COPS VS WHITE MILITIA

Seizing military weapons does not increase violent crime nor risk police safety

Date December 7, 2020

Contact: Jared Wadley jwadley@umich.edu

More local law enforcement agencies are using military equipment, such as tear gas, armored vehicles and rubber bullets, to handle social justice protests—calling into question police militarization.

But if police no longer used weapons and tactics previously connected to the military, there is little evidence that this would impact violent crime or officer safety, according to a new University of Michigan study.

In fact, previous data analyses supporting officers taking on the appearance and using weapons like soldiers as a crime-reduction method are unreliable, said U-M researcher and study author Kenneth Lowande. The data problems also impact studies that claim military equipment make police more violent.

In a report published today in Nature Human Behaviour, Lowande examined the substantial limitations of data used to analyze the effects of transferring surplus military equipment, or SME, to law enforcement.

Federal authorities have subsidized weapons and equipment acquisition, but limitations in record keeping about these transfers have rendered studies of their effects not credible, he said. The current study examined 3.8 million archived federal inventory records to gauge the reliability in these other studies.

During a typical three-month period, more than 15,000 controlled items vanish from agency inventories and more than 4,000 are received for transfer, the study indicated.

Lowande, U-M assistant professor of political science, compared this data to data collected when the Obama administration recalled SME in 2015, which resulted in a forced demilitarization of several hundred police departments. Proponents of SME transfers, as well as the Trump administration, say that demilitarization would lead to an increase in violent crime, but that’s now what Lowande found.

“When you examine crime and officer safety statistics in these demilitarized departments and compare them to similar departments that weren’t impacted, you find essentially no differences,” said Lowande, a faculty associate at the Center for Political Studies at U-M’s Institute for Social Research.

“I find little to no evidence that demilitarization had an impact on violent crime or officer safety. Put differently, contrary to the claims of those who support the transfer of equipment, these data do not support the conclusion that militarization saves lives—or that demilitarization risks them.”

More information:
Study: Police demilitarization and violent crime
Kenneth Lowande

UK

Labour should fight for proper sick pay to help get control of the virus

Richard Burgon @RichardBurgon is MP for Leeds East 

and secretary of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs.

OPINION 8th December, 2020

After an incredibly bleak year, the coronavirus vaccines offer a ray of hope that 2021 can bring a return of something resembling normality. But it will be many months before the vaccines have been distributed widely. Until then, Labour needs to step up its opposition to force the government to adopt a new strategy. We can’t go on with months more of the government’s reckless approach. That has already led to tens of thousands of avoidable deaths and one of the deepest downturns of any major economy.

One figure above all underlines just how deep the government’s recent failures have been. In the three months since September 6th, there have been 19,700 UK Covid deaths. This second wave was caused by the government prematurely telling people to go out and spend, get back to school and to workplaces over the late summer.

Countries that instead followed a suppression strategy – known as zero Covid – have driven the virus and deaths down to very low levels. Their economies are doing better as a result. For example, in the past three months, Vietnam, Thailand, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Australia have suffered a combined total of fewer than 400 deaths, despite their total population being four times larger than that of Britain.

Yet the Tory government simply refuses to learn the lessons. By taking its foot off the brake over the coming weeks, its tier system risks a third wave of the virus, while the other core element of its strategy is to rely on mass testing to get us through to a time when vaccines have been widely distributed.

So far its testing system has squandered billions of pounds and failed to reach anywhere near enough of the contacts of those infected. Over 500,000 close contacts have been missed by the system in the last month alone. That’s why Labour has been right to call for Serco and the other failing private contractors to be booted out of the Test and Trace system. The NHS and local public health experts must be put in charge.

But getting testing and tracing right is simply not enough. Test and trace is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. It is the first stage in getting infected people and their contacts to isolate. But if people can’t then afford to isolate, then they simply won’t.

This virus thrives on poverty and inequality. Without proper support, many people from disadvantaged groups – who could be the sole breadwinners in their families – may simply avoid these tests for fear of the economic impact of being found to be positive.

Nobody should have to decide whether to protect their health or put food on the table. But our current level of statutory sick pay forces many people to do just that. At just £96 per week, UK statutory sick pay is among the lowest in Europe.

The TUC estimates that it is equal to just one-fifth of the average worker’s weekly earnings. Moreover, nearly two million low-paid workers are entirely excluded from statutory sick pay because they earn less than the £120 a week threshold.

Under pressure, the government has introduced a one-off £500 support grant to some self-isolating. Yet not only is the level of support far too low, only one in eight workers qualify for it. Strict eligibility criteria mean that more than half of people applying for it are rejected in some coronavirus hotspots. Some local councils are reported to be turning people away because the government’s funding is on the verge of being exhausted.

The TUC is calling for statutory sick pay to be increased to real living wage levels and for the removal of the requirement that recipients earn over £120 per week. This demand should be at the heart of Labour’s response to Covid.

Last week I voted against the government’s measures both because they risk a deadly third wave and because they fail to give people the economic support needed. It would have been better to use the weeks to Christmas to extend the lockdown to get the virus down to much more manageable levels. That would give Test and Trace a fighting chance of succeeding.

I was especially disappointed during that vote that our party didn’t use its parliamentary weight to try to force concessions on sick pay. Had Labour threatened to vote against the package without proper sick pay, it could have won both public support and important extra support for those who need to isolate. Bold opposition to the government’s failing coronavirus strategy is certainly in the national interest – and the demand for proper sick pay should be at the core of our opposition over the coming months.

LABOURLIST

View all articles by Richard Burgon

Tags: Trade Unions / Coronavirus / Statutory sick pay / TUC

USA

Sanders Leads Senate Demand for $1,200 Stimulus Checks Over 'Get-Out-of-Jail Free Card' for Corporations

"The American people need help and they need help now."

by

Jake Johnson, staff writer

 Published on Tuesday, December 08, 2020 

by

Common Dreams

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a protest at the U.S. Capitol on October 22, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Care In Action)

Rejecting the bipartisan coronavirus relief plan currently under negotiation on Capitol Hill as "totally inadequate," Sen. Bernie Sanders and five Democratic senators circulated a letter Tuesday calling on their fellow lawmakers to join them in demanding the inclusion of another round of direct stimulus payments and the removal of all corporate-friendly poison pills.

"Simply stated, given the horrific extent of the current crisis and the desperation that working families all over this country are experiencing, this proposal does not go anywhere near far enough," reads the letter (pdf), which was coordinated by Sanders and backed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

"Please join us in demanding that any new Covid relief proposal includes a $1,200 direct payment to adults and $500 to their children."
—Letter

Noting that the bipartisan plan only calls for $348 billion in new funding—a far cry from the $2.2 trillion CARES Act Congress approved in March—and includes a "get-out-of-jail free card to companies that put the lives of their workers and customers at risk," the senators warn it "would be unacceptable to take a major step backwards" as coronavirus cases, hospitalizations, and deaths surge nationwide and economic conditions continue to deteriorate.

"Unlike the CARES Act... this proposal only provides a $300 supplement for unemployed workers rather than $600 a week," the lawmakers note. "Further, unlike the $1,200 direct payment for every working class individual and $500 for each child, it provides absolutely no direct payment."

The White House is urging Senate Republicans to push for the inclusion of $600 stimulus checks in the relief bill, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.

"The American people need help and they need help now," the senators' letter continues. "We agree with President-elect Biden that a $1,200 direct payment should be included in this proposal. We also feel strongly that we should not provide immunity to corporations who endanger the health and lives of their employees. Please join us in demanding that any new Covid relief proposal includes a $1,200 direct payment to adults and $500 to their children. Further, please work with us to make certain that there is no language in this bill to give a liability shield to corporations."

Growing progressive criticism of the bipartisan stimulus proposal first unveiled last week comes as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) demand for a five-year liability shield for corporations—a top priority of many congressional Republicans—is threatening to completely derail ongoing relief talks.

If lawmakers don't pass a legislative fix before the end of the year, dozens of key federal programs—including unemployment insurance, paid sick and family leave, and an eviction moratorium—will expire, leaving millions of Americans in the lurch.

Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president at consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement Tuesday that "unemployment insurance, aid for hospitals, and state and local assistance should not be held hostage to McConnell and the Senate Republicans' quest for corporate immunity."

"We are down to the wire as the opportunity to attach the stimulus to the end of year spending deal winds down," Gilbert added. "Lawmakers should continue to reject any package that includes this deadly corporate giveaway and move with haste to finish the negotiations."

Read the senators' full letter:

Dear Colleague:

As you know, the Covid-19 pandemic is surging throughout the country and is now causing more pain and havoc than at any time since it began. Last week, an average of almost 200,000 Americans a day were diagnosed with Covid-19 and, tragically, over 2,000 people are now dying every single day.

Further, as a result of the pandemic, we are now experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Over half of our workers are living paycheck to paycheck and one out of four workers are either unemployed or make less than $20,000 a year. In addition, 92 million Americans are uninsured or under-insured, tens of millions of people face eviction and hunger in America is exploding.

We very much appreciate the hard work that has gone into the current $908 billion proposal being drafted by a number of Democratic and Republican senators. But, simply stated, given the horrific extent of the current crisis and the desperation that working families all over this country are experiencing, this proposal does not go anywhere near far enough. In truth, rather than the $3.4 trillion which we Democrats called for in the HEROES Act, this bill only allocates $348 billion in new money according to one of the lead Republican negotiators. The remaining $560 billion are funds transferred from the CARES Act that have not yet been obligated.

Unlike the CARES Act, which we passed in March, this proposal only provides a $300 supplement for unemployed workers rather than $600 a week. Further, unlike the $1,200 direct payment for every working class individual and $500 for each child, it provides absolutely no direct payment.

Moreover, this proposal does nothing to address the healthcare crisis impacting tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford medical care and has totally inadequate financial assistance for the most vulnerable.

Further, despite long-time Democratic opposition, it is our understanding that this proposal may provide 100 percent legal immunity to corporations whose irresponsibility has led to the deaths of hundreds of workers. It would continue to provide a get-out-of-jail free card to companies that put the lives of their workers and customers at risk. In fact, the result of this proposal is that, through this liability provision, corporations will be encouraged to avoid implementing the common sense safety standards needed to protect workers and consumers—and make a bad situation worse.

We agree with the AFL-CIO and the 141 organizations who oppose providing this kind of immunity to corporations. According to a letter these groups sent to Senators on December 4th: "Granting immunity would make the country less safe at the exact moment when the Covid-19 pandemic is entering a new, dangerous phase."

Last March, with unanimous support in Congress, President Trump signed the $2 trillion CARES Act into law that provided a $600 a week supplement in unemployment benefits and a $1,200 direct payment to every working class adult, $500 per child and significant help for small businesses, states and cities. In October, as part of the negotiating process, the Trump administration and a bipartisan coalition in the House supported over $1.8 trillion in Covid relief that also included another $1,200 direct payment.

Given the enormity of the crisis today, it would be unacceptable to take a major step backwards from those previous efforts by passing legislation that only included $348 billion in new money.

The American people need help and they need help now. We agree with President-elect Biden that a $1,200 direct payment should be included in this proposal. We also feel strongly that we should not provide immunity to corporations who endanger the health and lives of their employees.

Please join us in demanding that any new Covid-relief proposal includes a $1,200 direct payment to adults and $500 to their children. Further, please work with us to make certain that there is no language in this bill to give a liability shield to corporations who threaten the health and safety of workers and customers.

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Sumatran orangutan born at Belgium's Pairi Daiza animal park

By Jack Guy, CNN 8 hrs ago

© Pairi Daiza Mathaï was born on November 28.Sumatran orangutan born at Belgium's Pairi Daiza animal park


An animal park in Belgium has welcomed the arrival of a critically endangered Sumatran orangutan.

The male orangutan, named Mathaï, was born on November 28 at Pairi Daiza animal park, spokesman Mathieu Goedefroy told CNN in a statement Tuesday.

He was conceived and born naturally, joining his father Ujian, mother Sari and brother Berani.

Berani is the only other orangutan born at the park. The sibling is four years older and is "showing great and positive interest in the new baby," said Goedefroy.

The brothers can expect to live up to 45 years and Mathaï will live with his family until around the age of 10, when he reaches adulthood and will have to find a female partner, Goedefroy said.

At that point experts from the European Endangered Species Program will study Mathaï's DNA and that of available female orangutans from around the world to find the best match.

"That way, we ensure a healthy offspring with the best possible genetic qualities, and thus maximizing the odds of survival for the species," said Goedefroy.

Two other adult orangutans at the park, named Gempa and Sinta, are expecting their first child in 2021, according to Goedefroy, who said the park's orangutan program "is going extremely well."

Pairi Daiza is home to a growing group of Sumatran orangutans, and Goedefroy said the park also funds reforestation projects in their main natural habitat.

Orangutans are critically endangered, facing deforestation of their rainforest habitat on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo, in Indonesia.

In the last three decades around 80% of irreplaceable orangutan habitat has been lost, according to wildlife charity Born Free, which reports that there are around 14,000 Sumatran orangutans left.

Pairi Daiza said it funds a reforestation program in Indonesia which planted more than 11,000 trees last year.

Sumatran orangutans are one of three identified species of orangutan. An estimated 45,000-69,000 Bornean orangutans are left, according to Born Free, and fewer than 800 Tapanuli orangutans.

This makes the Tapanuli orangutan, which was only identified in 2017, the rarest great ape in the world, Born Free adds. 

© Benoit Bouchez/Pairi Daiza Mathaï will live with his family until reaching adulthood around the age of 10.

In 'Huge Victory for Polar Bears and Our Climate,' Court Rejects Trump Approval of Offshore Drilling Project in Arctic

While welcoming the win, activists vowed to continue fighting against destructive oil and gas extraction in the region.

by

Jessica Corbett, staff writer 

Monday, December 07, 2020

by

Common Dreams

Polar bears stand on an ice floe in the Arctic Ocean. (Photo: Lev Fedoseyev/TASS via Getty Images)

Climate action advocates and wildlife defenders celebrated Monday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected the Trump administration's approval of Liberty, a proposed offshore oil-drilling project in federal Arctic waters that opponents warned would endanger local communities, animals, and the environment.

"In the face of a worsening climate crisis, the federal government should not be in the business of approving irresponsible offshore oil development in the Arctic."
—Jeremy Lieb, Earthjustice

"This is a huge victory for polar bears and our climate," declared Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "This project was a disaster waiting to happen that should never have been approved. I'm thrilled the court saw through the Trump administration's attempt to push this project through without carefully studying its risks."

Marcie Keever, legal director at Friends of the Earth, similarly applauded the ruling (pdf), saying that "thankfully, the court put the health of our children and our planet over oil company profits."

Both groups joined with fellow advocacy organizations Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace, and Pacific Environment for a lawsuit challenging the Hilcorp Alaska project, which was approved in 2018. The energy company planned to construct an artificial island, wells, and a pipeline along the Alaska coast in the Beaufort Sea.

Jeremy Lieb, an attorney at the nonprofit law organization Earthjustice, which represented the advocacy groups, praised the court for rejecting the administration's "inaccurate and misleading analysis of this project's impact to the climate." The court determined that the administration hadn't properly considered Liberty's climate impacts as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, specifically taking issue with an economic model claiming the project would benefit the climate.

"In the face of a worsening climate crisis, the federal government should not be in the business of approving irresponsible offshore oil development in the Arctic," Lieb said. "The world cannot afford to develop new oil prospects anywhere, but especially in the Arctic where warming is already taking such a significant toll."

"If we are going to create a just, green, and peaceful future, it must start with rejecting destructive projects like Liberty."
—Tim Donaghy, Greenpeace

Research has shown that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the world, which has devastating effects on its human and animal inhabitants—including caribou, polar bears, reindeer, and walruses—and the planet more broadly. As one expert put it last year: "What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic."

Calling the court ruling "a victory for the planet and its people," Greenpeace senior research specialist Tim Donaghy said that it "affirms that the U.S. must take steps to transition off of oil and gas if we are to have any hope of halting the climate crisis."

"If we are going to create a just, green, and peaceful future, it must start with rejecting destructive projects like Liberty," he explained, before referencing President-elect Joe Biden's win over President Donald Trump. Ahead of the November election, climate advocates had rallied around Biden while pushing him to embrace bolder policies.

"Climate action must happen now and the Biden administration needs to keep its promise to halt any new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters," Donaghy said.

In addition to the climate finding, the court also determined that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to sufficiently analyze Liberty's impact on polar bears, in violation of the Endangered Species Act—a decision that was welcomed by Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska program director at Defenders of Wildlife.

"Today's news is a victory for Alaska's imperiled polar bears that are threatened by oil and gas development throughout virtually all of their terrestrial denning critical habitat—in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and in the nearshore marine environment as well," she said, vowing to "continue our fight against destructive oil and gas drilling and for the survival of polar bears in the Arctic."

Despite the win for the region's polar bears in terms of offshore drilling, the animals are still threatened by the Trump administration's ongoing effort to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas extraction—despite opposition from local Indigenous people as well as environmentalists.

The administration on Monday proposed an "incidental harassment authorization" that would allow energy companies to disrupt polar bears while looking for oil and gas deposits. According to Reuters:

The Fish and Wildlife Service said that no polar bears are expected to be injured or killed during seismic operations, some of which are scheduled to take place next month, and expects disturbances to impact only a few bears.

But several veteran Arctic scientists and environmentalists in Alaska have warned against seismic operations—which can involve blasting to produce sonic images of underground formations. They argue the testing will upset wildlife and that the heavy machinery and activity involved in the work will damage tundra and speed up the thaw of permafrost.

As Monsell concluded: "The Trump administration seems determined to push polar bears further down the path to extinction before leaving office."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

As World Teeters on Brink, Over 250 Scientists and Scholars Warn of Full-Fledged 'Societal Collapse'

"It is time to invite each other into difficult conversations, so we can reduce our complicity in the harm, and be creative to make the best of a turbulent future."

by

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

A woman looks at the destruction in Haulover in the Northern Caribbean Autonomous Region, Nicaragua, on November 28, 2020, days after the passage of Hurricane Iota. (Photo: Inti Ocon/AFP via Getty Images)

More than 250 scientists and scholars from 30 countries have issued an open letter calling on policymakers to "engage more with the growing risk of societal disruption and collapse due to damage to the climate and environment," arguing that only then "might communities and nations begin to prepare and so reduce its likelihood, speed, severity, harm to the most vulnerable, and to nature."

The letter, a version of which appeared in The Guardian Sunday, comes on the heels of a pair of United Nations reports warning of the dire direction in which the planet is headed. As U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres put it: "The state of the planet is broken. Humanity is waging war on nature. This is suicidal."

This weekend, world leaders will hold the Climate Ambition Summit 2020 to mark the fifth anniversary of the Paris climate agreement. After failing in the years since then to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with that accord, the letter says, "we must now face the consequences."

While "some armed services already see collapse as an important scenario, requiring planning," the letter notes that "the topic is not well reported in the media, and mostly absent from civil society and politics," even though such collapse "is already the experience or memory of many communities in the Global South."

The U.K. arm of Extinction Rebellion shared pieces of the letter on Twitter with photos of climate activists around the world demanding urgent action:

Denouncing media coverage that "typically cites people who condemn discussion of the topic," the letter says that "ill-informed speculations, such as on foreign misinformation campaigns, or impacts on mental health and motivation, will not support serious discussion. Rather, such claims risk betraying the thousands of activists and community leaders whose anticipation of collapse is part of their motivation to push for change on climate, ecology, and social justice."

The letter continues:

People who care about environmental and humanitarian issues should not be discouraged from discussing the risks of societal disruption or collapse. That could risk agendas being driven by people with less commitment to such values.

Some of us believe that a transition to a new form of society may be possible. That will involve bold action to reduce damage to the climate, nature and other people, including preparations for major disruptions to everyday life. We are united in regarding efforts to suppress discussion of collapse as hindering the possibility of that transition.

"We have experienced how emotionally challenging it is to recognize the damage being done, along with the growing threat to our own way of life," the letter concludes. "We also know the great sense of fellowship that can arise. It is time to invite each other into difficult conversations, so we can reduce our complicity in the harm, and be creative to make the best of a turbulent future."

Signatories and supporters of the letter shared it on social media with the hashtag #scholarswarning, offering their summaries of what the letter calls for and detailing why they signed on to it.

"We're saying we must confront the real possibility of climate collapse so that we can do our utmost to avoid it," American climate scientist Peter Kalmus, a signatory to the letter, said in a tweet Sunday. "This is as far from 'doomerism' as you can get."

In a statement, University of Cumbria professor Jem Bendell, another signatory, explained that "we come from dozens of countries and subject disciplines and perceive a resistance by the establishment to serious engagement in adapting to the increasing disruptions to food, water, health, and the economy."

"It is time to listen to the scholarship," Bendell added, "and try to reduce harm from societal disruption and even collapse."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

AstraZeneca COVID vaccine shows positive results in Lancet study

Oxford University and AstraZeneca are the first vaccine makers to publish peer-reviewed results in a scientific journal. While they appear less promising than rival mRNA vaccines, it's a far cheaper and simpler serum.


The vaccine is seen as key to inoculating the developing world

The AstraZeneca-Oxford University coronavirus vaccine cleared a key hurdle Tuesday, as trial results published in the Lancet medical journal suggests the vaccine is safe and effective in an average 70% of participants.

The late-stage clinical trials were carried out in the United Kingdom, Brazil and South Africa and assessed vaccine safety in 23,745 participants, and protection against coronavirus in over 11,600 participants.

Vaccine awaits approval from regulators

However, it remains unclear if the results will lead to a green light from regulators in the UK and elsewhere.

Mene Pangalos, a research and development head at AstraZeneca, said that the vaccine maker would submit requests for regulatory approval around the world.

"We hope that once the regulatory authorities review the data, we can get approval any time from the completion of the submission, which could be any time from the end of this year to early next year," he said, adding the "compelling" results "clearly show" the vaccine is effective and meets criteria for regulatory approval.

Watch video 02:00
COVID-19 vaccinations: Who could be prioritized?

Important questions remain

In late November, AstraZeneca and Oxford announced that the vaccine was up to 70% effective on average, and that up to 90% of people could be protected if a lower dose was administrated ahead of a full dose.

However, scientists had been waiting for more detailed information on the vaccine trial results.

The Lancet results did not provide answers as to why the vaccine was 62% effective for participants given two full doses, but 90% for a smaller sub-group given a half, then a full dose

The findings "will require further research as more data becomes available from the trial," the study said.

Watch video 02:43
How the new COVID-19 vaccine is delivered to the world

Additionally, less than 6% of the UK participants were given the lower dosage, and none of them were over 55 years old, suggesting more research will be needed to determine the vaccine's efficacy in older people.
Important for the developing world

The announcement comes after the UK provided its first coronavirus inoculations on Tuesday. A 90-year-old woman received a the first dose of a vaccine developed by BioNTech and Pfizer, which was granted emergency approval by UK regulators last week. This vaccine, like a rival one by Moderna, claims a far higher efficacy rate, north of 90%.

However, both these vaccines are something of scientific firsts, using groundbreaking DNA editing technology. That makes the production process expensive, and means that they must be stored at - 70 degrees Celsius (- 94 Fahrenheit) at almost all times, which could make them practically unusable for countries with poorly developed medical facilities and infrastructure.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, which is being manufactured by India's Serum Institute, is seen as vital to stopping coronavirus in the developing world, as it is cheaper and easier to distribute.

Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, told a press briefing on Tuesday that a range of vaccines would be needed to end the pandemic.

"This really can't be a competition between developers, this has to be in competition against the virus," Pollard said.

With several promising vaccines being developed simultaneously in record time, open questions remain about them all, not least concerning how long-term any immunity they convey might be. More typical development phases, run over several years, tend to deliver a more complete picture of efficacy.

Watch video 00:36
Merkel stresses need for global cooperation to beat pandemic

wmr/msh (Reuters, AP, AFP)

COSPIRAZIONE D'ARTE INTERNAZIONALE

Climate change is a cultural issue as much as 

an environmental one

Markus Spiske via Unsplash

An interview with “Synthetic Messengers” creators Tega Brain, Simon David Hirsbrunner, and Sam Lavigne

Hannah Thomasy
Neuroscience
University of Washington
December 3, 2020

New Nature is ​​a series of encounters between contemporary artists, filmmakers, immersive and VR creators, technologists, and climate scientists from Canada, Germany, Mexico and the US. (The project is an initiative by the Goethe-Institut Montreal, realized with the support of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany.)

As the climate crisis continues to worsen, many scientists are searching for technologies to help us live more sustainably. But researchers and artists like Tega Brain, Simon David Hirsbrunner, and Sam Lavigne are approaching the problem from a different angle: what if the solution to climate change isn’t technological, but cultural? Their new project, Synthetic Messenger, part of the Goethe Institute’s New Nature series, examines how artificial intelligence can be used shift the narrative on climate change.

Tega Brain is an Assistant Professor of Integrated Digital Media, at New York University whose work re-imagines the relationship of technology and the environment. Simon David Hirsbrunner is a postdoctoral researcher at the Human-Centered Computing Research Group of Freie Universität Berlin examining how climate change research is represented. Sam Lavigne is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Design at UT Austin exploring surveillance, transparency, and policing.

The researchers spoke with Massive Science about the Synthetic Messenger project and the intersection of climate change, misinformation, and the media. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Tega Brain, you have a background in environmental engineering. Tell me a little bit about how that informs your work as an artist — how do you address the tensions between technology and the environment?

Tega Brain: I trained as a water engineer and worked in that industry for a few years. I felt like a lot of the work I was doing, although it was quite environmentally innovative — you know, as an engineer, you don’t really get to ask questions about why certain logics are in play. I felt like I was doing a lot of work to make, you know, big housing developments and questionable developments more palatable.

And so, I really started to get interested in issues in environmental engineering management but from a perspective of culture. How do we assess success and failure in these projects? What are the values that sit behind those priorities? Can we engage with issues of infrastructure and technology from just a more than exclusively human perspective — so what would it mean if we built infrastructures that also supported other life forms and the health of ecosystems rather than just the health of the human.

And I’m not talking about like Fox News, I’m talking about the New York Times.

But also Fox News!

And so, from that point, I’ve done a lot of work that questions technologies and engineering as a culture and tries to envisage other ways that we could build technologies. And more recently that’s been about data: the way that data-driven decision making and data-driven systems are having an increasing impact on our lives, both from an environmental perspective — so through like modeling and these sorts of ways of investigating and understanding the world but also more recently I’ve been doing a lot of work around the internet and the way that media is being transformed by, again, these data-driven logics. I collaborate with Sam a lot and a lot of that work that takes the form of interventions that try to reveal some of this and also provide glimpses of other ways the world could be.

Simon Hirsbrunner, a lot of the work you’ve done relates to data transparency and trust in science — how does that play into the Synthetic Messenger project?

Semon Hirshbrunner: So, I have a background in international relations, and I worked as a policy consultant for the German government. But I always had these side projects, working with artists and communicators on issues like sustainability and climate change. And I just got more interested in this aspect of the work and less about the diplomacy and policy aspects. So, I quit my work and I studied again — media studies.

And in my media studies I’m focusing more on this representational aspect of scientific work — so, how do scientists represent their work, visualize their work? And I focused on climate change modeling, for example those who are doing climate impact research. They are doing these huge computer models and simulations about climate change in the 21st century, so they have to imagine a whole world with climate change, within the next hundred years. And I found that super interesting because it’s not just about temperature increase or something like that, they really have to imagine new worlds, alternative worlds. And that also creates new challenges for trust, and for building trustworthy relationships with members of the public or different publics. I find that that artistic interventions are particularly interesting and needed to do this kind of mediation work from science to society.

Sam Lavigne, your work focuses on drawing attention to political forces that shape the different technologies that we use — can you talk a little bit more about that and how you’re bringing that to the current project?

Sam Levigne: I do a lot of work with web scraping, that’s one of the main tools that I use when I’m making projects. So, web scraping is when you write a program to browse the internet on your behalf. Instead of going to a website and clicking on every single page in it and copying and pasting, I can just write a program that does that for me and then that allows me to make these archives of different websites. It’s a really interesting technique, because it helps reveal truths that are hiding in plain sight. There’s a kind of notion that in order to understand how power works you might have to gain access to some kind of secret knowledge, but the idea of web scraping as an artistic or critical practice suggests that you can gain a lot of knowledge, not just knowledge in a normal sense but also kind of like poetic knowledge, of how power operates based on what it is itself telling us. So that’s one component of what I do and that’s definitely something I’ll bring into this project.

I’m really interested in this idea of reverse engineering specific technologies and imagining ways to repurpose them for other ends. So for example, if the police are using automated systems to predict where and when crime is going to happen in the city, and we know that those systems are fundamentally racist, that the police are fundamentally racist, can we build an alternative prediction system that either figures out where police are going to be so people can avoid those areas, or maybe looks for things that are not typically understood to be crime, like financial malfeasance. How can you take the tools that already exist and understand how they work and then alter their functionality to produce different political outcomes?

Much of the research that’s gotten a lot of attention lately is looking at technological solutions to climate change, but your group has a really different approach where you’re looking at climate change as a sociocultural problem. Can you talk about this approach and why you chose to look at it through that lens?

Tega Brain
Via Tega Brain

TB: I think that’s a massive challenge. A lot of the responses to climate change and now increasingly this emerging discourse around climate engineering, as speculative as that is or not, there’s this underlying desire for us to address the issue without actually having to change our lives at all. And I think the middle class has definitely propagated this. The issue tends to be framed in this very technical way. But if we look at where we are now, we do have to change. We do have to envisage other ways of living and [imagine other definitions] for what a good life is, that isn’t based on these gross narratives that have become so naturalized. This project came about from that point of view: what if we think about this issue as a problem of media, as a problem of narrative? And can we explore and address it from that perspective, rather than the classic engineering perspective which is, “yeah, we’ll engineer the world so that we can all just continue on in exactly the same way.”

SH: Of course, you have the natural world, but you also have climate change as a cultural phenomenon, but this actually comes together when everything becomes data and everything is treated as data and culture actually becomes engineerable. So we can engineer culture and that’s also one aspect of what I’m interested in getting into with Synthetic Messenger — because climate engineering is not just about manipulating natural systems but it will also be about engineering opinion, you know, which can be done on social networks and so on. And it is actually already engineered — when we look at the ad industry and how the ad industry [prioritizes] some content over others on climate change, creating controversy and so on.

Simon David Hirshbrunner

What some of the specific ways that media and social media have historically shaped the discourse around climate change and contributed to both the spread of information and misinformation?

SL: I think one thing that’s really important to note here before we even answer the question, the media landscape is super, super different in America, Australia, and, Germany. Although it’s probably not that different in American and Australia because the Murdoch influence is so strong in both of those countries.

Before we had this interview, we were just chatting with Simon about the different ways that climate is covered in the US and in Germany. And it’s extremely stark, the difference. In America, you won’t really see climate change mentioned, even in articles that are about climate change. So, if there’s an article about the fires in California, which are completely and obviously the result of climate change, you won’t necessarily see the phrase “climate change” mentioned in those articles. And I’m not talking about like Fox News, I’m talking about the New York Times.

TB: But also Fox News!

SL: Yes, especially Fox News, but also the New York Times. And of course, people at the New York Times, none of them are climate change deniers, it’s not about denialism. Well, it is about denialism but it’s not just about denialism. One of the things that I’m really interested in, and I think is a good way of thinking about problems in media in 2020, is how much of the media landscape is — even when you think that you’re more or less politically or ideologically aligned with a particular media organization — they’re still being driven fundamentally by market forces in what they what they cover and how they cover it.

And in a way they’re being driven by algorithmic forces also. So, there’s a value to every single article that’s written, and that value is determined by the number of quote unquote engagements — which could mean people who click on it on social media. But it also means, in a very crude, boring way, it means like how many ads were served from that particular article? Did people click on those ads, or did they not click on them? How much money did that article make? So, it’s both engagement — like how many people read it — but it’s also like how much wealth did that article produce? 

It’s not just Twitter — it’s YouTube’s recommendations...also, what search results come back to you on Google. Every platform is using this stuff

And then because of the increasing reliance on data, which pervades everything, certain topics seem to get moved to the forefront while others seem to get further buried. There’s a weird way in which, in certain organizations, editorial decisions are being outsourced to automated systems, and just more generally, to material realities, to market forces. This is one of the things that we’re going to be directly addressing the project and I think it’s something that makes our approach, perhaps a bit novel, in terms of a quote unquote geoengineering project.

TB: I think it’s been well discussed that misinformation has been very strategically deployed and promoted by lobby groups in the US and Australia — I can’t speak to Germany. It’d be hilarious if the situation wasn’t so dire but there’s all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories around like wind energy in Australia, like how it can give kids like learning disorders. These stories where you hear them and you’re like there can’t honestly be people creating media about these things.

I think it’s been well established that this has very much held up a lot of action because public opinion has been so split and the media landscape has been so chaotic around this and of course you can confirm any belief you have on YouTube. You’ll get someone who’s made a video about whatever position you’re sort of gravitating towards. So obviously with these sorts of media manipulation and misinformation, the role of media has been really central in how this issue has been addressed. And it’s also just such a shame that public opinion is what’s driving climate response.

SH: What I see in social media, and also recent social media discussions is that as climate change becomes more and more real, and the information we have about it becomes much more concrete, the controversy doesn’t stop, but it becomes much more related to people’s lives. So, for example, when we have all these risk assessments about sea level rise, and increase of flooding in coastal areas, and we see maps, for example, interactive maps online of sea level rise induced by climate change, that actually doesn’t reduce the controversy about it, but it just makes controversy much more connected to people’s daily lives. And that’s something that the media has to reflect on much more, that it’s actually connected to very personal stories of people and people have their own way of dealing with this information. They have to find new ways of dealing with this kind of information, it’s not that easy. It’s not just about believing or not believing. It doesn’t save if you, if you believe in it, you know?

In this project, tell me a little bit about how you envision how artificial intelligence could be used to shape people’s media experiences in relation to climate change?

TB: Artificial intelligence is already shaping people’s media experiences. I think that’s a given. I mean, we often pine for the days of just having a chronological timeline.

SL: So, in the US, there’s a lot of concern about misinformation during the election. And one of the things that Twitter is doing is they’re turning off their machine-learning based recommendation engine for what order you see the tweets in. Well, they’re not turning it off all the way but they’re dialing it down a little, as a weird admission on their part that the AI that they’re using to order the timeline and show you different tweets has been a problem this whole time.

So, the way that it works now is something to the effect of: their system tries to predict — they want you to stay on their website as long as possible — their system is trying to predict what tweets could you show this person, so that they will remain here for as long as humanly possible?

TB: And stay in that state of anxiety that keeps them scrolling.

SL: And so, intentionally or not, it ends up, promoting content that is radicalizing or that is filled with conspiracy theories.

TB: Or that’s just hyper-emotional, you know, people having sort of rant-y outbreaks on Twitter — that content really gets a lot of engagement.

SL: These systems are already mediating so much of our social realities right now. It’s not just Twitter — it’s YouTube’s recommendations…

TB: Also, what search results come back to you on Google. Every platform is using this stuff.

There’s obviously been a huge amount of interest in AI in the media art space over the last few years in a way that still surprises me, because, you know, it’s statistics. And sometimes I’m like why is there this fascination in the arts about this and I think it’s for many reasons. I think it does distribute agency in new ways, and obviously paying attention to different agencies in the world is something that has a long history in artistic work. There’s this question that keeps coming up, which is: what about projects that deal with ecology and AI? And if you look at the energy expenditure in training models, it’s ridiculous — there’s a contradiction there, the impact of these technologies. I think the media arts can be quite guilty of desiring techno solutions or wanting to engage with the latest technologies, as a way of staying relevant, but potentially also diverting resources from — I mean this is also a US-based perspective — from the tech sector into the arts. They have these sorts of projects because there isn’t a lot of public art funding or independent art funding. So, I think there’s a lot of forces at play.

Of course, we can use [AI] to make our systems more efficient or the grid more efficient and whatnot, you’re still going to have Jevons paradox at play, which is in a market-based system that means the price of these things goes down which actually doesn’t necessarily give you a net benefit in terms of resource use. So, for the efficiency argument with AI, one has to contend with that. But I think in terms of daily experience, that’s a fascinating and very rich place where we can really probe and kind of explore how a lot of our perceptions of environment and ecology and risk and where we are at with the climate issues and so forth, come mediated through these data-driven systems and these AI systems. As artists, we do have this freedom to kind of prod at that, and try to understand it through reverse engineering or doing sort of intervention-type work.

This article has been produced as part of New Nature, a project by the Goethe-Institut realized with the support of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany. To find out more: http://www.goethe.de/canada/newnature