to be made a standing item for National Cabinet and for Australia to "play our fair part in international efforts" to keep global warming in check by pushing for net zero emissions.

"To this end, and in addition to the resilience measures outlined above, the Australian Climate Roundtable encourages the Commonwealth Government to guide its policies by adopting a long-term objective of net-zero emissions by 2050," says the paper.

It says the delay of the planned Glasgow international climate talks give the government time for more "deep consultation" with the Australian community.

Jennifer Westacott, Business Council of Australia chief executive, said the Australia not only risked that embracing a net zero by 2050 policy could, "drive billions of dollars of new investment, create new jobs, create new industries, boost our resilience and build the stronger regions we’ll need to supercharge our recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic."

That a group representing business, union and conservation groups could arrive at such strong language in its call for action suggested that the Morrison government was becoming more isolated in its climate change stance, said Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy.

"The conversations we are having [at the Roundtable] are not the same as the ones we were having six years ago. Everyone except the government is on the same page now."

NSW environment minister Matt Kean, who is among the government leaders sent the statement, said that for too long climate change politics had been simplified to either stoking fear about the cost of reducing emissions or inciting guilt for living in a modern economy which emits carbon.

"It is time that debate moved on. The science is in, climate change is already taking a toll on our country," he said. "The reality is that the world is moving to low carbon economies with ratings agencies, global investors and our trading partners looking to reduce their emissions.

"This represents a huge opportunity for Australia. No country is better positioned to export clean energy and help support global emissions reductions," Mr Kean said.

"Every State and Territory in the country has committed to the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050."

A spokesman for federal energy and emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor said Australian emissions had been coming down since the Coalition formed government in 2013 and that it was committed to meeting international commitments.

"The Technology Investment Roadmap and our response to the King Review will position Australia to beat that target, and support jobs and productivity growth as we recover from COVID-19," he said.

"Now more than ever, a technology not taxes approach to reducing emissions will be critical as we grow our economy in the years ahead."

Former Aussie PM Tony Abbott's new British trade role called into question as gig exposes European jaunt

Greens called for Abbott to be stripped of his parliamentary pension, worth $300,000 a year 

By Latika Bourke Sydney Daily Herald
August 27, 2020 — 
London: British Labour is stepping up its opposition to the appointment of former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott as an adviser to the British Board of Trade and is demanding UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson explain the details of the plum job.
In Australia, Abbott's critics have called on him to be stripped of his $300,000-a-year parliamentary pension while he is working for a foreign government that is negotiating a trade deal with Australia.

Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has been hired by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for a role in the British Board of Trade.
Abbott, born in Britain, was appointed by British Trade Secretary Liz Truss and the pair had breakfast together in London on Tuesday to confirm his new role.
A spokesman for Abbott said he applied to travel overseas under the rules and was granted approval by the commissioner of the Australian Border Force
Abbott's successor in the federal seat of Warringah, independent MP Zali Steggall, questioned the double standards of Abbott being allowed to travel when families trying to reunite had been barred, as well as his work for a foreign government.
Abbott's travel costs, including the mandatory two weeks of hotel quarantine upon return, would be met privately, his spokesman said. Abbott had not sought an exemption from any of these requirements nor would he, the spokesman said.



Abbott does not intend to make any further comment, he said.
Originally a Remain supporter, Abbott won over arch-Brexiteers after the referendum by advocating that Britain follow the most economically disruptive form of leaving the EU – a so-called no-deal Brexit.
But mystery surrounds the exact nature of Abbott's appointment, which was met at an official level with silence. No statement was issued on Wednesday, London time, by either the British Department for International Trade nor No.10, despite widespread reporting of the appointment.
Abbott's exact title with the Board of Trade is still to be confirmed. Questions about whether the job is paid or not have also gone unanswered by both the British government and Abbott himself, and neither Johnson nor Truss have said anything of the decision to recruit Abbott to their ranks.


Zali Steggall, federal MP for Tony Abbott's old seat of Warringah, has asked why Abbott was allowed a travel exemption to leave the country.
Labour's trade spokeswoman Emily Thornberry told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age that she would be demanding answers, amid concerns over the secretive nature of the appointment.
"Boris Johnson needs to explain why he believed Tony Abbott was the right person to appoint to this role, but he also needs to explain the appointment itself," Thornberry said.
"What exactly is the job? Is it paid? Will Abbott be accountable to the British Parliament? Did the appointment process follow Cabinet Office rules? When was the job offer made, and when was it accepted?"
Thornberry also queried what personal meetings were held in the lead-up to the job offer.
"What meetings did Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have with Tony Abbott over the last year, and were they conducted in line with the Ministerial Code?
"The rules around public appointments and ministerial meetings exist precisely to stop the government cutting corners to suit their cronies, or hiding their dealings from public scrutiny.
"That’s why the answers to these questions matter, and we’ll be demanding them loudly in the coming days."
Tony Abbott granted travel exemption to take on UK Brexit job
Arch-Brexiteer and Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg acknowledged the move, saying it was "an excellent appointment".
The report was also welcomed by Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage but strongly criticised by a range of MPs in both Britain and Australia, who questioned Abbott's trade credentials, his opposition to gay marriage and his climate-change denialism.
Steggall said she was surprised to see Abbott's new role, given he had supported both Leave and Remain.
"Like many Australians, I’m surprised at his appointment in light of his previous changing positions on Brexit and his very divisive and combative style.
"I would also question the appropriateness of a former Australian prime minister in a senior trade role now negotiating for the benefit of another nation.
"What would the reaction be if a former prime minister like Kevin Rudd was appointed in a trade advocacy role for China?" she said.
Greens leader Adam Bandt called for Abbott to be stripped of his parliamentary pension, worth $300,000 a year.
"Tony Abbott’s job is now to promote another country, even if it means disadvantaging Australian farmers, producers and exporters," he said.
"The Australian public should not be paying him to advance another country’s interests.
"He should be stripped of his hefty prime ministerial pension," Bandt said.
Former South Australian premier Mike Rann, a former high commissioner to Britain and Italy, questioned whether Abbott, who infamously gave a knighthood to Prince Philip, was after his own title.
"Maybe this could be Tony’s pathway to a knighthood," Rann said, speaking from his home in Puglia, Italy.
"If the story is true, it is an indictment of the UK’s capacity to take back control from unelected foreigners".
Travel ban exemption
This masthead revealed that Abbott had breakfast with Truss in London this week to confirm the role after being granted an exemption by the Australian government from its ban on citizens from leaving the country.
Abbott would not respond to questions about why his travel, which included attending a golf tournament in Wales, warranted an exemption.
He is in Italy and is due in London again next week to give a speech to the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange about the international response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Steggall said Abbott's travel exposed the double standards at play, with many of his former constituents denied the chance to see their loved ones overseas.
"I wonder whether he has had to make numerous applications like many of his former constituents.
"His permitted travel unfortunately only adds to the perception that there is a double standard in who can travel in and out of Australia and will be distressing for those who have repeatedly been turned down for important travel."

If You Think Coronavirus Profiteering Is Bad, Wait Till the Climate Heats Up


From testing for coronavirus to treating the health impacts of climate change, universal healthcare and publicly owned medicine production are critical components for adapting to the coming crisis.
by Josue De Luna Navarro




Rich or poor, Americans already spend more on medicine than any other people in the world. (Photo: Elvert Barnes/flickr/cc)


COVID-19 is testing the U.S. public health system. And, unfortunately, things don’t look so good — especially if you’re one of the 87 million underinsured people in this country.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has promised that coronavirus tests would be free. But that doesn’t mean that you can expect a free trip to the hospital. The New York Times recently reported that hospital trips for even a “free” test can cost thousands of dollars — which could be devastating for a family that doesn’t have insurance.

Hospitals aren’t the only winners here — Big Pharma and biotech companies are cashing in, too. Take Novacyt PLC, a French biotech company that developed a test for COVID-19. The day they released the tests to the public, their stock surged more than 30 percent.

But if you think companies profiting off the coronavirus is bad, wait until the climate crisis worsens. Beyond even novel outbreaks like COVID-19, more familiar health threats are set to spread like wildfire.

A sick planet, in short, means a sick public.

Already, hotter temperatures are increasing the rate of heat strokes and heat exhaustion, while expanding the range of diseases like malaria or West Nile virus. Droughts spread food insecurity, wildfires cause respiratory illnesses, and floods expose people to unsanitary conditions.

A sick planet, in short, means a sick public. And, as Naomi Klein and other journalists have reported, corporations have devised a number of ways to profit off our planet’s sickness — from companies patenting “climate-ready” crops to property insurance companies contracting private firefighters for rich clients in the path of wildfires.

One of the biggest beneficiaries, again, is Big Pharma. According to the European Pharmaceutical Review (EPR), the pharmaceutical industry expects to “benefit from a warming planet, as the spread of disease will become more prevalent, revealing opportunities for medicine markets.”




Even before coronavirus was a household name, the EPR estimated that between 385 and 725 million people worldwide will be exposed to infectious diseases as the climate crisis worsens. No wonder they find that “almost 70 percent of biotech, healthcare and pharma companies have climate change integrated into their business strategy.”

According to Morgan Stanley, $50 to $100 billion will be needed to produce vaccines alone in the coming years. Unfortunately, many pharmaceutical giants are investing in reducing access to these medications. Pfizer, J&J, and Merck Co. together spent over $19 billion in 2019 alone on lobbying efforts to keep prescription drug and health care costs high — and thus inaccessible to many vulnerable communities.

Indeed, like everything else in the U.S., the climate crisis doesn’t impact everyone equally. The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, concludes that the poor, people of color, the elderly, and children are most at risk from the health effects of pollution and climate change. And communities of color, the Kaiser Family Foundation reports, are most likely to be uninsured.

Rich or poor, Americans already spend more on medicine than any other people in the world. Numerous studies show that Medicare for All could reduce these costs while expanding coverage. So could investing in a “public option” for prescription drugs.

After all, taxpayers already heavily subsidize pharmaceutical development. One study published last year found that National Institute of Health (NIH) funding — that is, taxpayer money — “was associated directly or indirectly with every drug approved from 2010–2016.” If it’s our own tax money funding this business, why not make medicine production benefit the people who need those medicines the most?

Another recent study by the Democracy Collaborative imagines a publicly owned supply chain to produce needed medications — a “public option” for drugs. Publicly owned drug production, they find, would “combat the increasingly harmful impacts of Big Pharma which decades of regulation have failed to counteract,” from skyrocketing drug prices to the opioid epidemic.

It would also ensure that all communities get the medicine they need as the climate crisis worsens — especially communities disadvantaged by the health care system today. From testing for coronavirus to treating the health impacts of climate change, universal healthcare and publicly owned medicine production are critical components for adapting to the coming crisis.

Josue De Luna Navarro is the New Mexico Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Find him on Twitter at @Josue_DeLuna.