EXTINCTION REBELLION

We're Set To Exhaust The World's Carbon Budget    By 2030

Elizabeth Blackstock 

The annual Global Carbon Budget is here, and the news is... just as bad as it’s been for a while. Despite big changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we still haven’t reduced our carbon emissions to a satisfactory level, and we only have ten years before we run out of leeway.

© Photo: DANIEL SLIM/AFP (Getty Images)

We only have eight percent of our global carbon budget left to use, the report notes. If we exceed our allotted output, that’s when we see the average global temperature exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius, which signals massive damage to the planet.

And that’s even taking into consideration the good news:
24 countries saw their carbon emissions drop in 2020
COVID-19 restrictions led to an average seven percent decline in emissions, with different countries varying
The United States saw a 12 percent decline in emissions, with the European Union following close by at 11 percent
34 billion tons of carbon dioxide were added to the atmosphere, which is still 2.4 billion tons less than last year
Surface transportation, which contributes to 21 percent of global emissions, saw its emissions drop by half
Aviation saw a 75 percent drop in emissions but only accounts for 2.8 percent of global emissions

If you’re anything like me, 2020 felt like it massively changed the ways you operate with the world. I’ve been on a single flight this year. I’ve carved back my vehicle travel considerably. I don’t go out unless I absolutely have to. So it’s a wild to me that we’ve only seen the smallest dent in emissions growth.

Video: Examining pandemic’s impact on emissions (NBC News)

But it also gives us a tangible sense of what’s necessary. It’s fairly easy to talk about how we require a dramatic reduction in emissions, but we haven’t really felt what it’s like. As it turns out, it might feel a lot like a COVID-19 lockdown when it comes to travel restrictions.

We have to carve back our emissions by 25-30 percent before 2030 if we’re going to make any tangible change in the planet. And it’s totally possible—it’s just going to be a lot of work.

Protesting Indian farmers call for 2nd strike in a week

NEW DELHI — Tens of thousands of protesting Indian farmers called for a national farmers' strike on Monday, the second in a week, to press for the quashing of three new laws on agricultural reform that they say will drive down crop prices and devastate their earnings.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The farmers are camping along at least five major highways on the outskirts of New Delhi and have said they won’t leave until the government rolls back what they call the “black laws.” They have blockaded highways leading to the capital for three weeks, and several rounds of talks with the government have failed to produce any breakthroughs.

Scores of farmer leaders also conducted a token hunger strike on Monday at the protest sites. Heavy contingents of police in riot gear patrolled the areas where the farmers have been camping.

Protest leaders have rejected the government’s offer to amend some contentious provisions of the new farm laws, which deregulate crop pricing, and have stuck to their demand for total repeal.

At Singhu, a protest site on the outskirts of New Delhi, hundreds of farmers blocked all entry and exit routes and chanted anti-government slogans. Some of them carried banners reading “No farmers, no food.”

About two dozen leaders held a daylong hunger strike at the site, while a huge communal kitchen served food for the other protesters.

“It’s the government’s responsibility to provide social benefits (to people.) And if they don’t give those, then people will have to come together" to protest, said Harvinder Kaur, a government employee who came from her home in Punjab state to help at the kitchen.

Another protester, Rajdeep Singh, a 20-year-old student who helps his farming family back home in Punjab, said the protest would continue until their demands are met.

“Now it’s their (government’s) ego and the question of our pride,” he said.

Farmer leaders have threatened to intensify their actions and have threatened to block trains in the coming days if the government doesn’t abolish the laws.

The farmers filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Friday seeking the quashing of the laws, which were passed in September. The petition was filed by the Bharatiya Kisan Union, or Indian Farmers’ Union, and its leader, Bhanu Pratap Singh, who argued that the laws were arbitrary because the government enacted them without proper consultations with stakeholders.

The farmers fear the government will stop buying grain at minimum guaranteed prices and corporations will then push prices down. The government says it is willing to pledge that guaranteed prices will continue.

With nearly 60% of the Indian population depending on agriculture for their livelihoods, the growing farmer rebellion has rattled Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration and its allies.

Modi’s government insists the reforms will benefit farmers. It says they will allow farmers to market their produce and boost production through private investment.

Farmers have been protesting the laws for nearly two months in Punjab and Haryana states. The situation escalated three weeks ago when tens of thousands marched to New Delhi, where they clashed with police.

Shonal Ganguly, The Associated Press

Lebanon's collapse is like the Titanic's sinking,      only without the music: Le Drian

PARIS (Reuters) - French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Lebanon’s political and economic collapse was like the sinking of the Titanic, only without the music.

“Lebanon is the Titanic without the orchestra,” Le Drian told the daily Le Figaro in an interview published on Sunday. “The Lebanese are in complete denial as they sink, and there isn’t even the music.”



Le Drian’s remarks set a pessimistic tone a little over a week before President Emmanuel Macron makes his third visit to Beirut since a massive port blast destroyed swathes of the city and killed 200 people in August.

Macron is losing patience with Lebanon’s politicians as rival politicians mired in turf battles stand in the way of sweeping reforms that donors say are imperative for badly-needed financial aid to be released.

It is believed the Titanic’s orchestra kept playing for as long as it could as the liner went down in the Atlantic Ocean in 1912, trying to help keep passengers calm amid impending doom. All the musicians perished.


Reporting by Richard Lough; Editing by Frances Kerry

Hackers used SolarWinds' dominance against it in sprawling spy campaign

By Raphael Satter, Christopher Bing, Joseph Menn

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - On an earnings call two months ago, SolarWinds Chief Executive Kevin Thompson touted how far the company had gone during his 11 years at the helm.

There was not a database or an IT deployment model out there to which his Austin, Texas-based company did not provide some level of monitoring or management, he told analysts on the Oct. 27 call.

“We don’t think anyone else in the market is really even close in terms of the breadth of coverage we have,” he said. “We manage everyone’s network gear.”

Now that dominance has become a liability - an example of how the workhorse software that helps glue organizations together can turn toxic when it is subverted by sophisticated hackers.

On Monday, SolarWinds confirmed that Orion - its flagship network management software - had served as the unwitting conduit for a sprawling international cyberespionage operation. The hackers inserted malicious code into Orion software updates pushed out to nearly 18,000 customers.

And while the number of affected organizations is thought to be much more modest, the hackers have already parlayed their access into consequential breaches at the U.S. Treasury and Department of Commerce.

Three people familiar with the investigation have told Reuters that Russia is a top suspect, although others familiar with the inquiry have said it is still too early to tell.

A SolarWinds representative, Ryan Toohey, said he would not be making executives available for comment. He did not provide on-the-record answers to questions sent via email.

In a statement issued Sunday, the company said “we strive to implement and maintain appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards, security processes, procedures, and standards designed to protect our customers.”

Cybersecurity experts are still struggling to understand the scope of the damage.

The malicious updates - sent between March and June, when America was hunkering down to weather the first wave of coronavirus infections - was “perfect timing for a perfect storm,” said Kim Peretti, who co-chairs Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird’s cybersecurity preparedness and response team.

Assessing the damage would be difficult, she said.

“We may not know the true impact for many months, if not more – if not ever,” she said.

The impact on SolarWinds was more immediate. U.S. officials ordered anyone running Orion to immediately disconnect it. The company’s stock has tumbled more than 23% from $23.50 on Friday - before Reuters broke the news of the breach - to $18.06 on Tuesday.

SolarWinds’ security, meanwhile, has come under new scrutiny.

In one previously unreported issue, multiple criminals have offered to sell access to SolarWinds’ computers through underground forums, according to two researchers who separately had access to those forums.

One of those offering claimed access over the Exploit forum in 2017 was known as “fxmsp” and is wanted by the FBI “for involvement in several high-profile incidents,” said Mark Arena, chief executive of cybercrime intelligence firm Intel471. Arena informed his company’s clients, which include U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Security researcher Vinoth Kumar told Reuters that, last year, he alerted the company that anyone could access SolarWinds’ update server by using the password “solarwinds123”

“This could have been done by any attacker, easily,” Kumar said.

Neither the password nor the stolen access is considered the most likely source of the current intrusion, researchers said.

Others - including Kyle Hanslovan, the cofounder of Maryland-based cybersecurity company Huntress - noticed that, days after SolarWinds realized their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were still available for download.

The firm has long mooted the idea of spin-off of its managed service provider business and on Dec. 9 announced that Thompson would be replaced by Sudhakar Ramakrishna, the former chief executive of Pulse Secure. Three weeks ago, SolarWinds posted a job ad seeking a new vice president for security; the position is still listed as open.

Thompson and Ramakrishna could not be reached for comment.

Reporting by Raphael Satter and Christopher Bing. Jack Stubbs contributed reporting from London; Editing by Lisa Shumaker

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE FORCE
Wearing someone else's face: Hyper-realistic masks to go on sale in Japan

By Akira Tomoshige

TOKYO (Reuters) - A year into the coronavirus epidemic, a Japanese retailer has come up with a new take on the theme of facial camouflage - a hyper-realistic mask that models a stranger’s features in three dimensions.

Shuhei Okawara’s masks won’t protect you or others against the virus. But they will lend you the exact appearance of an unidentified Japanese adult whose features have been printed onto them.

“Mask shops in Venice probably do not buy or sell faces. But that is something that’s likely to happen in fantasy stories,” Okawara told Reuters.

“I thought it would be fun to actually do that.”

The masks will go on sale early next year for 98,000 yen ($950) apiece at his Tokyo shop, Kamenya Omote, whose products are popular as accessories for parties and theatrical performance.

Okawara chose his model, whom he paid 40,000 yen, from more than 100 applicants who sent him their photos when he launched the project in October. An artisan then reworked the winning image, created on a 3D printer.

Initial inquiries suggest demand for the masks will be strong, Okawara said.

“As is often the case with the customers of my shop, there are not so many people who buy (face masks) for specific purposes. Most see them as art pieces,” Okawara said.

He plans to gradually add new faces, including some from overseas, to the lineup.

VIDEO https://www.reuters.com/video/?videoId=OVD99IQN5&jwsource=em

 

Coalition Lawsuit: Science Says Wolverines Need Protection

WASHINGTON - Today, a coalition of wildlife advocates challenged the Trump Fish and Wildlife Service’s (the Service’s) decision to deny protections to imperiled wolverines under the Endangered Species Act. This is the second time the Service has prioritized politics over science for wolverines, which number about 300 in the contiguous U.S.

The groups in today’s filing defeated the Service in court in 2016, forcing the agency back to the drawing board with a directive to apply the best science. Four years later, the Service has returned with the same decision to deny wolverine protective status, despite no new scientific support for such a determination.

“This is yet another chapter in this administration’s war on science,” said Matthew Bishop, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. “Public records reveal the Service decided not to protect wolverine from day one and then worked backwards to figure out how to make the decision stick. It’s really unfortunate.”

In April 2016, a federal judge sided with conservation groups, agreeing that the Service’s August 2014 decision not to list wolverine as threatened was arbitrary and contrary to the scientific literature. The court held: “[T]he Service’s decision against listing the wolverine as threatened under the ESA is arbitrary and capricious.

“No greater level of certainty is needed to see the writing on the wall for this snow-dependent species standing squarely in the path of global climate change. It has taken us twenty years to get to this point. It is the [court’s] view that if there is one thing required of the Service under the ESA, it is to take action at the earliest possible, defensible point in time to protect against the loss of biodiversity within our reach as a nation. For the wolverine, that time is now (Opinion at page 83).”

The court also noted clear evidence of political interference in the Service’s reversal. “Why did the Service make the decision [to not list the wolverine]?…Based on the record, the Court suspects that a possible answer to this question can be found in the immense political pressure that was brought to bear on this issue, particularly by a handful of western states (Opinion at page 56).”

Before its decisions to deny wolverines endangered species protections, the Service identified climate change, in conjunction with small population size, as the primary threat to the species’ existence in the contiguous U.S.

 

The wolverine relies on snow year-round. With its large paws, it can travel easily over snow, and often relies on deep snow for hunting. Snow is also a “freezer” that permits the wolverine to store and scavenge food. One study found 98% of all wolverine den sites in places with persistent snowpack.

 

Published, peer-reviewed research, the independent Society for Conservation Biology, the majority of experts who reviewed the decision, and the Service’s own biologists all verified this finding.

 

The Service proposed listing the wolverine as a “threatened” species under the ESA in 2013. At the eleventh hour, however, the Service reversed course and chose not to protect wolverine, citing too many “uncertainties” in the scientific literature. This dubious about-face led the court to reverse the decision.

Today’s complaint aims to ensure the Service utilizes the best available science when making listing decisions, and provide wolverines the protective status they desperately need and deserve.

“This is something we were really hoping to avoid after the court’s 2016 decision,” said Bishop. “I was cautiously optimistic the Service would get it right this time and we’d be focusing our time and energy on developing a conservation strategy, recovery plan, critical habitat, and possibly reintroduction efforts for wolverine. Instead, we’re back in court challenging an agency that continues to put politics over science.”

The groups on today’s complaint include WildEarth Guardians, Friends Of The Bitterroot, Friends Of The Wild Swan, Swan View Coalition, Oregon Wild, Cascadia Wildlands, Alliance For The Wild Rockies, Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, George Wuerthner, Footloose Montana, Native Ecosystems Council, Wildlands Network, Helena Hunters and Anglers Association.

Background:

 

Wolverine number just 250-300 individuals in the contiguous U.S. and are dependent on high elevation habitat with deep winter snows. Imperiled by climate change, habitat loss, small population size and trapping, wolverine were first petitioned for Endangered Species Act protections in 2000. The Service found the petition did not contain adequate information to justify a listing. A federal court overturned that decision in 2006. The Service then issued a negative 12-month finding in 2008, which was challenged in court resulting in a settlement that led to a new finding that wolverine should be protected under the ESA, but that other priorities precluded the listing at that time. A landmark settlement, which resolved the backlog of imperiled species awaiting protections, then guaranteed a new finding for wolverine. In February 2013, the Service proposed listing the wolverine as “threatened” under the ESA. In August 2014, however, the Service reversed course and issued a decision not to list the species, contradicting its own expert scientists’ recommendations. In April, 2016 the court overturned the Service’s decision not to list, reinstating wolverine’s status as a candidate species and requiring a new final rule. This decision is the result.

Western Environmental Law Center

For Immediate Release

Monday, December 14, 2020

Accountable.US

Final PPP Data Reveals Oil, Gas, and Mining Scored Billions While Wind and Solar Were Left in the Cold

Analysis finds 70% of all oil, gas, mining sector corporations awarded ppp bailout.

WASHINGTON - New analysis finds that the Trump Small Business Administration’s (SBA) flawed Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) has been abused by fossil fuel and extractive corporations to rake in billions of dollars. In striking contrast, only 1,100 recipients in the wind and solar sector were awarded funds, while over 22,000 polluting extractive resource corporation cashed in after a review of SBA data.  

“Actual struggling businesses that need pandemic relief are not getting it, while billions have flowed to oil, gas, and mining corporations and their wealthy CEOs. It’s no coincidence — but certainly a disservice to taxpayers — that the clean energy wind and solar sector was awarded little in comparison to polluters from the Trump administration,” said Jayson O’Neill, spokesperson for Accountable.US.

In total, 22,382 oil, gas, mining and related extractive resource corporations received a staggering $4,530,469,847 in taxpayer-funded monies through the PPP. In contrast, the wind and solar sector received a total of $164,987,228, going to some 1,133 businesses. The average loan amount was nearly 40% higher for extractive resource corporations as well.

 

Data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics shows that 31,992 private oil, gas, and mining establishments are currently operating in the United States, meaning 70% of all the entire sector received a PPP bailout, up 8% from a previous analysis by Accountable.US. In total, a new report by Bailout Watch finds that the fossil fuel sector may have received upwards of $15.2 billion from the Trump administration during the pandemic.

The renewable energy sector has struggled during the economic downturn, shedding almost half a million jobs. The Trump administration has ignored calls to invest in a cleaner energy future that would create millions of jobs, instead using taxpayer money to prop up many polluting corporations that were in deep financial trouble well before the pandemic. 

Accountable.US has been tracking the administration’s failure to get aid to those who need it most on its website, www.COVIDBailoutTracker.com, where the new SBA PPP data as well as all previously publicly released PPP data and additional CARES Act program spending is posted in a searchable format. The group will be analyzing the new data and releasing its findings on a rolling basis at the PPP Live Blog.

###

For Immediate Release

Friday, December 11, 2020

Organization Profile: 

Accountable.US

New Analysis of Fracking Science (nearly 2,000 studies) Finds Grave Health, Environmental Justice, and Climate Impacts

Major report from health experts and scientists who have closely assessed a decade of science on fracking reveals alarming trends for people and the environment.

WASHINGTON - A new report from leading scientists, doctors, and environmental experts examining nearly 2,000 academic studies, government reports, and investigative reporting finds that drilling, fracking, and the entire fracked oil and gas cycle impose grave harms to human health and well-being and that those problems cannot be mitigated.

Today, Concerned Health Professionals of New York and Physicians for Social Responsibility released the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking, seventh edition, which tracks, assembles, and analyzes key trends in the rapidly growing body of evidence about health, climate, and environmental justice consequences of drilling, fracking, and associated infrastructure.

Overwhelmingly, evidence demonstrates that these activities are dangerous to public health, the environment, and the climate, and that there are fundamental problems with the entire life cycle of operations associated with fracking. Emerging science also shows that fracking is a grave environmental justice issue, with communities of color, Indigenous people, and impoverished communities bearing disproportionate harm.

The Compendium reviews nearly 2,000 academic studies, government reports, and investigations of data by journalists about the environmental and health impacts of drilling and fracking. It is increasingly important to consider the whole body of evidence and identify key trends. That’s what the Compendium uniquely does, allowing the public, elected officials, and regulators to consider the whole body of evidence, identify key trends, and utilize important new research as it appears, promoting health and potentially saving lives.

Sandra Steingraber, PhD, co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York and an author of the Compendium, said,  “Our knowledge about the dangers of fracking is now both broad and deep. All together, thousands of scientific studies, reports, and investigations show us that extracting oil and gas by shattering the nation’s bedrock with water and chemicals creates fundamental, intrinsic, unfixable problems. Toxic pollution, water contamination, earthquakes, radioactive releases, and methane emissions follow fracking wherever it goes. Some of these problems get worse after depleted wells are abandoned, and no set of regulations is capable of preventing harm.”

• With hundreds of new peer-reviewed scientific studies published in the past year alone, several trends in the evidence have been increasingly well-documented. Among more than a dozen emerging trends:
• Fracking poses serious health harms to people, especially those living in proximity not only to drilling and fracking but also to associated infrastructure like compressor stations and gas-fired power plants. 
• Fracking raises human rights and environmental justice issues, disproportionately affecting people of color and low-income communities
• Health problems associated with fracked gas include cancers, asthma, respiratory distress, rashes, heart problems, and mental health problems. 
• Multiple studies of pregnant women living near fracking operations across the nation show impairments to infant health, including birth defects, preterm birth, and low birth weight. Preterm birth and low birth weight are the leading causes of infant death in the U.S.
• Fracking and natural gas are incompatible with climate solutions.

Pediatrician Edward Ketyer, M.D., F.A.A.P., of Physicians for Social Responsibility/Pennsylvania, said, “The fracking science Compendium is an essential resource for health professionals like myself who are addressing how terribly damaging fracking is to the health of our patients and the communities we live in. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies contained in the Compendium indicate clearly that women and children are most vulnerable to the impacts of pollution coming off every piece of fracking infrastructure. As a pediatrician, I’m very concerned that children bear the greatest burden of all as they face cradle-to-grave health impacts from health-damaging chemicals and emissions – to say nothing of the stability of the planet’s climate system which we all depend on. It is clear from this report that fracking has never been done safely anywhere; it is inherently dirty and dangerous, and industry rules and government regulations can’t fix that fact.”

These health problems are born disproportionately by communities of color and impoverished communities. Significant evidence now makes clear that fracking is a significant and growing environmental injustice.

Laura Dagley, BSN, RN, of Physicians for Social Responsibility in Pennsylvania, said, "As a nurse and PSR staffer, I advocate for the health of my communities. Through my work, I have met many people whose lives are negatively impacted by fracking. From seeing the stress that fracking infrastructure has brought to their daily lives, to hearing of many visits to the doctor managing new asthma exacerbation or skin rashes, to feeling their fear as their neighbors' children suffer from a rare cancer, I am reminded of the real people behind the data. With fracking literally in their backyards, many of these individuals struggle to have their voices heard. They do not have the time, money, or numbers in their rural communities to draw attention to the negative toll fracking is taking on their lives. The Compendium compiles a large body of data demonstrating fracking’s harm and succinctly summarizes the research and reports. It is a powerful tool to show policymakers the evidence that fracking is harming people."

At a broader scale, the evidence is overwhelming that fracking is significantly exacerbating climate change and is responsible for the current surge in global levels of methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent at trapping heat than carbon dioxide over a twenty-year period. Methane escapes into the atmosphere all along the gas extraction, processing, and distribution system, at significant rates that exceed earlier estimates by a factor of two to three and in ways that cannot be mitigated or eliminated through regulations.

Kathleen Nolan, MD, MSL, of Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of NY, said, “Detailed and comprehensive research now demonstrates decisively that fracking and its related activities release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere, making the process calamitous for climate change. Science is telling us that drilling and fracking are incompatible with any meaningful effort to mitigate carbon emissions and that to curb global warming most quickly, we need to stop permitting and subsidizing fracking. Just as we have learned to give up smoking to protect our lungs, we must give up fracking to protect our atmosphere, the air that we all breathe.”
 
From the Main Findings of the Compendium, “As fracking operations in the United States and abroad have increased in frequency, size, and intensity, a significant body of evidence has emerged to demonstrate that these activities are dangerous in ways that cannot be mitigated through regulation. Threats include detrimental impacts on water, air, climate stability, public health, farming, property values, and economic vitality… Our examination uncovered no evidence that fracking can be practiced in a manner that does not threaten human health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends.”

Several experts are available, upon request, for interviews about the new report and the issue more broadly.

For Immediate Release

Monday, December 14, 2020

As Trump Continues Killing Spree, Pressley Leads Call for Biden to Immediately Abolish Death Penalty

"Your historic election with record turnout represents a national mandate to make meaningful progress in reforming our unjust and inhumane criminal legal system," wrote the lawmakers to Biden.

by

Julia Conley, staff writer

Published on

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

by

Common Dreams

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) led a call by congressional Democrats for President-elect Joe Biden to immediately end the federal death penalty when he takes office in January. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

More than 40 Democratic lawmakers joined Rep. Ayanna Pressley late Tuesday in calling on President-elect Joe Biden to immediately abolish the federal death penalty upon taking office next month, bringing an end to a period of six months in which President Donald Trump has overseen more federal executions of people "than the total number executed over the previous six decades."

Biden is opposed to capital punishment and has pledged to abolish its use at the federal level. In Pressley's letter, the lawmaker emphasizes that Biden must make the policy change a top priority after January 20, when he will take office.

""The sheer number of executions set the Trump administration apart as an outlier in the use of capital punishment, compared both to the historical practices of American presidencies and the contemporary practices of the states in the Union.
—Death Penalty Information Center

"With a stroke of your pen, you can stop all federal executions, prohibit United States Attorneys from seeking the death penalty, dismantle death row at [Federal Correctional Complex] Terre Haute, and call for the resentencing of people who are currently sentenced to death," Pressley wrote. 

The letter was signed by lawmakers including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). Recently elected Reps.-elect Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) also signed the document.

The president is in the midst of what The Guardian called an "execution spree," having killed three people—Orlando Hall, Brandon Bernard, and Alfred Bourgeois—since losing the presidential election on November 3. Before Biden takes office, Trump is planning to put to death inmates Lisa Montgomery, Corey Johnson, and Dustin Higgs. 

Trump is the first president to carry out the death penalty during a lame-duck session since 1889, when President Grover Cleveland executed a Native American named Richard Smith. 

Pressley sent the letter to Biden as the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) released a year-end report showing that Trump has killed more people in 2020 than all states that have carried out executions, combined—an unprecedented use of the death penalty by the federal government. 

Seven state executions were carried out in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas this year, while the president has killed 10 people since July, when he resumed the use of the federal death penalty after 17 years. 

"The sheer number of executions set the Trump administration apart as an outlier in the use of capital punishment, compared both to the historical practices of American presidencies and the contemporary practices of the states in the Union," the DPIC wrote. "In addition, the details of the cases and the highly politicized manner in which they were carried out revealed significant problems in the application of the federal death penalty."

The people Trump has put to death and plans to execute before his term is over—five Black men and one white woman—have been the subject of calls by global human rights advocates, prosecutors, and former jurors who have pleaded with the administration for clemency. 

Montgomery is the survivor of lifelong sexual and physical abuse and was experiencing psychosis, according to her lawyers, when she commited a murder in 2004. Bernard was 18 when he was involved in a kidnapping and killing of a couple in Texas, did not fire the gun that killed the victims, and has shown remorse for his crime. Bourgeois's lawyers argue that he has a severe intellectual disability.  

"Capital punishment is unjust, racist, and defective," Rep. Connolly said in a press release on Tuesday. "The United States stands alone among its peers in executing its own citizens, a barbaric punishment that denies the dignity and humanity of all people and is disproportionately applied to people who are Black, Latinx, and poor. For example, Black people make up less than 13% of the nation's population while accounting for more than 42% of those on death row." 

Trump's executions have sparked outcry on social media in recent weeks.

Study of 50 Years of Tax Cuts For Rich Confirms 'Trickle Down' Theory Is an Absolute Sham

"Major tax cuts for the rich since the 1980s have increased income inequality, with all the problems that brings, without any offsetting gains in economic performance."

by

Kenny Stancil, staff writer

 Published on

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

by

Common Dreams

A yacht belonging to British billionaire Joe Lewis, pictured in Butler's Wharf on July 3, 2018 in London. (Photo: Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

Neoliberal gospel says that cutting taxes on the wealthy will eventually benefit everyone by boosting economic growth and reducing unemployment, but a new analysis of fiscal policies in 18 countries over the last 50 years reveals that progressive critics of "trickle down" theory have been right all along: supply-side economics fuels inequality, and the real beneficiaries of the right-wing approach to taxation are the super-rich.

"Cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance."
—David Hope and Julian Limberg

The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich (pdf), a working paper published this month by the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and written by LSE's David Hope and Julian Limberg of King's College London, examines data from nearly 20 OECD countries, including the U.K. and the U.S., and finds that the past five decades have been characterized by "falling taxes on the rich in the advanced economies," with "major tax cuts... particularly clustered in the late 1980s."

But, according to Hope and Limberg, the vast majority of the populations in those countries have little to show for it, as the benefits of slashing taxes on the wealthy are concentrated among a handful of super-rich individuals—not widely shared across society in the form of improved job creation or prosperity, as "trickle down" theorists alleged would happen.

"Our research shows that the economic case for keeping taxes on the rich low is weak," Hope said Wednesday. "Major tax cuts for the rich since the 1980s have increased income inequality, with all the problems that brings, without any offsetting gains in economic performance."

In their study, the pair of political economists note that "economic performance, as measured by real GDP per capita and the unemployment rate, is not significantly affected by major tax cuts for the rich." However, they add, "major tax cuts for the rich increase the top 1% share of pre-tax national income in the years following the reform" by a magnitude of nearly 1%.

The researchers continue:

Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment provide evidence against supply-side theories that suggest lower taxes on the rich will induce labour supply responses from high-income individuals (more hours of work, more effort etc.) that boost economic activity. They are, in fact, more in line with recent empirical research showing that income tax holidays and windfall gains do not lead individuals to significantly alter the amount they work.

Our results have important implications for current debates around the economic consequences of taxing the rich, as they provide causal evidence that supports the growing pool of evidence from correlational studies that cutting taxes on the rich increases top income shares, but has little effect on economic performance.

Limberg is hopeful that the research could bolster the case for increasing taxes on the wealthy to fund a just recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing economic fallout.

"Our results," he said Wednesday, "might be welcome news for governments as they seek to repair the public finances after the Covid-19 crisis, as they imply that they should not be unduly concerned about the economic consequences of higher taxes on the rich."

Progressives have argued that America's disastrous handling of the ongoing catastrophe is attributable to several decades of "free-market" ideology and associated policies that exacerbated vulnerabilities and undermined the government's capacity to respond effectively.

According to social justice advocates, taxing billionaires' surging wealth—akin to the "Millionaire's Tax" passed earlier this month in Argentina—could contribute to reversing the trend of intensifying inequality plaguing the nation.