UPDATED  

Uber and Lyft's win to keep California drivers classified as contractors has national implications

California voters pass Proposition 22, denying gig workers the benefits of full employees -- after gig economy companies spent over $200 million on the campaign.

Dara Kerr 
Nov. 4, 2020 


Uber and Lyft drivers have long rallied to be classified as employees. James Martin/CNET

California voters on Tuesday passed Proposition 22, a ballot measure backed by Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies. During the yearlong battle over the initiative, which aimed to exempt the gig economy companies from classifying their drivers as employees, millions of dollars have been spent and all sorts of tricks have been pulled from the political playbook.

Proposition 22 is likely to have national implications as other states watch what happens in California, the home of Silicon Valley tech giants. If Proposition 22 had failed, they may have been forced to rethink their business models. Now that the ballot measure has passed, companies can use the campaign as a blueprint for similar fights they're waging in other states and countries.

Early polling showed a close race for the ballot measure, with 46% of voters backing the proposition and 42% opposed. The initiative needed 50% of the vote to win. As of Wednesday morning, the bill appeared to have passed with 58% of the ballot, according to the California Secretary of State's Office.

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates contributed more than $205 million to the campaign, with a last-minute $1 million more from Uber on Monday. The No on Proposition 22 campaign was backed with about $19 million from labor groups and unions. The initiative became the most expensive ballot measure campaign in California history and one of the most expensive in US history, according to Ballotpedia.

At stake was whether the gig economy companies would be required to reclassify their workers as employees, as mandated by California law AB5. If classified as employees, workers would get labor benefits, such as health care, sick leave and minimum wage. But the companies said that would add tremendous costs to their businesses. Proposition 22 suggests creating an alternative in which drivers remain independent contractors and get a few more benefits, like an expense reimbursement and health care subsidy.

The No on Proposition 22 campaign said that's not enough. It said that drivers still might not make minimum wage and that the health care subsidy needed to be more substantial, especially during the coronavirus pandemic. When calculating paid time for workers, Proposition 22 only takes into account when they're on a ride or delivery. It doesn't add in when they're waiting to be matched with a customer.

"Over the past years, Instacart has hired so many new shoppers that I often don't get any orders," Ginger Anne Farr, an Instacart shopper, told Human Rights Watch in a paper released Monday. "I would sit in my car waiting for an order to appear, without making any money." 
Final flurry of activity

As Election Day neared, both sides of the Proposition 22 campaign went all in.

Uber, Lyft and the Yes campaign blanketed social media and TV stations with ads, spending a total of $95 million, according to MarketWatch. The gig economy companies also sent in-app messages and emails to riders and drivers asking for their support.

One email Uber sent customers on Monday reminded Californians they could register to vote even on Election Day. It then asked customers to "join the NAACP and California Small Business Association in supporting drivers by voting yes on Prop 22.""We'll do what it takes to reach every voter we can with the truth."
Mike Roth, spokesman for No on Prop 22 campaign

The California chapter of the NAACP endorsed the Yes campaign, as a series of payments totaling $85,000 were made to a small consulting firm run by the chapter's president. The national branch of the NAACP did not endorse the ballot measure.

The Yes campaign has said drivers prefer to remain independent contractors, often citing "independent studies." Many of those studies have been paid for by the gig economy companies or the Yes campaign and others involved informal non-scientific polls. The authors of the studies say their findings are independent and objective.

When asked for comment before the election, Lyft spokeswoman Julie Wood said, "Drivers have consistently said they want to remain independent, and we believe California voters will stand with them."

A spokesman for the Yes campaign reiterated the sentiment. "Drivers are participating in text and phone banking events ... to let voters know that by voting yes they can protect hundreds of thousands of jobs and the app-based services millions rely on," he said.

For its part, the No campaign touted the support of several big-name Democrats, including presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris. Also openly opposing Proposition 22 are Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Rep. Barbara Lee and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The No campaign additionally coordinated several events across the state. Drivers opposing the initiative held car caravan protests and dropped "No on Prop 22" banners throughout California's cities. On Monday, California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who authored AB5, worked with drivers to reach out to voters by text banking. The campaign said it reached about 10 million voters as of Monday afternoon.

"Rideshare drivers have been building momentum throughout this No on Prop 22 campaign and they are in overdrive mode now, taking their campaign right up to the finish line," said Mike Roth, a spokesman for the No campaign. "We'll do what it takes to reach every voter we can with the truth."

Uber, DoorDash and Postmates (which Uber acquired in July) didn't respond to requests for comment. Instacart referred CNET to the Yes on Proposition 22 campaign.

First published on Nov. 3, 2020 

RELATED STORIES
Uber and Lyft paid $400K to firm conducting 'independent studies' on Proposition 22
'A totally different ballgame': Inside Uber and Lyft's fight over gig worker status
Uber and Lyft drivers could become employees with this law: 10 things to know
Election Night 2020: Here's how your vote will actually be counted

Uber-backed gig worker initiative wins in California: US media

California voters put the brakes Tuesday on a law stopping ride share firms such as Uber and Lyft from classifying drivers as independent contractors, according to US media.

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Some 58 percent of voters backed a proposition that would leave drivers as independent contractors but provide them benefits such as supplemented health care coverage, according to local media and the "Yes on Proposition 22" campaign.

"This is a win for drivers across California," Southern California ride share driver Alfred Porche said in a statement issued by the campaign.

Explore further Uber and Lyft argue in California court over status of drivers

© 2020 AFP

Uber, Lyft shares surge after key ballot win in California

By Noah Manska

November 4, 2020 

AP

Uber and Lyft’s stock prices soared Wednesday after California voters allowed the ride-hailing giants to continue treating their drivers as independent contractors instead of employees.

Uber shares surged 11.5 percent in premarket trading while Lyft’s spiked about 14.8 percent as of 7:54 a.m. after the passage of Proposition 22, which exempts ride-hail drivers from a controversial California law that would have forced tech firms to give gig workers benefits such as a minimum wage and sick leave.

More than 58 percent of Golden State voters cast ballots in favor of the measure, handing Uber and Lyft an important victory in one of their biggest US markets after spending heavily to get out of the state law’s obligations.

The vote “will send a ripple impact as investors were worried if Prop 22 did not pass this would significantly impact the core DNA of the gig economy and ultimately the revenue model for Lyft and Uber,” Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives said in a Wednesday research note.

Tuesday’s vote will allow Uber and Lyft to escape pressure from California officials who had tried to force the companies to treat their drivers as employees under the state law known as AB5, which took effect in January

California sued the companies in May in an attempt to enforce the law, and a state appeals court said last month that they had to provide their drivers with benefits generally afforded to traditional employees. An earlier unfavorable ruling in that case prompted Uber and Lyft to threaten to halt their operations in the state.

Uber, Lyft and similar app-based services spent some $200 million urging voters to support Proposition 22. Other supporters of the measure included food-delivery platforms DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates, which rely on independent couriers to ferry groceries and takeout to their users.

Uber and Lyft contended that AB5’s requirements would have fundamentally changed their business models and limited flexibility for workers. But supporters of the law pointed out that tech giants poured massive amounts of money into the ballot measure fight.

“The obscene amount of money these multibillion-dollar corporations spent misleading the public doesn’t absolve them of their duty to pay drivers a living wage,” Art Pulaski, a leader at the California Labor Federation, said in a statement.

California bill passes allowing Uber to call workers contractors, deny them benefits

Uber not ‘doing enough to protect women,’ assault victim charges in suit

This Uber driver got COVID-19. With Prop 22, he says, 'I have a lot on the line'
by Avi Asher-Schapiro | @AASchapiro | Thomson Reuters Foundation
Tuesday, 3 November 2020 14:24 GMT


'I worked for Uber for six years full-time, sleeping in my car to work long hours. Then I contracted COVID-19. It's time to call me an employee.'


Nov 3 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – On Tuesday, Californians vote on a ballot measure that would exempt ride-hailing firms Uber and Lyft from a law compelling them to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees.

The measure, Prop. 22, could redefine gig work, a key pillar of the U.S. economy with COVID-19 driving up demand for delivery services.

A Reuters analysis found that Uber and Lyft would face over $392 million in annual payroll taxes and workers’ compensation costs if the proposition fails, and they are forced to extend employee status to drivers.

The companies say the majority of drivers do not want to be employees, and work fewer than 25 hours a week.

Uber and other gig firms have spent nearly $200 million to pass Prop. 22, which would extend limited benefits to workers, including a subsidy for drivers to buy private healthcare.

But workers like Orlando Mims, a 50-year-old from Sacramento who’s been driving full-time for Uber for 6 years, worry that without full employee protections like minimum wage guarantees and injury insurance, drivers are primed for exploitation. 

This is his story as told to Avi Asher-Schapiro, Thomson Reuters Foundation Digital Rights correspondent:

I started driving in 2014, and at first it was on the weekends, like a vacation from my regular job as a truck driver.

I’d drive down to San Francisco, stay there -- sleep in my car -- Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. And I’d work long days, and come back with over a thousand dollars.

When they made cutbacks at my trucking company, I left and I started driving Uber full-time -- as much as 60 or 70-hours-a- week on average.

At first I was making good money.

Then all the sudden they started cutting the rates at Uber; at first the drivers got 80% of the rides, then it was 70%. Now it’s not even a percentage, it’s calculated by your mileage and time. It’s just gone down, down, down.

About two years ago, I went into Uber’s office and asked about it. And they told me: 'we have enough drivers now, we can pay less' -- they had the audacity to tell me that.

That impacted my thinking tremendously.

When a friend of mine got shot when she was driving for Uber back in 2017, I started thinking: we are taking all the risks, but they are getting all the money.

And then, at the end of February, right when this pandemic started, I got sick while driving in San Francisco.

I went to the hospital down there, they took my temperature it was 105 degrees Fahrenheit (41 Celsius). Fearing I might have contracted COVID-19, they asked me if I’d been to Wuhan, China.

I hadn’t, but I was driving a lot of people from the airport. I later tested positive for COVID-19, and was told to self-isolate for 14 days; I was sick for longer than that, though.

And when I tried to go back to work in May, after being off for two-and-a-half months, I waited for 10 hours at the San Francisco Airport, and only got one $23 fare.

There was just no work. The only compensation I got from Uber was $1,400 for that two weeks I was in quarantine.

And that’s when I really started thinking; if this were a regular job, we would get workers compensation.

We are out here doing this work, they are taking the money. And technically, since we are just contractors they aren’t responsible for us.

I have a lot on the line with Prop. 22. I want to be a real employee of Uber; it would give me job security, health insurance and benefits, and I would know I am getting a steady paycheck.

I can’t afford to go to the airport and wait, sitting around for an hour or two and not getting paid. I want to be paid by the hour for my work.

So, when people get in my car and ask me about Prop. 22, I tell all my customers: ‘please vote no.’

It’s really upsetting seeing Uber and Lyft spend all this money on Prop. 22. It’s like they are trying to buy a law; I think it’s wrong, if I get enough money -- can I buy a law?

I got 20,000 trips with Uber! Never a thank you from them; 'we appreciate it; here's a bonus.'

So, you know what? If Prop 22 passes, I won't drive anymore. Why should I? Enough is enough. 

(Reporting by Avi Asher-Schapiro @AASchapiro, Editing by Tom Finn. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers the lives of people around the world who struggle to live freely or fairly. Visit http://news.trust.org)

ABOUT OUR ECONOMIES COVERAGE We report on how to ensure people globally have economic security and a decent standard of living.

Marijuana's 2020 Election Sweep Means Fifteen States Have Legalized
CLARA GEOGHEGAN | NOVEMBER 4, 2020 | 

Four states passed adult-use cannabis laws and two passed medical marijuana initiatives during the 2020 elections. Westword archive

With the presidential race still taking the main stage the day after the November 3 election, it's easy to forget about the fate of recreational and medical cannabis ballot initiatives in five states. But the voters in Arizona, New Jersey, Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota sure remembered, with pot sweeping the polls before the night ended.

Every statewide cannabis legalization measure on a ballot passed last night, as Arizona, New Jersey, Montana and South Dakota voters all approved recreational cannabis possession and sales. Meanwhile, South Dakota and Mississippi votes both approved new medical marijuana programs in their respective states.

Since Colorado and Washington voters lead the way in legalizing recreational pot in 2012, thirteen more states (and Washington, D.C.) have now joined them. And more states legalizing cannabis is good for national cannabis legislation efforts, according to National Cannabis Industry Association media relations director Morgan Fox.

“While state representatives aren’t beholden to representing the interests of their constituents in terms of policies, I think that with every state where you pass one of these laws, there’s that much more potential representation in congress,” he explains.

It will likely take anywhere from one to two years before regulated cannabis will be available to consumers and patients in the newly regulated states, but based on the ballot initiatives, here is what regulated cannabis might look like in Arizona, New Jersey, Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota.

Arizona
Proposition 207, also called the Smart & Safe Act, allows adults 21-and-older to purchase and use regulated cannabis. The Smart & Safe Act passed with 60 percent of voter approval despite open opposition from Governor Doug Doucey.

The Arizona Department of Health Services will hand out marijuana licenses for cultivation, retail and processing facilities; businesses can apply for an early license as soon as January 2021, and established medical marijuana growers will be given application priority. A fiscal analysis released by the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee Staff estimates that the 16-percent sales tax and licensing fees from recreational cannabis would bring in $166 million in revenue per year. Revenue generated from legal cannabis sales will cover administrative costs for cannabis regulation, with remaining revenue to be distributed to district community colleges, firefighters, law enforcement agencies, the Governor's Office of Highway Safety, and the Justice Reinvestment Fund for communities most impacted by the War on Drugs.

Arizona's successful ballot initiative also opens the door for those with prior cannabis crime convictions to expunge their records after July 12, 2021. Individuals convicted with marijuana possession (2.5 ounces or less), cultivation, consumption or transportation can petition Arizona courts to have records of arrests and convictions expunged.

Montana
Two ballot initiatives for recreational cannabis use passed in Montana. Ballot Initiative 190 legalizes recreational cannabis use for adults, and Constitutional Initiative 118 amends language in the state constitution specifying that the legal purchasing age of cannabis for adults will be 21.

I-190 allows adults aged 21 and older to possess 1 ounce of marijuana, and grow up to four cannabis plants in their private residences. Licensing and regulation will be overseen by the Montana Department of Revenue, which will impose a 20-percent sales tax on marijuana products. After covering administrative costs, all revenue generated by regulated cannabis will fund nature conservation programs, substance abuse treatment and prevention efforts, veterans services and health care. The act also allows individuals serving sentences for marijuana-related offenses legalized by I-90 to have their sentences reduced or charges expunged. The Montana Department of Revenue will accept growing, processing and retail applications by January 1, 2022.

Mississippi
Mississippians didn't vote on recreational cannabis this year, but they did pass a constitutional amendment allowing medical marijuana use for patients with “debilitating medical conditions” after voting in rank-style system on competing MMJ initiatives. About 67.9 percent of voters supported medical cannabis legalization overall, with 74 percent of voters preferring Initiative 65 to the alternative amendment 65A. Voters were asked if they supported either initiative or opposed both initiatives, and were then asked which initiative they preferred more; those who opposed both could still specify their preference between the two.

Initiative 65, the winning amendment, specifies 21 qualifying medical conditions for medical marijuana, including cancer, epilepsy, post-traumatic stress disorder and AIDS. The new laws also give doctors the discretion to recommend marijuana for equally debilitating medical conditions when “the use of medical marijuana would reasonably outweigh potential health risks,” according to I-65. The medical marijuana program would be overseen by the Mississippi Department of Health, and caps patient marijuana possession at 2.5 ounces every two weeks. Marijuana sales would be taxed at 7 percent or lower, with the MDH set to have regulations in place by July of next year.

The alternative ballot Initiative 65A would have also allowed medical cannabis use for patients with debilitating conditions, but many details about the implementation would've been left up to state legislators to decide. There were no listed conditions to qualify patients for medical marijuana, nor were there other details like the responsible regulatory agency of the program, an implementation timeline or product taxation.

File photo

New Jersey
New Jersey legalized recreational marijuana, passing Public Question 1 in a landslide, with 67 percent of votes in favor.

Public Question 1 Amends the New Jersey state constitution by adding language to legalize cannabis consumption, possession, growth, transportation and processing for adults who are at least 21. The amendment will go into effect January 1, 2021, with pot sales taxed at the current sales rate of 6.25 percent. Individual municipalities may raise the tax rate on sales within their boundaries by up to 2 percent.

The state's Cannabis Regulatory Commission, the same organization that has overseen New Jersey's medical marijuana program since 2010, will lead regulatory efforts, but the extent of its powers will be decided by the state legislature.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy endorsed the amendment earlier this year — the only governor in the five states with cannabis on the ballot to do so. Murphy framed it as a matter of social equity with an added economic benefit. In the Garden State, someone is 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for a marijuana-related crime if they are black than if they are white; in 2018, marijuana made up for 55 percent of all drug related arrests in the state, with a total of 36,050 arrested.

South Dakota
Most states legalize medical marijuana use before introducing recreational use, but not South Dakota. Both recreational and medical cannabis were passed by state voters November 3.

Measure 26 will allow patients suffering from "debilitating medical conditions" to use medical marijuana. The ballot measure received overwhelming support, passing with 69.2 approval. Patient marijuana possession is capped at 3 ounces, and anyone growing cannabis for medical use must have a minimum of three plants.

Amendment A legalizing recreational cannabis use also passed, but on a narrower margin, with a 53.44 percent majority. Adults who are at least 21 can now posses up to 1 ounce of marijuana and three cannabis plants. Licensing for cannabis production and sales will be overseen by the South Dakota Department of Revenue, and products will be taxed at 15 percent. Revenue collected by cannabis regulation will cover administrative costs of cannabis legislation, and the remaining income will go to South Dakota public schools and the the state's general fund. However, local governments can opt out of any cannabis license types.

Push to relax drug laws gains big victories on state ballots

A nationwide push to relax drug laws took a significant step forward Tuesday as more states legalized marijuana for adults and voters made Oregon the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of street drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine

.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The drug measures were among 120 proposed state laws and constitutional amendments that were on the ballot in 32 states. They touched on an array of issues that have roiled politics in recent years — voting rights, racial inequalities, abortion, taxes and education, to name a few.

But none directly dealt with the dominant theme of 2020 — the coronavirus pandemic. That’s because the process to put measures on the ballot began, in most cases, before the virus surged to the forefront.

The Oregon drug initiative will allow people arrested with small amounts of hard drugs to avoid going to trial, and possible jail time, by paying a $100 fine and attending an addiction recovery program. The treatment centres will be funded by revenues from legalized marijuana, which was approved in Oregon several years ago.

“Today’s victory is a landmark declaration that the time has come to stop criminalizing people for drug use,” said Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which backed the measure.

The proposal was endorsed by the Oregon Democratic Party, as well as some nurses and physician associations. The Oregon Republican Party had denounced the drug decriminalization measure as radical, and some prosecutors called it reckless.

Oregon voters also approved a measure making the state the first to legalize the therapeutic use of psychedelic mushrooms.

Voters in New Jersey and Arizona approved measures legalizing marijuana for adults age 21 and older. In New Jersey, the Legislature now will have to pass another measure setting up the new marijuana marketplace. The Arizona measure also allows people convicted of certain marijuana crimes to seek expungement of their records. Passage signalled a change of attitudes, after Arizona voters there narrowly defeated a legal pot proposal in 2016.

Recreational marijuana measures also were ahead in the polls in Montana and narrowly leading in South Dakota. Separate medical marijuana initiatives passed in South Dakota and Mississippi.

A decade ago, recreational marijuana was illegal in all 50 states. Voters allowed it in Colorado and Washington in 2012, sparking a movement that already included 11 states and Washington, D.C., heading into Tuesday’s elections. Supporters hope additional victories, especially in conservative states, could build pressure for Congress to legalize marijuana nationwide.

Two states considered anti-abortion amendments with different results.

Louisiana voters passed a measure asserting there is no state constitutional right to abortion — something that could come into play if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

In Colorado, by contrast, voters defeated a measure to prohibit abortions after 22 weeks unless the pregnant woman’s life is endangered. Previous Colorado ballot initiatives to limit abortion also failed in 2008, 2010 and 2014.

Several states also were considering measures affecting voting rights.

Virginia voters passed a constitutional amendment taking power away from members of the Democratic-led Legislature to draw voting districts for themselves and members of Congress based on census results. It instead will create a bipartisan commission of lawmakers and citizens to develop a redistricting plan that the Legislature could approve or reject, but not change.

Virginia is the sixth state in the past two general election cycles to pass measures intended to prevent gerrymandering — a process in which politicians draw voting districts to benefit themselves or their political parties. Voters in Missouri, which passed a redistricting reform measure in 2018, voted Tuesday on whether to roll back key parts of it before it can be used next year.

The Missouri measure, which remained undecided in a close vote, would repeal a nationally unique model using a nonpartisan demographer to draw state House and Senate districts to achieve “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness.” Republicans who control the Legislature put forth a new ballot measure this year that would return redistricting duties to a pair of bipartisan commissions and drop “partisan fairness” and “competitiveness” to the end of the criteria.

In Florida, voters approved a measure gradually increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026. The measure puts Florida in line with at least seven other states — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — and Washington, D.C., which already have enacted laws to gradually boost the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

In Mississippi, voters approved a proposal for a new state flag with a magnolia design. The vote came after legislators in June ended the use of a flag bearing a Confederate battle emblem. In Rhode Island, whose official name is “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” residents in a close vote were deciding whether to eliminate the final three words, which some say evoke a legacy of slavery.

Tax proposals were on the ballot in more than a dozen states. Tobacco tax hikes passed in Colorado and Oregon. Colorado voters also approved a slight income tax cut. Still undecided were a proposed property tax increase on California businesses and higher income taxes on the wealthy in Illinois and Arizona. The additional tax revenue in Arizona would fund pay raises for teachers and other school personnel.

Another of the many California ballot issues would repeal a 1996 initiative that prohibits affirmative action programs granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, colour, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Selsky contributed to this report.

David A. Lieb, The Associated Press

It's Official: The US Is Out Of The Paris Climate Agreement

THE US IS THE SECOND-BIGGEST CARBON EMITTER IN THE WORLD. 

By Tom Hale 04 NOV 2020,


Today, the US officially exited the Paris Climate Agreement, leaving the world’s biggest climate change accords to go ahead without the participation of the planet's second-biggest carbon emitter.

The Trump administration formally submitted notification to the United Nations to officially start the US withdrawal process from the Paris Agreement in November 2019, after making the decision to leave in July 2017. Now, the paperwork has gone through and the US has exited the Paris Agreement as of November 4, 2020.

In accordance with the Agreement, a country cannot issue a notice of its withdrawal before three years after its start date, which was November 4, 2016, for the US, meaning November 4, 2020, was the earliest possible date the US could leave. This date coincidentally falls on the same day as the US Presidential election, although the move will remain regardless of the outcome of the election. That said, Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden has promised to rejoin the Agreement if elected.

The central aim of the Paris Agreement is to keep global rising temperatures from climate change “well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels” with the hopes to limit this to just 1.5°C (2.7°F). It sets out to achieve this by peaking greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and undertaking rapid reductions thereafter, primarily through each country setting voluntary and nationally determined emission targets. Of the 195 signatories (194 states and the European Union) that initially signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, 189 have now ratified the agreement. Along with the US, other countries that have not completed the formal process are Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, South Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen.

Without the US on board, the task of cutting global emissions will become substantially harder to achieve. The US is the world’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions after China, producing around 15 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emission.

"The formal withdrawal of the US today from the #ParisAgreement comes amidst a shifting tide of public support for urgent and far-reaching action to stop the climate crisis," the Climate Action Network tweeted on Wednesday. "Regardless of the current US administration's exit from the #ParisAgreement, it cannot undo the powerful movement for #climatejustice built by millions of people in the US and across the world, empowered by a renewed sense of international solidarity for a safe & just future."

President Trump’s argument for leaving the Agreement was that it was a “bad deal” for the US. Contributions are proportional and for the US, as one of the richest nations and the biggest emitters, it would prove costly. In July 2017, he said: “The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair to the United States. It is transferring coal jobs to foreign countries.”

However, a number of studies throw doubt on the claim that the Agreement is economically damaging, especially in the long run. Research has found

Add caption

that the economic ramifications of climate change – from shortened life spans to increased natural disasters like storms and wildfires – could see the global economy shrink 7 percent by the end of the century if we allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue business as usual. Other studies have shown that acting on climate change, rather than ignoring it, could save the world an estimated $20 trillion by 2100.

China, which is responsible for 26 percent of the world's carbon emissions, has announced it is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2060.

US formally exits Paris pact aiming to curb climate change

The move, long threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump and triggered by his administration a year ago, further isolates Washington in the world

The Associated Press
November 4, 2020

BERLIN (AP) — The United States on Wednesday formally left the Paris Agreement, a global pact forged five years ago to avert the threat of catastrophic climate change.

The move, long threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump and triggered by his administration a year ago, further isolates Washington in the world but has no immediate impact on international efforts to curb global warming.

There are 189 countries that remain committed to the 2015 Paris accord, which aims to keep the increase in average temperatures worldwide “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), ideally no more than 1.5C (2.7 F), compared to pre-industrial levels. A further six countries have signed, but not ratified the pact.

Scientists say that any rise beyond 2 degrees Celsius could have a devastating impact on large parts of the world, raising sea levels, stoking tropical storms and worsening droughts and floods.

The Paris accord requires countries to set their own voluntary targets for reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. The only binding requirement is that nations have to accurately report on their efforts.

A makeshift globe burns in front of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2020. (AP Photo/Michael Probst)

The United States is the world’s second biggest emitter after China of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide and its contribution to cutting emissions is seen as important, but it is not alone in the effort. In recent weeks, China, Japan and South Korea have joined the European Union and several other countries in setting national deadlines to stop pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has said he favors signing the U.S. back up to the Paris accord

The German government said it was “highly regrettable” that the United States had left the pact.

“It’s all the more important that Europe, the EU and Germany lead by example,” said government spokesman Steffen Seibert, citing the EU’s goal of becoming the first climate neutral continent by 2050.

While the Trump administration has shunned federal measures to cut emissions, Seibert noted that U.S. states, cities and businesses have pressed ahead with their own efforts.

Cooperation vs. Competition: What Do You Want in Your Mutual Fund?

30-Oct-2020 by University of Virginia Darden School of Business


INSIGHTS FROM: Richard B. Evans

WRITTEN BY: Simon Constable

Newswise — Veteran investor Charlie Munger once quipped, “Show me the incentive, and I'll show you the outcome.” Put simply, what metrics an employer uses to determine performance pay will likely have a profound effect on the way employees behave. In turn, that impacts how companies perform.

A recently published study of mutual fund managers’ performance shows how Munger’s thought comes to life in the real world of finance. And it demonstrates that significantly different outcomes occur when employees get paid to compete against each other — versus when they are compensated for cooperating.

SO WHAT’S THE BEST METHOD?

The best answer will depend on the goals of the company, says Darden Professor Rich Evans, who recently co-authored a paper on the matter in the Journal of Financial Economics. The overall findings of the research have far-reaching implications that go beyond the world of finance.

Mutual fund companies that encourage competition between employees tend to have a higher portion of star funds, according to the paper “Competition and Cooperation in Mutual Fund Families.” Evans conducted the research with Melissa Porras Prado of the Nova School of Business and Economics and Rafael Zambrana of the University of Notre Dame.

Not only did the competitively minded firms have more star funds, they had higher average fund performance. The overall fund performance in a family of funds would be higher when fund managers were pitted against each other in a competition to perform the best.

However, encouraging competition between employees came with a downside. There was a higher variation in fund returns: The difference in investment returns between the best and worst performers was wider than when companies encouraged cooperation between employees.

The research also showed that firms that fostered cooperation had more cross-trading and cross-holdings of securities, and they tended to have more stable cash flows, the study explains.

A SLEW OF DATA

To make these findings, the authors analyzed a slew of data. They looked at returns on five distinct types of mutual funds over the period 1992 to 2015. Specifically, those types of funds were: those that managed domestic stocks, non-U.S. stocks, domestic bonds, non-U.S. bonds and balanced portfolios with multiple asset classes held. They then dug deep into how the portfolio managers got paid. Statistics on expenses, fund returns and portfolio turnover were analyzed, as was the level of cross-holdings between mutual funds in the same fund family.

The authors also constructed a competitive index, which measures how the incentives encouraged higher or lower levels of competition. The authors found that higher competitive indexes correlated with higher performance of the funds, and vice versa.

SO WHY COOPERATE?

With Wall Street’s reputation for fierce competition, why would a finance leader choose a cooperative approach rather than a competitive one?

“If the objective is to maximize the overall value of an investment adviser, coordinated action among fund managers may be an important tool to accomplish this objective,” the report states. The study found that “cooperative incentives were associated with lower volatility,” in advisory fees. These fees form the revenue of the company. And investors tend to view stable cash flow favorably.

So which compensation system is better? “That question is valid for any organization,” Evans says. “Do you want everyone competing or do you want them cooperating?” In the case of fund companies, Evans says the questions come down to who the clients are and how big the organization is.

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT INVESTORS

Evans notes that for institutional clients, a competitive approach makes sense because sophisticated institutional investors are interested in gaining access to the skill and acumen of an individual fund manager. For instance, a pension fund might want to invest with a particular fund because its manager has a history of superior performance. Institutional investors have the expertise to be able to discern which managers are better than others, Evans explains.

Contrast that with a financial advisory firm whose clients are individuals. “Cooperative [fund] families ... are more likely to manage retail investor assets,” the research paper says. The demand for mutual funds from individual investors is less sensitive to the performance of the investment. Instead, other characteristics, such as the relationship with a financial adviser, may hold more sway.

Size matters also when it comes to which compensation system to use. In smaller companies, there is less to be gained by cooperation. The individual fund managers may each have investment specialties that do not overlap. And therefore the scope for gains for working cooperatively are lessened. However, with larger organizations, there are certainly gains to be had from cooperation, Evans explains. That's because even what may seem like a small advantage in performance with one manager may mean a gain that can multiply many times over when a company has a large array of fund offerings.

IMPLICATIONS

These findings are also relevant outside the mutual fund world. The competition element is relevant in the sales world in which individuals’ skills can make a big difference in how many dollars they bring in from customers. A good example might be a real estate sales professional with specific knowledge of a local market.

The size element is also applicable to other industries. A massive automobile company spanning multiple continents would surely benefit from cooperation between departments. Even small efficiency gains in one factory can quickly be shared across the company and benefit the entire organization, ultimately boosting profits significantly. “Cooperative incentives work when you are big, because you have so many sources for possible improvement that can be shared widely across the organization,” Evans says.

Richard B. Evans co-authored “Competition and Cooperation in Mutual Fund Families, which appeared in the Journal of Financial Economics, with Melissa Porras Prado of the Nova School of Business and Economics and Rafael Zambrana of the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business.

Teens who participate in extracurriculars, get less screen time, have better mental health
3-Nov-2020 12:10 PM EST, by University of British Columbia
favorite_border


A new study from UBC researchers finds that teens, especially girls, have better mental health when they spend more time taking part in extracurricular activities, like sports and art, and less time in front of screens.

The study, published in the journal Preventive Medicine, found that spending less than two hours per day of recreational screen time (such as browsing the internet, playing video games, and using social media) was associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and optimism, and lower levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms, especially among girls, the researchers found. Similarly, extracurricular participation was associated with better mental health outcomes.

"Although we conducted this study before the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings are especially relevant now when teens may be spending more time in front of screens in their free time if access to extracurricular activities, like sports and arts programs is restricted due to COVID-19," says the study's lead author Eva Oberle, assistant professor with the Human Early Learning Partnership in the UBC school of population and public health. "Our findings highlight extracurricular activities as an asset for teens' mental wellbeing. Finding safe ways for children and teens to continue to participate in these activities during current times may be a way to reduce screen time and promote mental health and wellbeing."

Data for this study was drawn from a population-level survey involving 28,712 Grade 7 students from 365 schools in 27 school districts across B.C. The researchers examined recreational screen time such as playing video games, watching television, browsing the internet, as well as participating in outdoor extracurricular activities such as sport and art programs after school. They then compared its association with positive and negative mental health indicators.

Highlights of the study's findings include the following:

Adolescents who participated in extracurricular activities were significantly less likely to engage in recreational screen-based activities for two or more hours after school

Taking part in extracurricular activities was associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and optimism, and lower levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms
Longer screen time (more than two hours a day) was associated with lower levels of life satisfaction and optimism, and higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms

Differences among boys and girls, with longer screen time negatively affecting girls' mental health more significantly than boys

Among both boys and girls, however, mental health was strongest when teens both participated in extracurricular activities and spent less than two hours on screen time


Oberle says further research is needed to examine why the negative effects of screen time were more detrimental for girls than for boys. She also hopes to focus future research on the effects of different types of screen time.

"We do know that some forms of screen time can be beneficial, like maintaining connections with friends and family members online if we cannot see them in person, but there are other types of screen time that can be quite harmful," she says. "There are many nuances that are not well understood yet and that are important to explore."

SEE ORIGINAL STUDY

New Report: Trump Administration Wrong About or Exaggerated Deregulation Claims

3-Nov-2020  by Rutgers University-New Brunswick

Rutgers scholar Stuart Shapiro is available to comment on a new report that finds many major claims by the Trump administration about deregulation are wrong or exaggerated.

“The reality is that the Trump administration has done less deregulating than regulating and its deregulatory actions have not achieved any demonstrable boost to the economy,” said Shapiro. “They not only exaggerated the positive effects of deregulation, it too often has ignored or downplayed the negative consequences. The adverse effects could be substantial for the consumers, workers and patients who depend on regulations for important protections—and for a planet facing the ravages of climate change.”

“It is far too early to assess the overall impact of this administration’s deregulatory push. But our research suggests at least the following is true: The Trump administration has been more effective at deceiving the public about its achievements than in actually using deregulation to boost the economy.”

To view the full report, click here.

Shapiro is a professor and associate dean of faculty at Rutgers’ Bloustein School of Public Policy. He is an expert on federal and state regulating powers and a former policy analyst at the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He previously worked at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

The report, Deregulatory Deceptions: Reviewing the Trump Administration’s Claims About Regulatory Reform, is co-authored by Shapiro and Cary Coglianese and, Natasha Sarin of University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Tragedy as English Derby winner put down at Melbourne Cup

 November 3, 2020 By Agence France-Presse

Anthony Van Dyck, seen enjoying a sand roll after a gallop on Monday

 PAT SCALA RACING PHOTOS/AFP

English Derby winner Anthony Van Dyck was euthanized Tuesday after breaking down during the Melbourne Cup, the seventh horse since 2013 to die at the race.

The five-year-old Irish stallion pulled up lame on the home straight with star jockey Hugh Bowman, who rode super-mare Winx, dismounting uninjured and a horse ambulance called.

“It is with sadness that we confirm that Anthony Van Dyck had to be humanely euthanised after sustaining a fractured fetlock during the running of the Melbourne Cup,” said Racing Victoria’s Jamie Stier.

“The horse received immediate veterinary care, however he was unable to be saved due to the nature of the injury sustained.”

His death is a massive blow to trainer Aidan O’Brien, with Anthony Van Dyck one of the best credentialed European horses to travel to Australia in recent times.

It also soured what was already an unusual edition of the Melbourne Cup, which was raced behind closed doors for the first time because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Winner of the 2019 English Derby, Anthony Van Dyck was runner-up in the Caulfield Cup this year and was one of the pre-race favorites at Flemington despite weight concerns.

It is the seventh horse to perish at the Melbourne Cup since 2013, with the most recent — Cliffsofmoher, two years ago — also from the O’Brien stable.

Social media reacted with horror.

“Watch the racing fanatics try to bend over backwards to justify this,” said one Twitter user, while another added sarcastically: “The sport of kings, all in the name of fun.”

Racing Victoria’s Stier pointed to research underway aimed at the early detection and prevention of bone injuries in thoroughbred racehorses.

“This research is being undertaken to reduce the incidence of fatal racing injuries such as that sustained during the running of the Melbourne Cup today,” he said.

© 2020 AFP

Signs & symptoms of a broken fetlock on a horse

https://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7766508_signs-symptoms-broken-fetlock...

2020-07-14 · When a veterinarian diagnoses a horse with a broken fetlock, it is generally one of the sesamoid bones, adjacent to the fetlock joint, which is actually broken. Fractured sesamoids often occur after long runs carrying heavy weight. A horse will usually suffer from immediately lameness upon fracturing the sesamoid.

Fetlock Lameness –

 It’s importance…

Fetlock Lameness

– It’s importance and how MRI 

can assist in making the difficult diagnosis

Dr Robin Bell and Professor Leo Jeffcott
Equine Performance and Imaging Centre,
University of Sydney Veterinary Teaching Hospital Camden.

Lameness involving the fetlock joint is an all too common problem in performance horses and racehorses. Injuries to this region may involve the joint itself or the surrounding soft tissues, and are often determined by the use of the horse. The fetlock is a complicated high motion joint that is always subjected to huge forces and stresses during locomotion. The classic movie pictures of the American photographer Eadweard Muybridge taken over 120 years ago (pictured above) clearly show the degree of extension of the fetlock during galloping in the horse. The structures most commonly damaged in fetlock injuries are illustrated.

The good news is that many fetlock problems are fairly simple to diagnose. As we have described in the previous two articles, lameness can be localised to the fetlock by careful clinical examination (i.e. palpation), evaluation of gait (especially under saddle), response to flexion tests (figure 3) and nerve blocks or desensitisation of the joint itself.

FETLOCK DISORDERS

A full list of the potential causes of fetlock lameness is shown in Table 1, but there are three broad categories of conditions that can affect the fetlock:

1) Acute or repetitive injuries that do not involve a fracture, these include osteoarthritis, inflammation within the fetlock joint itself (synovitis, capsulitis) or the ligaments supporting it, and injury to the bones without fracture such as inflammation of the sesamoid bones (sesamoiditis).

2) Fragments within the joint that can be removed surgically via keyhole surgery (arthroscopy) whether developmental (osteochondrosis type lesions) or traumatic (such as chip fractures or small sesamoid fractures).

3) Major fractures involving the joint such as condylar fractures of the cannon bone, or fractures of the long pastern bone.

By far the most common conditions affecting the fetlock are those that fall under the umbrella of injuries that do not involve a fracture. The diagnosis of these problems follows the same basic steps as outlined in our previous two articles, with examination by a vet, localisation with nerve blocks and the use of diagnostic aids. As the fetlock is a high motion joint, even relatively mild arthritis can adversely affect performance. These horses will generally have evidence of disease on x-rays such as bone spurs or flattening of the condyles of the cannon bone, but in early disease the changes may only be visible with MRI. Treatment for this condition involves rest, in combination with joint injections. Low dose corticosteroids in combination with hyaluronic acid (a joint ‘lubricant’) are very effective in controlling the inflammation within the joint and alleviating lameness. Many horses that do not respond to this treatment will respond favourably to intra-articular injection of a product called IRAP®. This product amplifies the horses own, naturally occurring anti-inflammatory mediator which is then re-injected into the joint. IRAP® reportedly shuts down the inflammatory pathway before it starts to do damage to the cartilage within the joint. Regenerative medicine products such as stem cells and PRP (platelet rich plasma) injected directly into the joint are promising new products for the treatment of fetlock joint arthritis, but to date there is no good evidence to show that they are actually efficacious in the treatment of arthritis.

Suspensory ligament branch desmitis

is another very common injury of the fetlock region and is most often seen in horses that compete in eventing, although it can occur in any performance horse. This condition involves a tear or strain of the suspensory ligament where it branches onto the bones at the back of the fetlock joint (sesamoid bones). These tears can be seen on an ultrasound examination, and horses may often have swelling over the affected branch, that may be hot or painful to touch. Suspensory branch desmitis, responds well to rest and controlled exercise. In cases with a discrete hole within the ligament, injection of stem cells, or other regenerative medicine products show real promise in speeding healing, and decreasing the rate of re-injury.

Radiograph showing chip fracture in the fetlock joint of a young racehorse, and the view of the chip at arthroscopic surgery

Chip fractures or fragments within the fetlock joint are generally best removed surgically via arthroscopy. If the chips are within the joint they can cause damage to the cartilage surfaces, and promote inflammation which can lead to arthritis. It is possible to keep a horse in work and sound even in the presence of chip fractures, but this often hastens the onset of osteoarthritis, and may cause the horse to remain lame even if the chips are removed surgically at a later time.

Major fractures involving the fetlock joint are most common in racehorses, although jumping and dressage horses can develop simple fractures of the cannon bone or long pastern bone. These simple fractures can often be repaired very successfully using screws to compress the fracture line and restore congruency to the joint. More serious fractures that have multiple fragments carry a very poor prognosis. Fusing the fetlock joint is an option in these cases, but results in persistent lameness, and animals with a fused fetlock joint are only able to be used as paddock animals.

Straight and oblique sesamoidean ligament desmitis

Injury to the ligaments at the bottom of the sesamoid bones (straight and oblique distal sesamoid ligaments- Fig 2.) in the fetlock is now being recognised as a major cause of lameness particularly in jumping horses. These injuries can be diagnosed on the basis of an ultrasound scan, but this is a difficult region to scan, because of the anatomy of the bottom of the fetlock. Again MRI can help to aid in the diagnosis of such injuries, and may also allow some insight into the progression of healing during the rehabilitation period. The prognosis for distal sesamoidean ligament injury is generally good, given appropriate rest and rehabilitation. As with suspensory ligament branch injuries, injection with regenerative medicine products is showing some promise as a helpful adjunctive therapy in these horses.

The place for MRI

Unfortunately there are cases where establishing a diagnosis of fetlock lameness cannot be readily achieved with clinical examination, x-rays, ultrasound and nerve blocks. In these cases MRI can be an extremely useful diagnostic tool. What we would now like to do is to inform you of the potential benefits of MRI in three ways; 1) what MRI can detect for us, 2) provide a case report where MRI was essential in making the correct diagnosis and 3) report some preliminary research that will assist future cases of fetlock injury.

Nuclear scintigraphy and x-ray of a horse with a condylar fracture. Arrows indicate the region affected and the fracture line.

1. MRI basics

MRI uses a magnetic field and radiofrequency pulses to generate an image based upon magnetic properties of the hydrogen ions within the body part being imaged. There are many different pulses that can be used to highlight specific tissue types and disease processes, additionally it has the advantage that images can be obtained in any plane or orientation. MRI provides exquisitely detailed soft tissue images and provides information about subtle pathology within joints, tendons and ligaments. This can be of particular use in cases where other diagnostic modalities such as x-rays, ultrasound or bone scan have not provided a specific diagnosis, or more information about the problem is needed. This is allowing us to accurately diagnose, and more effectively treat a wide range of conditions, thus returning these horses to performance faster than without such targeted treatment.

MRI pictures from normal horses’s fetlock (red arrow – cannon bone, white arrow – long pastern bone, blue arrow – flexor tendons). Note the multiple imaging planes and amount of bony, joint and soft tissue definition. Compare these normal images to those in the case report below.

2. Case report using MRI:

A good example of the benefits of using MRI in cases where other more traditional methods do not provide an answer is illustrated below. The horse in question had a lameness that was able to be localised to the fetlock joint with nerve blocks, but there were no significant changes present on x-rays or ultrasound of the region. Medication of the joint with intra-articular corticosteroids and hyaluronate and a period of rest did not improve the lameness significantly. MRI scans of the fetlock showed a very significant area of bone bruising. After a further period of rest, and treatment with a class of drugs called bisphosphonates the horse was able to return to full work without lameness.



MRI images of the same horse which revealed evidence of significant bone bruising (white area of bone in image (b) as indicated by arrows. This bone brushing can be treated with drugs called bisphosphonates, and generally does not respond to intra-articular medications. There was no evidence of cartilage defects or other joint damage and this horse successfully returned to work.

3. MRI Research

Here at the University Veterinary Teaching Hospital Camden we are using the MRI to investigate this so-called bone bruising in young racehorses (condylar disease), as this often occurs in the condyles at the bottom of the cannon bone, and may be a precursor to catastrophic fractures in that region. If detected early with the aid of MRI these horses can be treated, and return to work without the risk of such a devastating and life threatening injury developing. We have an ongoing project to examine the fetlocks of racehorses that have had to put down for other reasons. We are comparing the MRI pictures with histopathological specimens at the microscopic level, the results of this study will be published in the scientific literature.

Flexion tests and evaluating the horse under the saddle are both important steps to aid in the localisation of lameness to the fetlock.

CONCLUSION

We hope that you will see from the information presented in this article that lameness involving the fetlock region can be caused by a wide range of very different conditions. Although the diagnosis of these conditions is often relatively simple, advanced diagnostic modalities such as MRI or nuclear scintigraphy may be necessary in order to ensure that an accurate diagnosis is reached, thereby maximising the chances of returning your horse to full performance.



Still images taken from Muybridge’s original sequence of photographs to illustrate the individual phases of the gallop. Note the amount of extension of the fetlock in a normal horse at the gallop, with the back of the fetlock almost hitting the ground. This is an excellent illustration of the stresses that this region is placed under in performance horses.

This article first appeared in the May 2011 issue of THM.

This entry was posted in Horse Health & Rider Fitness and tagged Dr Robin Bell, Fetlock Lameness, horse health, Professor Leo Jeffcott by horsemagazine. Bookmark the permalink.

Fossil poop shows fishy lunches from 200 million years ago
3-Nov-2020 by University of Bristol



Marie Cueille, and Palaeobiology Research Group, University of Bristol.

CT scan of coprolite specimen, BRSMG Cf15546, in different views, showing tuberculated bone (blue) from a fish skull, and two vertebrae from the tail of the marine reptile Pachystropheus, in yellow and green.

Newswise — A new study of coprolites, fossil poop, shows the detail of food webs in the ancient shallow seas around Bristol in south-west England. One hungry fish ate part of the head of another fish before snipping off the tail of a passing reptile.

Marie Cueille, a visiting student at the University of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences, was working on a collection of hundreds of fish poops from the Rhaetian bone bed near Chipping Sodbury in South Gloucestershire, dated at 205 million years ago.

She applied new scanning technology to look inside these coprolites and found an amazing array of food remains.

Marie said: “The ancient fishes and sharks of the Rhaetian seas were nearly all carnivores. Their coprolites contain scales, teeth, and bones, and these tell us who was eating whom. In fact, all the fish seem to have been snapping at each other, although the general rule of the sea probably applied: if it's smaller than you, eat it.”

The CT scans of one tiny coprolite, measuring only a centimetre or so in length, contained only three bones, one a highly tuberculated skull bone of another fish, and two vertebrae from the tail of a small marine reptile called Pachystropheus.

Dr Chris Duffin, who collaborated on the project added: “This shark probably snapped at another fish or scavenged some flesh from the head region of a dead fish. But it didn’t just strip off the flesh but swallowed great chunks of bone at the same time. Then it snapped at a Pachystropheus swimming by and had a chunk of its tail.”

Professor Mike Benton, who co-supervised the study, said: “What amazed us was that the bones and scales inside the coprolites were almost completely undamaged. Today, most predators that swallow their prey whole, such as sharks, crocodiles or killer whales, have powerful stomach acids that dissolve the bone away. These ancient fishes must have had a painful time passing their faeces which were absolutely bristling with relatively large chunks of bone.”

The researchers also identified for the first time some coprolites of crabs and lobsters, so this completes the food web. The marine reptiles and sharks were feeding on smaller fishes, which in turn fed on even smaller fishes and lobsters. Some also had crushing teeth adapted to feeding on oysters and other molluscs.

Marie Cueille and Mike Benton.

Food web for the Rhaetian, 205 million years ago, of the Bristol region. The arrows show who eats whom, and red and black means inferred, and blue arrows are based on evidence from coprolites.

The study has a classical resonance as well, because Rhaetian coprolites from bonebeds near Bristol were some of those studied by William Buckland (1784–1856) in the 1820s when he invented the name ‘coprolite’. Buckland was Professor of Geology at Oxford University, but also Dean of Christ Church, and known for his unusual eating habits. Possibly his interest in eating exotic animals (he would serve his guests roasted dormice or potted panther but declared that moles and house flies were inedible) gave him an interest in animal diets.

Buckland pioneered the use of coprolites to reconstruct ancient food webs. He also collected specimens from the Jurassic around Lyme Regis, and many were supplied by famous fossil collector Mary Anning (1799–1847). Buckland even had these larger coprolites cut across and set into the top of a table, which was highly polished and doubtless formed a conversation opener during lunch and tea parties in the Dean’s lodgings.

The new work also sheds light on the Mesozoic Marine Revolution, the time when marine ecosystems modernised. The coprolites from Bristol show a complex, modern-style ecosystem with lobsters, bony fishes, sharks and marine reptiles at the top of the food web. Reconstructing the timing of the event is of current interest, and the new work suggests the process began earlier than had been thought.

Paper:

‘Fish and crab coprolites from the latest Triassic of the UK: from Buckland to the Mesozoic Marine Revolution’ by M. Cueille, E. Green, C.J. Duffin, C. Hildebrandt, and M. J. Benton in Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association

 (doi: 10.1016/j.pgeola.2020.07.011).