Biden wants millions of clean-energy related jobs. Can it happen?

Last week, President Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to addressing climate change by creating green energy jobs, building out a "modern and sustainable infrastructure" toward his continued goal of reaching a carbon-free energy sector in the US by 2035.

© Provided by CNN

In remarks last week before signing several executive orders focused on his climate agenda, Biden tied his energy policy directly to his plans to rebuild the US economy, citing the need for new, green infrastructure that would generate millions of jobs.

"A key plank of our Build Back Better Recovery Plan is building a modern, resilient climate infrastructure," Biden said, "and clean energy future that will create millions of good-paying union jobs -- not 7, 8, 10, 12 dollars an hour, but prevailing wage and benefits."

During his campaign, Biden's climate agenda included the goal of creating 10 million new jobs related to clean energy on top of the 3 million clean energy jobs the campaign said currently exist. "If executed strategically, our response to climate change can create more than 10 million well-paying jobs in the United States," the plan says, without laying out a timeline for that jobs-creating goal.

It's certainly an ambitious goal. Measuring the feasibility of Biden's plan is quite difficult and depends on several variables, including whether Congress will pass climate legislation. Biden has proposed a $2 trillion climate plan, which includes spending on things such as green energy infrastructure overhaul across the US. Green jobs are also hard to define, with different studies varying widely on what type of jobs they choose to include. For context, it's also worth examining the climate and energy efforts of President Barack Obama, many of which were repealed under President Donald Trump, and the effect they had on green jobs.

Under the eight years of Obama's presidency, the US economy added 11.6 million total new jobs, which only adds to the steepness of Biden's challenge, if as he said during his campaign, he wants to create 10 million new clean energy jobs.

Clean energy job numbers

Measuring the feasibility of Biden's plan first requires establishing what these clean energy-related jobs are and getting good data to establish a baseline and historical trends, which isn't easy.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics studied what it called "green jobs" starting in 2010 before budget cuts stopped the study in 2013. The BLS defined these jobs broadly, in part as those "in which workers' duties involve making their establishment's production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources."

This definition was not limited to those who directly contribute to building, installing or maintaining green energy technology but was so broad it included jobs in sewage, publishers of environmental trade publications and environment and science museums, to name a few.

In the survey for 2010, the BLS reported the US had "3.1 million green goods and services (GGS) jobs."

A 2020 report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, a non-partisan group of business leaders focused on environment and the economy, found that "[b]efore the COVID-19 crisis, nearly 3.4 million Americans worked in clean energy—solar, wind, energy efficiency, clean vehicles, and more."

Bob Keefe, executive director of Environmental Entrepreneurs, said the study was not focused on the broad category of "green jobs," but rather jobs involved in the process of clean energy.

Video: Joe Biden has a message for coal workers (CNN)

"[P]eople can call whatever they want a green job," Keefe said, "whether it's somebody who works in recycling or something like that. OK, fine they are green jobs. I'm talking about clean energy jobs."

According to the report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, these clean energy jobs increased by about 2% in 2019 and 4% in 2018. But for Biden to reach just a million new clean energy jobs in his first four years, there would need to be a yearly increase of 6.7% based on the figures from the Environmental Entrepreneurs report, and that's after returning to pre-Covid levels of employment.

Obama's efforts

Obama, who campaigned heavily on addressing climate change, ran into significant roadblocks everywhere from the courts, legislation dying in the Senate and ultimately having many of his administration's new environmental regulations repealed under President Donald Trump.

Obama did pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 to jumpstart the economy in the midst of the recession. The Recovery Act contained grants and loans for the EPA and Department of Energy.

One study led by Syracuse Professor David Popp examined the "green" funds from the Recovery act -- focused on environment-related issues -- and found that for every $1 million spent, 10 new jobs were created a few years later.

"Almost all of those jobs were in manual labor, a lot of them were construction," Popp told CNN. "A lot of that's by design because that's where the money was targeted" through energy efficiency renovations and installing renewable energy infrastructure.

Cap and trade legislation, which would have set limits on carbon dioxide emissions for companies, died in a Senate controlled by 57 Democrats -- seven more than Biden currently has -- after the House passed the bill in 2009.

"[Obama] had this one huge setback, and then he lost control of Congress," Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University at Buffalo, told CNN.

Despite Democrats only controlling Congress by a razor thin margin, Rome said, Biden could have the opportunity to work toward "legislative, not executive action" to address climate change.

"Biden, I think, recognizes that he has the kind of New Deal moment here," Rome said.

Biden's challenge

Biden can't accomplish his vast, $2 trillion clean energy plan without action from Congress. Right now the President would need every Senate Democrat on board to pass any legislation needed -- and he may even need Republicans signing on too if Democrats like Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema continue to oppose eliminating the filibuster.

The current pandemic also creates limitations on what Biden can currently accomplish in Congress, with most members focused on a Covid-19 economic stimulus package. And if the President is unable to pass a stimulus package, it's extremely unlikely his climate agenda would.

Even if Biden passes his energy plan, through a Senate with strong disagreements over environmental policies, experts disagree on whether his goal of millions more clean energy jobs is attainable.

"If the question is, do I think that the Biden plans are going to create millions of jobs, the answer is yes," Keefe told CNN. "Is it 10 million? Is it 20 million? I think that's to be determined."

Keefe noted that some of these future jobs are already being planned, with General Motors announcing that by 2035 it would only be producing emission free vehicles.

Benjamin Zycher, a resident scholar focused on energy and environmental policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, told CNN that "more expensive energy means less employment. It's just that simple."

"The best you could hope for," Zycher said, "is merely an employment shift out of other sectors into green sectors, however that's defined."

 

Starship rocket SpaceX hopes to send to Mars explodes

Duration: 00:47 

A prototype rocket that SpaceX hopes will one day send astronauts to Mars crashed and exploded on its return to the ground during a test launch in Texas on Tuesday. It's the second time that the prototype Starship rocket has failed to land successfully.

FAA denied SpaceX a safety waiver. Its Starship SN8 rocket launched anyway

On Dec. 9, 2020, SpaceX sent one of its Starship Mars rocket prototypes, dubbed SN8, on a high-altitude test flight for the first time. The successful launch and flight ended with a dramatic and explosive hard landing, which Elon Musk had warned ahead of time might be the outcome.

© Provided by CNET Boom. SpaceX's Starship SN8 prototype had an eventful landing. SpaceX

On Tuesday, we learned the whole scene came in defiance of the Federal Aviation Administration, the US regulatory agency that oversees much of commercial space activity and licenses SpaceX's Starship prototypes to operate in American airspace.

"Prior to the Starship SN8 test launch in December 2020, SpaceX sought a waiver to exceed the maximum public risk allowed by federal safety regulations," reads a statement from an FAA spokesperson. "After the FAA denied the request, SpaceX proceeded with the flight. As a result of this non-compliance, the FAA required SpaceX to conduct an investigation of the incident. All testing that could affect public safety at the Boca Chica, Texas, launch site was suspended until the investigation was completed and the FAA approved the company's corrective actions to protect public safety."

© SpaceX BOOM. SpaceX's Starship SN8 prototype had an eventful landing.

This revelation came on the same morning the FAA announced it finally gave the green light for SN8's successor, SN9, to make its own high-altitude test flight from the company's Boca Chica, Texas, development facility.

SN9 successfully launched and flew Tuesday afternoon and then suffered an explosive crash landing very similar to the final fate of SN8. Tuesday evening, the FAA said it would open and oversee an investigation into SN9's "landing mishap."

FAA later provided more details on the launch of SN8 in December, explaining that "the company proceeded with the launch without demonstrating that the public risk from far field blast overpressure was within the regulatory criteria."

Basically, the FAA is saying SpaceX didn't demonstrate that the risk to the public from a potential explosive blast wave was within legal limits, but it went ahead and launched SN8 anyway.

"The FAA required SpaceX to conduct an investigation of the incident, including a comprehensive review of the company's safety culture, operational decision-making and process discipline," an FAA spokesperson said in an emailed statement. "The FAA-approved corrective actions implemented by SpaceX enhanced public safety. Those actions were incorporated into today's SN9 launch. We anticipate taking no further enforcement action on SN8 matter."

So it appears SpaceX launched a prototype rocket without all proper regulatory approvals, and the only consequence was to perform an internal review and have the launch of its next prototype delayed by a few days.

SpaceX didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The launch of SN9 had been repeatedly pushed back during January. Last week it became clear approval from the FAA was the primary holdup, leading Elon Musk to criticize the agency publicly on Twitter.

Nonetheless, the FAA said Friday it was working with SpaceX to approve a modified license for the launch of SN9.

"The corrective actions arising from the SN8 incident are incorporated into the SN9 launch license," the FAA said

© Provided by CNET SN8's last moments. SpaceX video capture

"I am trying to wrap my mind around this right now, and will likely have more to say about it, but I am just in complete shock that a licensee has violated a launch license and there seems to be no repercussions," former FAA official Jared Zambrano-Stout wrote on Twitter. "If a licensee violates the terms of their launch license, they did so knowing that an uninvolved member of the public could have been hurt or killed. That is not exaggeration. They took a calculated risk with your life and property."

An FAA spokesperson said the agency will likely not be providing further comment on the incident.

Follow CNET's 2021 Space Calendar to stay up to date with all the latest space news this year. You can even add it to your own Google Calendar.

How experts say Trump galvanized extremists who sieged the Capitol

Nearly a month after a pro-Trump mob violently stormed the U.S. Capitol, a clearer picture is emerging of the individuals and groups involved as federal authorities arrest and charge people who allegedly participated in the riot.

© Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Former President Donald Trump’s supporters -- 74 million of whom voted to give him a second term in 2020 -- are diverse in background and ideology and come from all corners of the United States, and those who stormed the Capitol represent just a fraction.

But to some experts, the hundreds who took part in the Capitol siege represent some of the most fervent and radical adherents of the “Make America Great Again” movement and others caught up in the frenzy of the day. They say attempts to unite those extremist elements fell apart after Charlottesville but gained renewed momentum in 2020, with racial unrest, the pandemic and most recently the unfounded controversy over the election.

© Jon Cherry/Getty Images Pro-Trump protesters gather in front of the U.S. Capitol Building, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C., before a mob stormed the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with police officers, as congress gathered to certify the election of Joe Biden.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a sociology professor at American University who studies extremism and far-right movements, said that those who stormed the Capitol are a “loose coalition” of groups from across the far-right spectrum.

“These were people who were radicalized and participated in an insurrection, it’s just that some did so in a very planned way, and I think others ended up being caught up spontaneously in mob rioting," Miller-Idriss said.

For the experts, the most prominent force that unified hard-right adherent, militias and other Trump supporters and whipped them up into a frenzy behind the idea that the election was stolen -- Trump himself.

And Trump, unlike past presidents, gave these disparate groups a national platform unlike any they'd had in modern American history with the instantaneous recognition and feedback of social media.

Trump’s false claims about election fraud and his rhetoric post-election urging his supporters to fight back is at the heart of the former president’s Senate impeachment trial, which is set to begin next week. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump on Jan. 13 after House Democrats filed an article of impeachment, charging him with "incitement of insurrection."

ABC News reached out to the former president’s legal team but representatives declined to comment.The symbols of hate and far-right extremism on display in pro-Trump Capitol siege
The makeup of the mobThe investigation into the Capitol siege is a massive law enforcement undertaking and continues to evolve every day, with more than 140 arrests and counting.

Larry Rosenthal, chair and lead researcher of the Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies, said that the mob was generally made up of two groups: “right-wing populists,” whom he described as part of Trump’s most faithful “rally-goers,” and right-wing militia groups that represent two overlapping “currents” of the far-right movement: white nationalism and anti-government.

© Samuel Corum/Getty Images President Donald Trump is seen on a screen as his supporters cheer during a rally Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

Some of these ideologies and beliefs were on display in far-right insignia scattered among the crowd, which included symbols of the Confederacy, Nazism, white supremacy and anarchy.

And some of those arrested have documented their alleged involvement on social media and some have known ties to far-right groups, or are adherents of disproven conspiracy theories.

The men behind QAnon

In addition to a diverse and loose coalition of groups involved, the members of the mob were also not racially and ethnically homogenous.

Although the majority of rioters at the “Stop the Steal” rally were white, the Trump mob was “not a homogenous group of white nationalists," Cristina Beltrán, a professor at New York University who studies race, ethnicity and American politics, said.

© Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP, FILE Jacob Chansley and other supporters of President Donald Trump are confronted by U.S. Capitol Police officers outside the Senate Chamber inside the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021.

In fact, one of the organizers of “Stop the Steal” is far-right activist and conspiracy theorist Ali Alexander, who identifies as Arab and Black. “Blacks for Trump” signs were spotted in the crowd and some Black and Latino participants are now wanted by the FBI for their alleged involvement in the siege.

In order to understand Trump’s support, “we must think in terms of multiracial whiteness,” Beltrán writes in a Washington Post op-ed: “Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.”

The motivations of the mob

After weeks of hearing false claims from Trump and his allies that the election was stolen, thousands of the former president's most loyal followers disrupted the certification of the 2020 election results by breaching the U.S. Capitol and

 clashing with law enforcement in a violent siege that resulted in the death of five people.

© Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Supporters listen as US President Donald Trump speaks on The Ellipse outside of the White House, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

“This insistence -- and not just Trump’s, but other elected officials’ insistence on that narrative of disinformation and that false conspiracy about the election has played a huge role in mobilizing these people,” Miller-Idriss said.

In fact, chants shouted by rioters and signs spotted in the crowd closely mirrored Trump’s own words.

For instance, the rally was named “Stop the Steal,” a phrase the Trump appeared to revel in and tweeted repeatedly before his account was suspended; shortly after Trump urged supporters to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell,” rioters shouted “fight for Trump” as they violently breached law enforcement to enter the building; signs reading “take back our country” and “Trump won the legal vote” were spotted among rioters, reflecting language Trump has been using for weeks on Twitter as he repeated his false claims that the election was stolen from him.

© Jon Cherry/Getty Images Member of a pro-Trump mob exit the Capitol Building after teargas is dispersed inside, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

This is what Trump told supporters before many stormed Capitol Hill

And finally, after Trump continued to falsely claim that Vice President Mike Pence could refuse to ratify President Joe Biden's 2020 win -- but had declined to do so, chants of “Hang Mike Pence” were heard among rioters and images casting Pence as a traitor were scattered among the crowd.

“(Trump) was continuing to propagate and circulate and disseminate this information about the election in ways that posed an existential threat to them and made them feel that their democracy has been stolen,” Miller-Idriss said.

"People move from radicalization into mobilization, to really believing that they are not only empowered to act, but compelled to do so.”

© Andrew Harnik/AP People shelter in the House gallery as protesters try to break into the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington.

The leader of the mob

According to Rosenthal, far-right groups that subscribe to white nationalist ideologies have always existed in the United States and since the second era of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and 30s they have generally existed on the fringes of society, but Trump gave them a place in national politics.

© John Minchillo/AP Trump supporters gather outside the U.S. Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington.

“Suddenly, in 2015 at the level of presidential politics, somebody is talking their language,” he added, pointing to Trump's anti-immigrant and racially charged rhetoric.

During his presidency, Trump frequently failed to condemn white supremacists and far-right groups espousing hateful and disproven conspiracy theories. He also often galvanized their causes.

The “Stop the Steal” movement energized some of the same elements of the far-right movement in the U.S. that shaped the August 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville when hundreds of so-called alt-right groups took to the streets to violently protest the removal of Confederate monuments.Why Trump's response to Capitol siege evokes memories of Charlottesville

“The ‘Unite the Right’ [movement] failed. It did not create such a unified militia and the groups that put it together started falling apart among themselves … the alt-right kind of went into decline, but 2020 resurrected things,” Rosenthal said.

This past year, anti-lockdown and anti-mask demonstrations amid the COVID-19 pandemic “inflamed the anti-government” right-wing militia groups, while the Black Lives Matter protests that erupted over the summer following the police killing of George Floyd “activated the white nationalist side” of the far-right movement, Rosenthal added.

© Samuel Corum/Getty Images Supporters of President Donald Trump gather in the rain for a rally at Freedom Plaza, Jan. 5, 2021, in Washington, D.C., the day before a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol following a rally with Trump.

And Trump, who was outspoken on both issues, elevated these positions to the national stage, experts said.

As president, Trump repeatedly downplayed the pandemic, refused to implement a nationwide mask mandate, mostly refused to wear a mask himself and his administration frequently flouted federal safety guidelines meant to curb the crisis.

Meanwhile, during his 2020 campaign, Trump cast himself as the “law and order” candidate, slammed the Black Lives Matter movement, dismissed concerns surrounding systemic racism and police brutality and in a message to voters, he claimed that if he is not re-elected, crime and riots will overtake the suburbs.

© Jacquelyn Martin/AP President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a rally Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington D.C.

During his final weeks in office, the coalition of far-right groups again found a common cause around the baseless cause that the election had been stolen or rigged.

The white nationalist and anti-government currents compounded in "Stop the Steal," along with an important element of "fascist mobilizations," Rosenthal said: "A devotion to a singular leader who can command their attention.”

ABC News' Alexander Mallin and John Santucci contributed to this report.

It looks like some Capitol rioters are taking plea deals and agreeing to sell each other out

jshamsian@insider.com (Jacob Shamsian) 

© Provided by Business Insider Rioters clash with police using big ladder trying to enter Capitol building through the front doors. Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

Legal experts think some of the people charged in the Capitol riot may be cooperating with federal prosecutors.

The Daily Beast identified several charged with an information rather than a grand jury indictment.
An information charge usually means someone plans to plead guilty, and often indicates cooperation.


Federal prosecutors are nearly a month into their investigations into people who stormed the Capitol building on January 6, filing charges against more than 200 people so far.

Court records indicate some of those people may be informing the FBI about other participants, according to The Daily Beast.

The Daily Beast identified three people who had been subjected to a charging instrument called an information, rather than a grand jury indictment.

An information is a type of charging instrument prosecutors typically use when the defendant plans to plead guilty.

According to Randy Zelin, a criminal defense attorney at Wilk Auslander LLP and adjunct professor at Cornell Law School, it also typically means the defendant is cooperating with government prosecutors.

"If the government is drawing up an information, and someone is working this out with the government, more often than not, that means that they're cooperating and entered into a cooperation agreement with the government," Zelin told Insider.

It's not yet certain if the individuals charged with informations are necessarily cooperating, or have just agreed to plead guilty without a cooperation agreement. Prosecutors don't furnish the full list of witnesses until shortly before the trial begins.

"Generally speaking, cooperative agreements are sealed, because the very essence of a cooperation agreement is that you are cooperating against someone else," Zelin said. "And the government doesn't want that other defendant to know who the cooperators are."

© Provided by INSIDER Protesters broke into Capitol Building on January 06, 2021.

 (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

But prosecutors are sure to seek the cooperation of at least some of the 200-plus people charged. Former Justice Department prosecutor Neama Rahman told The Daily Beast it's unlikely for prosecutors to charge someone with an information unless plea negotiations are underway.

"Cooperation is always likely in federal cases, especially here, where the US Attorney's Office has both significant leverage and wants to identify the ringleaders in this sedition conspiracy, as well as other potential domestic terrorist threats," Rahman said. "It's uncommon to have this large of a gathering of political extremists from all across the country, so the government will have a treasure trove of information and witnesses to work with."

Justice Department representatives didn't immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

One of the people charged with an information is Matthew Mazzocco, who was arrested at his home in Texas on January 17 after posting videos of his involvement online. According to court records reviewed by Insider, Mazzocco was first charged with a criminal complaint. On Thursday, he was charged with an information on similar counts, a day before he was ordered to appear in court later this week.

Zelin said that once pleas are formalized, we could have a better understanding of who may be cooperating with prosecutors. People who cooperate are likely to receive lesser charges than those who don't, he said.

"That would give you a little bit more insight as to whether or not someone is actually cooperating," he said. "Because the better the deal is, the more likely it is that what they've given up in return for getting that better deal is cooperating." Expanded Coverage Module: capitol-siege-module

Read the original article on Insider

Verity Pharma and India's SII apply to distribute AstraZeneca vaccine in Canada


By Allison Martell and Euan Rocha

© Reuters/FRANCIS MASCARENHAS FILE PHOTO: A nurse displays a vial of COVISHIELD, the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Serum Institute of India, in Mumbai

TORONTO/NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Verity Pharmaceuticals and Serum Institute of India (SII) have applied to distribute SII's licensed version of AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine in Canada, potentially easing shortages as European manufacturing sites struggle to meet global demand.

AstraZeneca Canada had filed a rolling application for its vaccine with Health Canada in October, but online records show Canada's Verity Pharmaceuticals and SII on Jan. 23 filed a separate application to sell the vaccine developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University researchers.

SII, the world's biggest vaccine maker, has capacity to produce roughly 2.4 million doses per day at its campus in Pune, western India.

"Verity Pharmaceuticals is providing important support to Serum Institute of India related to its regulatory registration, importation and distribution of the vaccine in Canada, pending Health Canada approval," AstraZeneca Canada and Verity said in a joint statement.

A source close to the matter said discussions are ongoing between SII and Verity but it is too early to provide details on delivery timelines or volumes that SII could ship to Canada.

SII did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Indian company's chief executive, Adar Poonawalla, told Reuters last week that SII was happy to support AstraZeneca to meet any supply needs, but he emphasised that its primary focus was India and other poorer nations in Asia and Africa.

SII has already stepped in to help AstraZeneca to fulfil some orders in South Africa, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and other nations.

Canada, with a population of about 38 million, has ordered more vaccine doses per capita than any other country and was among the first to approve the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna vaccines, though deliveries have been sluggish.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is a major industry in India, and several COVID-19 vaccines are being produced in the country at scale. Canada, by contrast, is entirely dependent on imports from European manufacturing sites, and both Pfizer and Moderna have cut planned deliveries in recent weeks.

Last week the European Union rolled out a new export control regime for vaccines, including a mechanism that could block certain exports. Canadian officials say they have been assured that shipments to Canada should not be affected, but Canada is not officially exempt from the regime.

Poonawalla last week told Reuters that SII had no plans to divert supplies to Europe.

SII, which had a stockpile of about 60 million doses of the vaccine last month, is adding a third production line by March. That would allow it to produce more than 3 million doses a day of COVISHIELD, the brand name under which it markets the AstraZeneca shot.

Beyond supplying India's vaccination drive, however, SII has also committed to supply tens of millions of doses to the GAVI/WHO-backed COVAX initiative to help to accelerate vaccinations in poorer nations.

(Reporting by Allison Martell in Toronto and Euan Rocha in New Delhi; Editing by David Goodman)

CAPITALIST CONSULTATION; DO IT OUR WAY

Baffinland says it won’t budge on proposed railway route

Baffinland says there’s no turning back on the route for the 110-km railroad it wants to build to expand its Mary River iron mine, which it says became finalized when the company struck the Inuit Certainty Agreement with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association.

But the QIA sees things differently. In an email to Nunatsiaq News, the association said that under that agreement, struck in July 2020, Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. “committed to determining whether there is community support” for the route during the hearings of the Nunavut Impact Review Board.

“To QIA’s knowledge the issue of community support remains unresolved,” said QIA’s statement.

The hamlet of Pond Inlet and the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization remain opposed to the route, which would run from the Mary River mine, northeast to its port at Milne Inlet. They have expressed concerns that the railroad will scare away caribou.

The Nunavut Impact Review Board’s final hearing on Baffinland’s expansion plans began its second week Monday. Last week, presentations by the company asserted that the railway route was made final by the multi-million-dollar agreement struck with QIA.

Megan Lord-Hoyle, Baffinland’s vice-president of sustainable development, told the hearing Thursday the mine remained committed to the route, despite ongoing concerns raised by community organizations.

Baffinland says the current route, which it calls called Route 3, takes into account earlier concerns raised about the company’s first route proposal that would have closely followed the existing tote road. A second route, proposed by local Inuit, was deemed unsafe by Baffinland. The company maintains that Route 3hree would have the smallest impact on caribou — as well as the lowest fuel consumption for its trains — of the three routes.

Baffinland’s critics, meanwhile, say the company still lacks data on the proposed route.

On, Jan. 28, in a response to a question from Igloolik Mayor Merlyn Recinos, Lord-Hoyle said Baffinland has not completed a geotechnical study of the route, to test the ground’s stability.

Baffinland later clarified in an email to Nunatsiaq News that geotechnical work began in 2020 and will continue in 2021 to “define the exact engineering requirements” but not to change the route.

“It is important to note that regardless of them being completed or not, it does not change our commitment that this is the route that we would construct should phase two be approved,” Lord-Hoyle said during Thursday’s session.

Andrew Dumbrille, World Wildlife Fund Canada’s lead specialist on marine shipping and conservation, said in an interview with Nunatsiaq News that without this study being complete, the route could see unexpected changes made after it’s already accepted.

The study shows whether “a certain geological area can sustain the full weight and construction of a railroad. And they haven’t done that,” he said. “With a project of this magnitude, we shouldn’t be giving Baffinland a blank cheque.”

Baffinland says other studies support its preferred railroad route, with focuses on caribou safety, sustainability and traditional knowledge.

And the current railway route, it said, is a direct result of working with Inuit.

David Venn, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Nunatsiaq News

Pardon for 'Dreamers'? Some activists tout amnesty for undocumented immigrants if Congress doesn't act

In his first few days in office, President Joe Biden moved swiftly to deliver on promises to Hispanic voters, signing a directive to protect "Dreamers" from deportation and unveiling an outline for sweeping changes to immigration laws.

Tuesday afternoon, the president announced a task force to reunite families separated at the border and an executive order that reviews a Trump administration policy requiring migrants seeking asylum to wait in Mexico while they plead their case.

But executive actions are not permanent, and the White House already has begun tamping down hopes for passage of an omnibus reform measure.

That leaves some Latino advocacy groups looking at an untested fallback plan: a mass presidential pardon for at least some of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.

“We believe this is a viable option if the Senate fails to act on comprehensive immigration reform,” said Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Reversing Trump: Biden to create task force to reunite families separated at border, sign order to review asylum program

Reuniting families: 628 parents remain separated from their kids after Trump's zero-tolerance border policy. Biden wants to find them.

Hector Sánchez Barba, executive director at Mi Familia Vota,said congressional action is the top priority, and Biden has put forth “the most progressive plan I’ve seen, probably in our history.”

But if Congress fails to reform immigration laws, he said, “I am in an action mode. … We will advocate for anything that reverses the extremism and damage” of the Trump administration.

It is unclear how Biden would respond if pressed to pursue a mass pardon. Moreover, not all immigrant-rights advocates want to pursue that controversial path while there is a chance Congress could act.

Jorge Loweree, policy director with the American Immigration Council, said a presidential pardon for immigration violators falls short because “it wouldn’t put people on a path to citizenship; it would just cure one of the barriers to getting there.”

© Evan Vucci, AP President Joe Biden signs his first executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Six of Biden's 17 first-day executive orders dealt with immigration, such as halting work on a border wall in Mexico and lifting a travel ban on people from several predominantly Muslim countries.

The clemency proposition is not new. In late 2016, before Trump was inaugurated, Garcia and others feared the new president would launch draconian deportations of undocumented immigrants – especially those brought to the United States as children, called "Dreamers" based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act.

Dozens of advocacy groups and at least three Democrats in Congress implored then-President Barack Obama to issue last-minute amnesty. In a letter to the president, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California and her colleagues described the proposed pardon as “a matter of life and death” for many of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Obama denied the request. And Trump carried out his promised crackdown.

© Richard Vogel, AP Protesters gather at the federal courthouse in Los Angeles in June 2018 to object to the Trump administration's separation of migrant children from their parents at the U.S. border with Mexico.

Biden acts to undo Trump's immigration policies

Trump’s promise of a border wall was the hallmark of his first presidential campaign. In office, he tried to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allows people brought to the U.S. as children to remain in the country, but he was largely blocked by court rulings. As part of a "zero tolerance" policy for illegal entry, children were separated from parents at the southern border. The administration tried to prevent most migrants from claiming political asylum and required those seeking asylum to wait in Mexico.

Cut to 2020 and Biden’s platform was the polar opposite: He vowed to stop construction of Trump's southern border wall, protect "Dreamers" and overhaul U.S. immigration laws that have not changed significantly in three decades.

On his first day in office, Biden signed an executive memorandum reinstating DACA and unveiled a sweeping immigration reform package.

Under that proposal, agricultural workers, people who arrived illegally as children and immigrants with what is known as temporary protected status would immediately qualify for green cards – giving them legal status and a right to work. Other undocumented immigrants in the United States as of Jan. 1 would receive temporary legal status for five years, with a path to citizenship if they passed background checks and paid taxes

.

© Mario Tama, Getty Images Mexican immigrant Vicky Uriostegui, who has lived in the U.S. for 27 years, hauls out water hoses at dawn on a farm in fields near Turlock, California. Agriculture is the main economic driver in the region, and most field work is done by immigrants.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a Republican who had supported a bipartisan immigration reform plan, ripped Biden’s legislative plan as “mass amnesty” – the exact words used by Trump loyalist Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

Meanwhile, congressional Democrats who once pushed Obama to pardon "Dreamers" went silent.

Lofgren, a former immigration attorney and the most recent chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, declined to comment on whether she may ask Biden to use his pardon power.

In a written statement, she said she’s focused on working with the president “to advance our shared bold vision to reform our country’s immigration system.”

Other members of the House and Senate did not respond to emails and calls. Neither did a White House spokesman.
A constitutional ‘gray area’

On Jan. 21, 1977, more than 570,000 American offenders were given pardons.

It was the first full day in office for President Jimmy Carter, and he used it to grant amnesty to Vietnam-era draft dodgers. Nearly 210,000 had been charged with violating the Selective Service Act. Another 360,000 dodged but were not prosecuted.

© AP President Jimmy Carter extended a pardon to over 200,000 Vietnam anti-draft resisters in 1977.

Article II, Clause 1 of the Constitution is terse and clear: “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

The authority covers all violations of federal law and may be used absolutely or conditionally, according to Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. It includes a presumed power “to pardon specified classes or communities wholesale, in short, the power to amnesty.”

Draft dodgers were nowhere near the first to benefit from mass clemency. Three years earlier, President Gerald Ford granted a conditional pardon to military deserters who were willing to perform public service.

In fact, presidents throughout history granted amnesty to large groups, beginning with the first pardon issued by George Washington in 1795 to participants in a tax revolt known as the Whiskey Rebellion.

Andrew Johnson gave amnesty to all Confederate soldiers after the Civil War. And, in 1902, Theodore Roosevelt granted amnesty to residents of the Philippines – then a U.S. territory – who took part in an insurrection.

Yet, according to legal experts, no president has ever pardoned someone for illegal immigration during the nation’s 245-year history. Presidential pardons historically have addressed criminal violations; entering or being in the country unlawfully is a civil offense unless it's a repeat violation.

Peter Markowitz, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law, acknowledged it's a legal “gray area.” But he said immigration violations – civil or criminal – clearly constitute offenses, and there is “ample reason to believe it is within a president’s pardon authority.”

In a 2017 law review article co-written with Lindsay Nash, Markowitz advocated just such an action, writing: “The President possesses the constitutional authority to categorically pardon broad classes of immigrants for civil violations of the immigration laws and to thereby provide durable and permanent protections against deportation.”

Other experts say it's not so clear-cut, especially without any Supreme Court precedent on pardons for civil offenses. Some argue that a person in the United States illegally commits an ongoing violation. Pardon power may not be exercised to erase future offenses.

Markowitz conceded that executive clemency is an “imperfect solution” because, while it would protect undocumented immigrants from deportation, it would not grant them legal status or rights.

“Everybody would prefer that this type of durable protection be delivered through legislation,” Markowitz said. But if that proves impossible, clemency at least gives undocumented immigrants peace of mind that they can’t be deported.
'We knew what was coming' with Trump

Despite legal uncertainties and a likely political backlash, Markowitz suggested using pardon power for immigrants would have been worth it four years ago.

In a 2016 opinion piece, Raul A. Reyes, an immigration attorney and member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors, argued that by inviting young "Dreamers" to sign up for DACA, Democrats later exposed them to deportation under the Trump administration.

“It would be a cruel irony if Obama were to turn his back on those here illegally – through no fault of their own – after he helped expose them to risk of deportation,” he concluded.

David Leopold, immigration counsel for America’s Voice, which advocates a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, said it made sense to consider amnesty at the close of Obama’s presidency because Trump had characterized immigrants as criminals.

“We knew the extremism. We knew the xenophobia. We knew what was coming,” said Leopold, who served as a volunteer adviser in the Biden campaign.

But as Biden’s presidency begins, Leopold does not see presidential pardon power as a serious consideration because about 80% of Americans favor changes in law to protect undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.

“The answer right now is legislative,” Leopold said. “There’s a moment in history right now when we can do it. … Hopefully, Congress will step up to the plate.”

Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said it would be a legal and political stretch for Biden to simply pardon people who entered the United States unlawfully – a “very out-of-the-blue proposition,” as she put it.

“I’m just having a hard time figuring out how the pardon power … could be justified for that,” said Meissner, now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute.
Some say it's not the time to talk pardons

Ira Mehlman, media director with the Federation for Immigration Reform, which advocates for strict immigration enforcement and controls, said mass clemency would constitute a “huge overreach” by the president.

In a podcast four years ago, he noted, Cecilia Muñoz, then director of the Obama White House’s Domestic Policy Council, declared that pardons "wouldn’t protect a single soul from deportation.”

Some immigrant rights advocates also resist talk of amnesty, at least for now, for fear it would undermine the push for legislation.

Kristian Ramos of Autonomy Strategies, a communications firm specializing in Latino issues, said Biden’s executive order protecting DACA recipients and immigrants in temporary protected status has, for now, solved the most pressing problem.

“They’re protected,” Ramos said. “He has essentially provided the … reprieve that he could. There’s no real need to pardon them.”

Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a DACA recipient from Brazil and policy manager with United We Dream, declined to address the amnesty question in a written statement.

Instead, she stressed that Biden and Democrats “have a mandate from the people” to transform America's immigration system. “President Biden must use every tool at his disposal to provide relief for as many people as possible," she said.

“We are tired and not satisfied by executive actions,” said Fernando Garcia, executive director with Border Network for Human Rights. “We need to actually change the law.”

Garcia expressed doubt that Biden would consider amnesty even if legislation fails. “I don’t think it’s realistic that any president is going to say, ‘We’re going to pardon 600,000 Dreamers or 1.2 million Dreamers,’” he said. “And I don’t believe Dreamers are guilty of any offense.”

Loweree, with the American Immigration Council, said America’s support for "Dreamers" is higher than ever, and the president has a “unique opportunity” to fulfill campaign promises beginning with announcements Tuesday.

Loweree said he doesn’t buy into claims that Biden has a debt to Hispanics who helped him get elected. “The issue here isn’t who owes anyone anything,” he said. Rather, it’s about fulfilling a promise made during the Obama administration: "'Dreamers' who came out of the shadows and signed up for DACA were told they’d be protected and allowed to work, not deported."

With that in mind, Loweree suggested talk of presidential amnesty cannot be dismissed entirely: “We expect President Biden will do everything in his power – and consider all options.”

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: A pardon for 'Dreamers'? Some activists tout amnesty for undocumented immigrants if Congress doesn't act

More Than 100 Democrats Call for Repeal of Trump Tax Break Benefitting Millionaires


A group of Democrats has written to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urging them to repeal a Trump-era tax break that disproportionately benefits millionaires.© Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) listens as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on December 20, 2020 in Washington, DC. A group of 120 Democrats have urged the leadership to repeal a Trump era tax cut that benefits millionaires.

Senator Sheldon White (D-RI) and Texas Congressman Lloyd Doggett led the group of 120 Democrats in the House and Senate in calling for the tax cut to be reversed.

"As we continue to debate allocating limited resources to stimulate the economy, we write to bring your attention to costly tax breaks for so-called 'net operating losses' that Republicans tucked into the CARES Act," the letter read.

CARES—the Coronavirus Relief and Economic Security Act—was a $2.2 trillion stimulus package that also contained the controversial tax cut.

"These special-interest giveaways will confer over 80 percent of the benefits to just over 43,000 taxpayers, each earning at least $1 million per year," the Democrats' letter went on.

"We urge you to repeal these unwarranted tax cuts," they say, citing Pelosi's proposed HEROES plans, which have repealed the tax break.

"This would save over $250 billion which should be repurposed to help Americans who have lost income due to the pandemic and its economic fallout," the group of Democrats said.

BREAKING: @SenWhitehouse, @LloydDoggettTX, @RepCohen + @rosadelauro just sent a letter with over 120 signers calling on Democratic leadership to repeal the tax breaks for millionaires Senate Republicans slipped into COVID relief last year.

Its repeal would generate $250 billion. pic.twitter.com/UNGj2mAJX3— Americans For Tax Fairness (@4TaxFairness) February 3, 2021

The letter to Pelosi and Schumer also argued the tax cuts "benefit a narrow set of high-income taxpayers, including hedge funds, real estate developers, and likely the Trump family."

"The repeal of NOL [net operating losses] in the CARES Act had little to do with pandemic relief and arbitrarily rewards business who lost money before the pandemic began.

"Making matters worse, unlike the small business relief provided through the Paycheck Protection Program, these windfalls come with no strings attached to ensure they support payroll or critical business operations."

The tax cut applied to losses incurred between 2018 and 2020 and eliminating it could raise $250 billion over the course of 10 years, the Democrats said. Some of this would be brought in by "clawing back" money from companies that have already filed taxes and benefited from the CARES Act cut.

"The best place to start for Republicans urging more narrowly-targeted relief is eliminating the $250 billion bonanza for hedge fund managers and real estate speculators they previously tucked into the CARES Act," Whitehouse and Doggett said in a separate statement.

"With 120 Democratic lawmakers, we urge negotiators to halt the windfall to the least needy and reinvest in the most needy."

The letter comes as Democrats appear set to push ahead with new stimulus without Republican support. The proposed package would be worth $1.9 trillion.

I AM SHOCKED

Sports billionaires got $98.5 billion richer during the pandemic

© REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton Kansas City Chiefs' Patrick Mahomes

celebrates with the Vince Lombardi trophy after winning the Super Bowl LIV. 

During the pandemic, billionaires who own sports franchises added $98.5 billion to their net worths.

That includes the owners of the two teams headed to the Super Bowl.

Some players opted out of the last NFL season over coronavirus concerns.

Over the past 10 months, 64 billionaires who own 68 professional sports teams have seen their collective net worths grow by $98.5 billion, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF).

Using data from Forbes and Wealth-X, the report found that from March 18, 2020, to January 29, 2021, sports billionaires had seen their wealth increase from a combined $325 billion to $426 billion.

Several of those billionaires will see their teams compete at this year's Super Bowl. The owners of the Kansas City Chiefs are the Hunt family. Specifically, Ray Lee Hunt and W. Herbert Hunt, who have a collective net worth of around $6.3 billion, have seen a $482 million boost to their net worth during the pandemic, the report said. And the Glazer family, who own the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, are worth around $1.7 billion.

These increases probably had little to do with football, as The Wall Street Journal reported last July that the pandemic would likely blow a hole as large as $4 billion in NFL revenue for the season.

For the past few decades, $9 billion in taxpayer subsidies have been given to 28 sports teams owned by 26 billionaires, the report said. The report's authors argue that the gains by sports billionaires underscore the need for a wealth tax.

"The Super Bowl brings the whole nation together, but we have not come together as a country to beat the pandemic," Frank Clemente, executive director for Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement. "Billionaire sports owners have continued their long winning streak of ever-growing fortunes while fans at home are losing their lives and livelihoods. Real teamwork would require billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes so we can get the whole US back to its winning ways."

The Chiefs did not respond to Insider's request for comment, and the Buccaneers did not immediately respond.

Billionaires have seen huge gains during the pandemic

Globally, billionaires made $3.9 trillion between March 18 and December 30, 2020. In fact, the gains by the top 10 richest billionaires could pay for the entire world to get vaccinated - and to keep everyone out of poverty.

Meanwhile, workers lost $3.7 trillion in earnings throughout the pandemic. American workers saw the largest loss with a 10.3% decline; overall, women and younger workers were disproportionately impacted by employment losses.

Even some of the usual faces didn't appear on the NFL roster this year: many of its workers. ESPN's Elizabeth Merrill reported that 69 players voluntarily sat out the season. Players who opted out received stipends, with those who were at high risk receiving more. From August 1 through January, 262 NFL players - and 462 "other personnel" - tested positive for COVID-19.

So far, American billionaires have added $1.1 trillion to their collective net worths during the pandemic. Over 10 million Americans remain unemployed, and nearly 8 million have fallen into poverty in the past few months.

Pandemic drives oil major BP to first loss in a decade

By Ron Bousso and Shadia Nasralla

© Reuters/Toby Melville FILE PHOTO:

 Detail is seen on a BP (British Petroleum) EV (Electric Vehicle) charge point in London

LONDON (Reuters) - BP plunged to a $5.7 billion loss last year, its first in a decade, as the pandemic took a heavy toll on oil demand, and the energy company warned of a tough start to 2021 amid widespread travel restrictions.

Despite the weak environment, however, CEO Bernard Looney told Reuters the company's transition to a greener future remained on track. It is aiming to ramp up renewable power generation to 50 gigawatts (GW) by 2030 from 3.3 GW currently, while slashing oil output to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Capital expenditure is set to rise to $13 billion this year, of which $9 billion will still go to oil and gas, Chief Financial Officer Murray Auchincloss said. That compared with a budget of $12 billion in 2020.

For the last quarter of 2020, BP reported a profit of $115 million, falling short of analysts' forecasts due to weak oil and gas sales and subdued trading, it said on Tuesday.

"A tough quarter at the end of a tough year," Looney said in an analyst call.

At 0845 GMT, BP shares were down 3.8% at 258.9 pence.

Flagging a weak start to 2021, BP said: "We expect renewed COVID-19 restrictions to have a greater impact on product demand, with January retail volumes down by around 20% year on year, compared with a decline of 11% in the fourth quarter."

Oil demand is nevertheless expected to recover in 2021, with global inventories expected to return to their five-year average by the middle of the year, Looney told Reuters.

For a graphic on BP's annual profits:

https://graphics.reuters.com/BP-RESULTS/ygdpzalwrvw/chart.png

Tighter global natural gas markets are expected to further support profits, BP said.

Adjusted profit at its downstream - or refining and marketing - business in the fourth quarter collapsed to $126 million, less than a tenth of what it was a year earlier.

BP's shares have lost over 40% of their value over the past year and remain near 25-year lows, battered by concerns over oil demand due to the pandemic as well as investor doubts over BP's ability to successfully carry out its an ambitious plan to shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Rivals including Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil have also seen their market values sink in recent months.

BP's overall fourth-quarter underlying replacement cost profit, its definition of net income, of $115 million fell short of the $360 million seen in a company-provided poll of analysts.

That compared with an $86 million profit in the third quarter and a profit of $2.6 billion a year earlier.

For the year, BP reported an underlying loss of $5.69 billion, compared with a profit of $10 billion in 2019.

For a graphic on BP's quarterly profit:

https://graphics.reuters.com/BP-RESULTS/jbyprnwrkpe/chart.png

BP's debt pile of $39 billion is expected to rise in the first half of this year as it continues to struggle with a weak business environment, but the company said it remained on track to reduce it to $35 billion by early 2022.

At that debt level, BP plans to start share buybacks.

BP's dividend remained at 5.25 cents per share.

(Reporting by Ron Bousso and Shadia Nasralla. Editing by Jason Neely and Mark Potter)