Human activity threatens species survival: study

© MENAHEM KAHANA

 Authors of the research called for better habitat protection and ecosystem management

Human activities such as farming and construction are threatening the survival of scores of wild species by forcing them to travel more to avoid mankind's impact, research showed Monday.

 Authors of the research called for better habitat protection and ecosystem management

According to the United Nations' biodiversity panel, more than three quarters of land and 40 percent of Earth's oceans have already been "severely degraded" by humans.

Its landmark biodiversity assessment in 2019 drew on a large body of research into how human activities are impacting nature.

But there have been relatively few studies looking at specific species and how human influence is changing their behaviour.

Researchers in Australia looked at the impact of activities such as roads, tourism, recreation, hunting, shipping and fishing on 167 species, from the 0.05-gram sleepy orange butterfly to the two-tonne Great White shark.

They found that most species had increased the distance they travel due to human influence -- by 70 percent on average.

In a third of species, movement had either increased or decreased by half, according to the study published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.

"This tells us that humans have widespread impacts on animal movement, but in many cases these are going undetected and unaddressed," lead author Tim Doherty, from the University of Sydney, told AFP.

Gallery: This country is where you can find some of the world’s rarest animals (National Geographic)


"In everyday life, we generally only see animals in the wild for short periods and don't get a proper understanding of how they move around and use space."

- 'Cascading impacts' -

Doherty said that since many species, including most mammals, spend nearly all their energy on hunting for food and finding mates, the additional energy required to relocate away from humans was an unwelcome survival challenge.

"However, animals will often move further in response to disturbance to ensure their survival, for example by seeking shelter, finding food," he said.

"Some species are able to cope with these changes better than others."

Of the taxonomic groups studied, birds and insects moved the most on average in order to avoid coming into contact with human activity.

The study warned of "cascading impacts" to natural processes such as pollination if such displacements continued apace.

The authors said they had documented a "global restructuring of animal movement, with potentially profound impacts on populations, species and ecosystem processes".

They called for better preservation of natural habitats through increasing protected areas and managing construction and tourism, as well as seasonal curbs on hunting during species' breeding periods.

pg/mh/jj

Inevitable Planetary Doom Has Been Exaggerated

It feels as if the world is on fire—and it is. In the last days of the Trump administration, U.S. government scientists announced that 2020 was one of the two hottest years in recorded history. The other hottest year was 2016: fittingly, the year that the United States elected Donald Trump president, a disaster for the environment as well as democratic norms

.

© H. Abernathy / ClassicStock / Getty

I am an environmental writer, and in the environmental world, the past year in particular has felt like an endless series of reactions to immediate crises: constant rollbacks of environmental protections, the pandemic complicating environmental work, colossal wildfires that torched the West. (The offices of the local climate-justice organization I volunteer for literally burned to the ground, for example.) We were so busy coping with immediate catastrophes, we had little time to make things better. Now, with Trump out, many of us can take a breath and think on longer timescales for the first time in years.

[Read: The United States is a disaster area]

But environmentalists are so good at emphasizing worst-case scenarios that when we look to the future, apocalypse often feels inevitable. After all, aren’t we in the “sixth mass extinction”? Haven’t populations of wild animals already crashed by 60 percent? Don’t we have just “10 years left” to avert climate meltdown? Do we really dare to hope?

Yes, we do dare to hope. Looking at these problems from a distance, they seem like impenetrable, mountainous barriers to a good future, but in every case, there is a path through.

“Saving the planet” can mean many things in practice, but one goal pretty much everyone shares is stopping extinctions. Elizabeth Kolbert’s 2014 Pulitzer Prize–winning book, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, reported on scientists sounding the alarm about high extinction rates, and in the years that followed, the idea that we are in the midst of one of the planet’s greatest mass-extinction events has come to feel like a bedrock truth to many greenies. This framing can make extinction feel like a force too huge and powerful to avert.

That’s just not true. As of today, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List, the conservation status of 128,918 species has been assessed. Of those, 902 have gone extinct since the year 1500. This is absolutely too many. One is too many. But to cause an extinction event on the scale of those seen millions of years ago, in which more than 75 percent of species disappeared, we would have to lose all our threatened species within a century and then keep losing species at that same super-high rate for between 240 and 540 more years. In other words, the concept assumes that we won’t save anything, ever, and that hundreds of years into the future, we will still be as inept at protecting biodiversity as we are now.

You might have also heard that we’ve lost something like 60 percent of wild animals since the 1970s? Surely this suggests that a lot more extinctions are imminent? In 2018, The Atlantic’s Ed Yong helpfully explained that this study actually looked at the average decline of a given population (not species) of wild animal. So severe declines in small populations disproportionately increase the average decline.

[Read: Wait, have we really wiped out 60 percent of animals? ]

More recently, a new analysis of the data showed that, indeed, the 60 percent average decline was driven by very severe crashes in a very small number of vertebrate populations. For example, one small population of Australian waterfall frogs declined 99.5 percent over two years. This decline became one data point, which was averaged with 14,000 others, many from stable or increasing populations.

Really, less than 3 percent of vertebrate populations are crashing. Remove the most strongly declining populations, and the average would actually be growing slightly. This means that declines are not the rule everywhere. It means that the specific populations in crisis can be identified and helped. And we have the knowledge to save them, if we can marshal the will and resources.

This targeted approach works for environmental policy too. The Trump administration pushed for more than 100 rollbacks of pollution standards, land protections, and other green policies, with the glee of a team of comic-book villains. Jill Tauber, the vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice, told me that her organization has more than 100 lawsuits pending against the Trump administration and that so far, once cases pass any procedural hurdles, her side is winning more than 80 percent of them. Tackled one-by-one, many of his policies can be undone and their damage limited.

Addressing climate change is obviously a cornerstone of environmental protection. Some change has already happened and more is locked in, but as the cost of key technologies such as solar panels and batteries has fallen, the price tag to move the country to net-zero emissions by 2050—as President Joe Biden has pledged—has also dropped. The U.S. could spend about what it already spends on energy—a mere 4 to 6 percent of gross domestic product—and still reach this goal, according to a new report out of Princeton University.

[Read: Earth’s new gilded era]

The necessary changes would have to start immediately, and they aren’t minor. Visualize a huge build-out of solar, wind, and transmission lines, for starters. And although the report is focused on net zero by 2050, faster is always better. If we act now, we could be breathing cleaner air, seeing significantly more turbines on the horizon, riding in electric vehicles more often, and enjoying better public transit in a decade.

To make it happen, though, American citizens must “create a demand for the policy,” according to one of the study’s three principal investigators, Jesse Jenkins, an energy-systems expert at Princeton. “What they need to be able to say clearly to politicians is: ‘I value this; this is an important priority to me.’”

On Wednesday, Biden signed an executive order on climate, which sets a goal of conserving at least 30 percent of the country by 2030, launches a Civilian Climate Corps, and hits pause on fossil-fuel development on public lands. He had already signed an order to return the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change—an admittedly weak international agreement, but one that could form the basis for more robust future commitments. And he’s canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, a good sign that his administration might actually work toward ending our reliance on fossil fuels. But Jenkins cautions that those who support that goal shouldn’t just check out for the next four years because the “good guys” are in power. “If we don’t keep up that demand for policy, then it is just not going to happen,” he told me.

Jenkins also rejects the idea that if we fail to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, the key target in an influential United Nations report, all is lost. “Any time you see a round number like 2.0 or 1.5 or 20 percent by 2020, that is a political number,” he said. “The reality is that every 10th of a degree matters.” There is no threshold after which it is not worth fighting.

One very good reason to feel overwhelmed is that everything seems screwed up at once. As a country, we’re facing climate change, the pandemic, racial injustice, the threat of dangerous fascist elements—I could go on. Because climate change and extinction have been ongoing problems for as long as many of us can remember, feeling that they’re impossible to engage with right now is only natural.

But many of our problems are so thoroughly tangled up with one another that we may not need to fight them separately. Environmental destruction disproportionately harms people of color and lower-income people. And people of color are, on average, significantly more concerned about climate change than white people. A leading cause of inaction on climate change is the hoarding of power by some of the world’s wealthiest people, who profit from planetary destruction that they don’t have to deal with personally. They can simply crank up the air conditioner, pay more for the last remaining champagne and oysters, or fly to their New Zealand bunker, so they have no incentive to change unsustainable systems that they benefit from. When political power is more fairly distributed, the environment will benefit.

So fighting for racial or economic justice, or against voter suppression, still can mean fighting for the environment. As these links are becoming better understood, the environmental movement is finally working with its natural allies to, for example, fight fossil fuels while promoting investment in Black, Indigenous, brown, and working-class communities.

There will be more crises, more setbacks. But there is no “too late.” In the longer term, we know what we need to do to stop climate change, save species, and make sure everyone breathes clean air and drinks clean water. Not everything can be saved. But 2021 can be better than 2020, and 2031 can be much, much better than 2021, if we demand it.

Oil and gas "existential crisis" looming in rural Alberta

Canada need to start becoming more energy-independent and the country needs to start working toward a national energy strategy to protect itself from volatile market changes, like the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline, says the president of an organization representing rural Alberta municipalities.

Paul McLauchlin, president of Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA), said relying on international energy markets is fraught with risk, but looking inward as a country for an energy strategy – for all types of energy – is something the country can control.

McLauchlin said rural municipalities weren't surprised to hear the Keystone pipeline was cancelled, but said it is now more important than ever for rural Alberta to pivot toward a different energy strategy.

While the cancellation of Keystone last week by U.S. President Joe Biden impacted many rural communities in the east of the province, McLauchlin said the decline in the oil and gas sector is felt across the province overall, with many rural jurisdictions pulling much of their tax base from the industry.

"It's touching on an existential crisis. It definitely is getting close to that," McLauchlin said.

"If you see a negative trajectory in our oil and gas industry, that definitely changes rural Alberta. It's core to the majority of the rural municipalities that I represent. Oil and gas is core to our existence as it is now. "

Without action, McLauchlin said the province runs the risk of becoming the Rust Belt – a region from New York through the Midwest that was once dominated by manufacturing but has now become synonymous with regions facing industrial decline – or northern Scotland in the '80s.

"We don't want to become one of these hollowed-out industrial centres where we've got rusting gas plants and then it becomes a shadow of its former self," he said.

"I think we have to force ourselves to innovate because I don't think (we) have a choice, right? Apathy isn't your choice – that's not going to work."

Municipalities can be leaders in creating a national energy strategy because they are so close to the situations on the ground, he noted – they can build a consensus together and then bring a plan forward to the federal government. An energy plan that deals with the climate change goals the country has and takes the strategy down to a local level is possible, McLauchlin said, allowing small communities to thrive and to utilize the resources and skills in the country.

Natural gas can be a "phenomenal product", McLauchlin said, and in the right situation and treated the right way, can be a low carbon fuel. The country needs to also supply different markets with blue hydrogen, a product made from natural gas in the process of steam methane reformation, with the resulting emissions curtailed through carbon capture and storage or green hydrogen, which is a hydrogen fuel that is created using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.

Right now, some jurisdictions in southern Alberta are already capitalizing on renewable products and showing a lot of success, with up to 20 per cent of municipal tax assessment coming from renewable energy.

But McLauchlin said the province has to move fast on finding solutions or it will get left behind.

"We have to find the solutions and we have to move fast on this. None of this is theoretical," McLauchlin said.

"(We need to) start to use future planning as the way we deal with our energy industry instead of looking backwards."

Doug Irving, Mayor of Hardisty, where the Keystone pipeline starts, said the news of the project's cancellation was disappointing, but not devastating.

The pipeline is owned by TC Energy and starts at the Hardisty Terminal, which is a major storage and pipeline export hub for the province.

"With all of these pipeline works, we seem to get a lot of ups and downs," Irving said.

"We're all excited and then jobs get cancelled, but they cancelled outside what we can do. The Town of Hardisty really has no say in permits or who approves things."

The project brought some 600 workers into the town, which has a permanent population of 540 people – a huge boom for Hardisty's hospitality industry.

"It's a major economic disruption, that's for sure," Irving said.

"it is a big blow to us."

The Alberta government expected the pipeline to bring 2,000 construction jobs to the province over two years and then generate $30 billion in revenue after it was complete. The government invested $1.5 billion in the project in March 2020 to get construction started on the extension after it was approved by the U.S.

Irving hopes the project will be reconsidered and reviewed and somebody else will issue a permit for it.

"Maybe we can get a reversal on the permit. I don't think it'll happen very quickly. But that's the sort of view of Hardisty. It's outside our control and we have to work around it as best we can and hope for the best in the future."

Jennifer Henderson, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, St. Albert Gazette

Under Biden order, workers refusing unsafe work could stay on unemployment aid


By Ann Saphir, Jonnelle Marte


(Reuters) - Many workers called back by employers resuming or expanding operations despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic face a dilemma: return to jobs that put them at high risk of the virus, or say no, and risk going without pay or unemployment benefits.

FILE PHOTO: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden talks with a worker at the FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) Mack Assembly plant in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., March 10, 2020. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo

President Joe Biden argues workers should not have to make that choice.

An executive order signed on his second full day in office could make it easier for people to still qualify for jobless benefits if they quit or refuse a job that puts them at undue risk of infection from the coronavirus.

More than 18 million Americans are drawing some form of government unemployment assistance.

The order asks the U.S. Department of Labor to clarify that workers who refuse jobs due to unsafe working conditions can still receive unemployment insurance. A department spokesman told Reuters the agency is developing an Unemployment Insurance Program Letter - the usual mechanism for issuing guidelines or clarifying policies - in response to the order.

The Labor Department also issued new guidance on Friday with recommendations on how employers can protect workers from the virus, which has infected more than 25 million Americans and led to more than 433,500 U.S. deaths since the pandemic began.

“In a period where lots of people have lost jobs and people are desperate for work, people will go and end up working under dangerous conditions and they will do so believing they have no other alternative,” said Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

Assuring them they have the right to refuse unsafe work, and paying them enough to afford not to work, is “vitally important,” Jacobs said. “You want people in the greatest risk groups to stay home.”

SEEKING CLARITY

It’s not clear how many workers have lost unemployment benefits after refusing jobs because of COVID-19 safety concerns, said Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation and an expert on unemployment insurance. Still, the new guidance should establish minimum protections for workers, replacing an approach that can vary by state, he said.

“It’s been very unclear for a claimant to understand whether they can refuse an offer to go back to work,” Stettner said.

Currently some states, including Texas, publish lists of the circumstances in which a worker might be able to keep receiving benefits after turning down a job. For instance, the state offers exceptions for workers age 65 and up, or those with health conditions that put them at high risk.

But other states advise workers of a narrower set of protections, and many make decisions on a case by case basis.

“The goal would be to have some clear standards,” Stettner said.

The new federal guidance, likely to be issued in the coming weeks, would be aimed at making both states and workers aware they should be able to qualify for unemployment benefits after refusing a job that puts them at greater risk because of their age, a health condition or lack of COVID-19 safety protocols, analysts say.

‘WE NEED A STANDARD’

That policy could make a big difference for people in jobs at restaurants or other businesses requiring workers to be in close proximity to others, two recent studies suggest.

Essential workers were 55% more likely to get infected with coronavirus than those who stayed at home, according to a study of the early months of the pandemic in Pennsylvania published this week by researchers at Independence Blue Cross and the Wharton School of Business.

“We all had a hunch that essential workers by the nature of their jobs are probably more exposed, which means they’re probably more likely to get infected – but what we didn’t know was by how much,” said Wharton’s Hummy Song, one of the paper’s authors.

A separate study out last week from the University of California found deaths of working-age Californians increased by 22% in 2020 from what would have been expected based on prior trends, and the deaths were concentrated in certain occupations.

Deaths among workers in food and agriculture, for instance, were 39% higher. Among healthcare workers, deaths were up 20%, the study noted.

The findings indicate there may be better protections in place in health care settings than in restaurants or other fields, said Yea-Hung Chen, one of the study’s authors.

New guidance from the Biden administration could help workers in at least some of those higher-risk sectors keep unemployment benefits and avoid unsafe work - even as it puts pressure on companies to make workplaces safer, said University of California, Berkeley professor Jesse Rothstein.

“We need a standard,” said Rothstein. “The DOL has been AWOL for the last year.”


Reporting by Jonnelle Marte in New York and Ann Saphir in San Francisco; Editing by Dan Burns and Diane Craft

Element of contradictions: Selenium cuts thin line between healthy and toxic

EDMONTON — Sort of silvery in its raw state, sort of metallic but not really, selenium embodies contradiction.

It's fairly rare — the 68th most common element — but often found with coal.

Tiny amounts are essential to health — selenium helps the body fight tissue-damaging free radicals — but too much is harmful.

Scientists say selenium was brought to the Earth's surface by explosive volcano eruptions in the Cretaceous Era, which ended 66 million years ago. It was absorbed and concentrated in the shells of sea creatures, which is why it's relatively common in carbon-rich deposits from that era.

Selenium poisoning has been around for a long time. Scientists say it is likely to have been behind a condition afflicting horses described by Marco Polo in 1295.

It wasn't until 1957 that a firm link was drawn between excess selenium and toxic effects. 

Once dissolved from exposed rock into a water body, selenium is readily absorbed by plants, fungi and algae, which are then eaten by birds and fish. If there's more selenium in the food than the animals can get rid of, it gradually builds up in their bodies.

In fish, it can retard growth, deform skeletons and damage a female's ability to produce and lay eggs. In birds, it reduces the number of eggs that successfully hatch and increases deformities in chicks.

Selenium poisoning in humans is rare. When it has been recorded, it's been blamed for heart and joint damage, tooth and nail decay, lethargy and even bad breath.

Its biggest impact is in lakes or slow-moving rivers. Once it builds up in sediments, it can cycle in the ecosystem for decades.

Scientists say the line between healthy and toxic levels of selenium — especially for fish — is narrow. Two millionths of a gram per litre of water is considered enough to harm aquatic life.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 1. 20

Selenium Facts for Kids (kiddle.co)

'We Have Got to Act Now': As GOP Introduces Weak Relief Bill, Sanders Says Dems Already Have Enough Votes to Pass Stronger Package

"We made promises to the American people. We're going to keep those promises."

by

Kenny Stancil, staff writer

 Published on Sunday, January 31, 2021

by

Common Dreams

"The question is not bipartisanship," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Sunday, January 31, 2021. "The question is addressing the unprecedented crises that we face right now." (Photo: Screengrab from ABC)

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Sunday told ABC host Martha Raddatz that there is a sufficient amount of support within the Democratic Party to pass President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package and warned that failing to immediately distribute aid to struggling households throughout the country would represent an unconscionable betrayal of the millions of voters who handed Democrats unified legislative and executive power with a directive to improve people's lives.

"The question is not bipartisanship. The question is addressing the unprecedented crises that we face right now."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

"We made promises to the American people," said Sanders. "We're going to keep those promises."

"Does your party have the votes to pass the relief package through the reconciliation process, if you decide to go that route?" asked Raddatz.

"I believe that we do," Sanders, an independent member of the Democratic caucus, replied. "It's hard for me to imagine any Democrat... who doesn't understand the need to go forward right now, in an aggressive way, to protect the working families of this country."

While acknowledging that Democratic lawmakers have "differences and concerns" about Biden's $1.9 trillion opening offer, Sanders stressed that "we're going to support the president of the United States, and we're going to... do what the American people overwhelmingly want us to do."

Although polling shows that the U.S. electorate overwhelmingly supports "an expansive government effort to combat Covid-19," Raddatz drew attention to tensions within the Democratic Party about moving forward unilaterally, if necessary.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.)—a right-wing lawmaker who last week reassured Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that he would never vote to end the filibuster, a "Jim Crow relic" that requires 60 votes to pass major legislation and thus facilitates anti-democratic rule—on Friday emphasized his desire to "find a bipartisan pathway forward."

Sanders—who is the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and has signaled his willingness to use the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process to circumvent GOP obstructionism—wasn't having it.

"Democrats have a majority [in the Senate] because of the fact that we won two seats with great candidates in Georgia," said Sanders. "That campaign in many ways was a national campaign."

Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock won in Georgia and by extension, Democrats won nationwide, Sanders said, because the party pledged to deliver relief checks, extend unemployment benefits, and "address the needs of working families."

"If politics means anything, if you're going to have any degree of credibility," Sanders continued, "you can't campaign on a series of issues and then after the election when you get power say, 'Oh well, you know what, we're changing our mind.' That's not the way it works."

Sanders' call for the Democrats to quickly fulfill their mandate to reduce suffering by providing relief as soon as possible coincided with reports that 10 Republican senators on Sunday requested a meeting with Biden to discuss their $600 billion coronavirus relief package, which they have presented as an alternative to the president's plan.

According to The Washington Post, the senators, led by Susan Collins (R-Maine), characterized their proposal as a fulfillment of Biden's "calls for unity." The newspaper noted that the GOP is expected to propose sending even smaller relief checks to far fewer people—slashing direct payments to $1,000 and limiting eligibility to those with individual incomes under $50,000 per year.

The group of GOP lawmakers intends to share additional details on Monday, the same day "Democratic leaders in both chambers are tentatively planning to introduce a budget resolution," the Post reported.

As Common Dreams reported last week, leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in which they warned that "if we aim too low, the financial consequences will be catastrophic, long-lasting, and borne by the American families who can least afford it."

The CPC's letter came in response to reports that the Biden administration—after seeking input about coronavirus relief from ostensible deficit-hawks, including Collins who, even after supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, claims the president's existing plan for direct payments will benefit allegedly undeserving middle-class families—is considering splitting its package into two parts in an attempt to attract GOP support.

Excluding more households from relief through additional means-testing—an approach that billionaire-owned media outlets are trying to rationalize—would be "not just bad economics, but terrible politics," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) cautioned last week. Trying to "target" aid to the poorest individuals, Khanna said, would leave out millions of people with moderate incomes who are nonetheless struggling, breeding anti-government resentment in the process. "Have we learned nothing?" he asked.

Progressives, already frustrated that Biden is calling for $1,400 checks instead of the promised $2,000, have stressed that Democrats "do not have to negotiate against themselves, word-parse their way out of campaign pledges, and delude themselves into thinking that Republicans are good-faith legislative partners," as The Daily Poster's David Sirota put it last week.

Sirota on Sunday suggested that Republicans may be "deliberately trying" to prevent Democrats from following through on their pledge to deliver adequate relief "so that the GOP can then run ads against Dems for breaking the promise."

With Sanders insisting that there is already enough support within the party to enact Biden's $1.9 trillion proposal, it remains to be seen how corporate Democrats will respond—needlessly collaborate with GOP lawmakers in pursuit of a watered-down bipartisan deal that represents elite "unity" but fails to meet the scale of the crisis, or listen to the progressive wing of the party and pass a robust relief package without the support of congressional Republicans.

"We have got to act, and we have got to act now," Sanders said in his appearance on ABC.

Alluding to the $600 billion plan put forth by 10 Republican senators, Raddatz—who neglected to mention that the GOP previously spent months stonewalling relief—asked Sanders: "Is it a mistake for Democrats to consider abandoning bipartisan negotiations so soon?"

To which Sanders responded: "The issue is not bipartisanship, or not. The issue is are we going to address the incredible set of crises and the pain and the anxiety, which is in this country."

"We have families... who cannot feed their kids," the senator continued. "We have millions of people who face eviction. We are in the midst of the worst pandemic in 100 years."

"The question is not bipartisanship," Sanders added. "The question is addressing the unprecedented crises that we face right now."

Biden on Friday expressed a similar sentiment: "I support passing Covid relief with support from Republicans if we can get it. But the Covid relief has to pass, there's no ifs, ands, or buts."

Trump lawyers' Cosby, Epstein ties

Donald Trump waves as he boards Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House. Photo / AP

Americans are sharing their reaction to Donald Trump's shock appointment of lawyers with connections to Bill Cosby and Jeffrey Epstein.

Over the weekend, news broke that five experts from the 74-year-old's impeachment legal team stood down due to clashes over strategy.

Today, two replacements were announced – David Schoen and Bruce Castor Jnr.

But it didn't take long for focus to shift to the pair's previous, high-profile ties.

In 2005, Castor decided not to prosecute former TV star Bill Cosby for the sexual assault of Andrea Constand, and Schoen met with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein days before his August 2019 death.

In the hours since the announcement was made, many Americans have taken to social media to point out those connections, and question their morals and track records.

US: Trump hires new lawyers to fight impeachment

Former president says David Schoen and Bruce Castor will now lead his defence against ‘incitement to insurrection’ charges.

The previous five-person legal team parted ways with the ex-president on Saturday days before his trial 

1 Feb 2021

Former US President Donald Trump hired two new lawyers to head his defence team for his historic second impeachment trial set to begin next week.

Trump’s announcement on Sunday follows reports he abruptly parted ways with several of his impeachment lawyers.

Lawyers David Schoen and Bruce Castor will head the defence effort in the trial set to begin in the US Senate on February 9, Trump’s office said in a statement. Schoen had already been helping Trump and advisers prepare for the proceedings, according to the former president’s office.

Both attorneys issued statements through Trump’s office saying they were honoured to take the job.

“The strength of our Constitution is about to be tested like never before in our history. It is strong and resilient. A document written for the ages, and it will triumph over partisanship yet again, and always,” said Castor.

Butch Bowers and Deborah Barberi, two South Carolina lawyers, are no longer on Trump’s team,  sources familiar with the situation told news agencies on Saturday, describing their departure as a “mutual decision”.

‘Complex cases’

Castor has focused on criminal law throughout his career, while Schoen specialises in “civil rights litigation in Alabama and federal criminal defence work, including white collar and other complex cases, in New York”, the statement said.

Trump, who left office January 20, faces trial on a charge that he incited the mob that stormed the US Capitol building in an effort to block his election loss to President Joe Biden. He is due to file a response to the impeachment charges on Tuesday.

The trial is historic on two fronts, marking the first time a president has been impeached twice and the first time a former United States president has faced such a trial.

Schoen had already been working with the defence team, and he and Castor “agree that this impeachment is unconstitutional”, the statement said.

Schoen previously represented Trump’s former adviser Roger Stone, who was convicted in November 2019 of lying under oath to legislators investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump pardoned Stone in December 2020.

Castor is a former Pennsylvania district attorney known for his decision not to prosecute entertainer Bill Cosby in 2005 after a woman accused Cosby of sexual assault. In 2017, Castor sued Cosby’s accuser in the case for defamation, claiming she destroyed his political career in retaliation. Cosby, 83, is now serving a three-to-10-year sentence after being found guilty in a 2018 trial of drugging and raping a onetime friend at his home in 2004.

Trump has reportedly been struggling to form a defence ahead of his historic trial, facing new hurdles with just days to go.

But with only five Republicans joining all 50 Democrats this week in agreeing the trial should go forward, it appears unlikely that 17 Republicans would vote against Trump, the minimum number needed to reach the two-thirds threshold for conviction.

 

 

Military coup in Myanmar, army declares 

one year-long state of emergency


The military arrested top statesmen, claiming the last general election in 2020 was rigged. State-run media ceased to work, and telecommunications in the capital and some other regions are down

Source : 112 Ukraine 1 February 2021

Military coup in Myanmar
Reuters

A military coup took place in Myanmar on early Monday, February 1. The troops arrested President U Wyn Myint, State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi and other top-rank statesmen. Press secretary of the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD), Dr. Myo Nyunt said so in a commentary for Xinhua. The official added that he himself would be detained soon, either.

As the arrests were conducted, the military TV of Myanmar announced the state of emergency in this country, which is supposed to last one year. The MRTV, the state-run television and radio ceased to work. Telecommunications in the capital and some other regions are down.

According to Reuters, the said events occurred several days after escalation of tensions between the civilian government and the military. The latter claim that the general election in 2020 were rigged.

Related: Ukraine’s government approves military cooperation with Myanmar

The latesy general election in Myanmar took place in November 2020. The ruling NLD seized the majority of seats on both chambers of the Parliament, which allowed them to shape the government. Other parties and the military claimed that the election was unfair. The army representatives promised to "take action". Rumors about possible military coup spread across the society.

Myanmar: What You Need to Know
By VOA News
February 01, 2021 

Vehicles are driven past the Sule Pagoda, Feb. 1, 2021 in Yangon, Myanmar.

Myanmar’s military said Monday it was taking control of the country for one year after declaring a state of emergency.

Why did this happen?

The military claimed there was voting fraud in November elections in which de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy party won a large majority in parliament. Myanmar’s election commission has rejected the fraud allegation.

Why now?

The military’s move came hours before the new parliament was due to sit for the first time.

What happened to NLD leaders?

A party spokesman said Aung San Suu Kyi was detained early Monday, along with other officials, including President Win Myint.

How has the international community responded?

Statements of condemnation for the military’s actions have come from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the U.S. State Department and White House, and from several other countries including Australia, India and Singapore.

RELATED STORIES

East Asia Pacific
Myanmar Leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Others Detained by Military
Military coup feared as phone services and internet access have been disrupted in some cities

East Asia Pacific
Myanmar’s Military Promises to Abide by and Protect Constitution
Statement came after the international community expressed serious concerns about commander-in-chief’s remarks about the possibility of repealing it