Thursday, August 26, 2021

ANALYSIS: Jagmeet Singh wouldn’t back Scheer but he could back O’Toole

David Akin 
GLOBAL NEWS

WINDSOR, ON — Ask a campaigning NDP leader if they would support this party or that party in a potential minority government and every NDP leader is trained to say the same thing: They’re running to be prime minister.

© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson
 NDP leader Jagmeet Singh walks along the waterfront in Windsor, Ont. on Wednesday, August 25, 2021.

It’s what Jack Layton said. It’s what Thomas Mulcair said. And during a campaign stop here Wednesday, it’s what Jagmeet Singh said.

"I'm running to form government,” Singh told reporters here. "I'm running to be the prime minister because I've seen in a minority that New Democrats made life better for people. If we were not there, if we were not present in Ottawa … people would have been far worse off in this pandemic. And that's motivated me more than ever to be the next prime minister so we can actually help people out."

Read more: NOTEBOOK: Jagmeet vs. Justin in a city where an election likely changes little

Singh’s response was prompted by a reporter’s query about his intentions if the current general election results in a minority Conservative government led by Erin O’Toole. Voters already know what Singh’s NDP did when Justin Trudeau led a Liberal minority government: It largely supported the government on confidence matters but withheld support until it could say it achieved certain objectives — increased sick leave benefits or pandemic benefits to students — that are important to those who vote New Democrat.

These negotiations with a minority prime minister can be tricky. One has to know when you’ve got all you’re going to get from a minority PM. And, at some point, if one pushes to far, a minority PM could just find another parliamentary partner or chance a confidence vote and an election.

The late Jack Layton and his team have been widely credited for skillfully negotiating with both a Liberal and Conservative minority prime minister, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. Only once did Layton ask for more than a prime minister was ready to give.

That was in 2005, when Layton could not accept what the Martin government was offering on health care. Martin called Layton’s bluff, the country went to the polls, and that’s how we had Stephen Harper.

Those who have been involved in minority government negotiations say any participating leader can only go as far as his base will allow him

And that rule largely prevented Singh from entertaining any scenario in which he would have propped up former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, had Scheer ended up leading a minority Conservative government after the 2019 election. Scheer’s personal values on so-called social conservative issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, right-to-die legislation and so on were just too far from the NDP base and so, even before they started counting the ballots in 2019, Singh had declared that working with Scheer would be a non-starter.

Was that wise? Who knows. But Singh did see the NDP caucus cut down from 39 members to 24 members and, in the process, lost a significant amount of political capital. Scheer, on the other hand, won the popular vote and increased the Conservative caucus by 20 MPs. (And then lost his job! But that's another story ... )

This time, though, it may be different if Singh finds himself facing a Conservative minority led by Erin O'Toole.

For one thing, Singh is campaigning well so far in this election and all polls have consistently shown the NDP in position to win seats rather than lose them as it did in 2019. It might even add back the 15 members to its caucus it lost in 2019. And that will give Singh more political capital and freedom in any negotiations.

Second, Singh, when asked Wednesday here, did not — as he did in 2019 — rule out working with the Conservative leader. He now sounds as if he is keeping all his options open should he be leading a minority government or working with one as a supporting partner. Singh did tell the Toronto Star's editorial board in February, though, he would not work with O'Toole. But now, he's less equivocal.

"We'll look at that when it happens and make decisions that are in the best interest of Canadians," Singh said Wednesday.

Finally, there is O’Toole himself and a party that is very different than the one in 2019. Both may be more palatable to the NDP base than 2019.

And the Conservatives are doing their darnedest to appeal to working class voters with policies that could have come right from NDP playbooks of Parliaments past. On Monday, for example, O’Toole said he'd introduce legislation that would guarantee at least one spot on the board of directors of any federally regulated company for worker representatives. Then he vowed to change bankruptcy laws so that pensioners would have a greater claim to bankrupt company’s assets, something New Democrats fought hard for when both Nortel and Sears went out of business.

On top of that, O’Toole has often introduced himself as the pro-choice son of a General Motors worker. The Conservatives may not get the endorsement of union leaders but they are working hard to get the votes of union rank-and-file.

And that should that make it much easier for Singh and O’Toole to come to some understanding in a future Conservative (or NDP!) minority parliament.

Duration: 01:51 
The Conservative campaign made a brief stop in Brantford, Ont. today where Erin O’Toole promised to boost health care funding if elected, pledging $60 billion over the next decade with a big focus on mental health services. The Conservatives seem to be crossing over into typical NDP territory. In recent days O’Toole has been making a pitch to unionized workers. And as Mike Le Couteur reports, it’s all about securing a broader base.


Adam Zivo: A pro-labour Conservative party invading NDP turf is hardly surprising


Embracing government intervention more than anyone expected, the Conservative platform says the party would continue pandemic-related stimulus spending for two years before shifting into deficit-reduction mode.

© Provided by National Post Erin O'Toole listens to a reporter's question during a news conference on August 23, 2021 in Ottawa, Canada.

The platform also contains several pro-labour policies that would typically be associated with the NDP, suggesting that reform conservatism , which sees a role for government in supporting those left behind by laissez-faire capitalism, is becoming more influential within Canada.

Reform conservatism acknowledges that unrestricted markets can sometimes unfairly deprive citizens of opportunities to flourish and has grown increasingly influential since the Trump era. It is currently advocated by Mark Rubio in the United States (who calls it “common good capitalism”) and Jason Kenney in Alberta.

Its slow ascendancy not only reflects voter frustration with worsening economic inequality, but also a rejection of the growing frivolity of progressive politics, which has become increasingly alienated from working class values.

Reflecting reformist views, the Conservatives have proposed a “Canada Job Surge Plan,” which would pay 25 to 50 per cent of the salaries of new hires for six months following the end of the Canadian Emergency Wage Subsidy. The Conservatives have also proposed increasing the Canada Workers Benefit, as well as an expanded employment insurance plan that would kick in when provinces go into recession, boosting salary replacement from 55 per cent to 75 per cent.

The Conservatives have said that they will work with unions to alter the Canada Labour Code so that they can have a more level playing field against multinationals. They have similarly promised to: make it easier to organize unions within firms that have a history of anti-labour activity; force companies to provide gig workers with financial contributions equivalent to CPP and EI; and ensure that large companies include worker representatives within their boards of directors.

These kinds of policies are not typically associated with conservative politics. Tackling unemployment through wage subsidization? Supporting businesses through generous financial aid rather than tax cuts? Fortifying the social safety net? Defending Canada’s labour movement? Giving workers a say in corporate governance?

It seems that the Conservatives have enthusiastically invaded the NDP’s turf.

Yet, unlike leftist approaches, reform conservatism is focussed on providing equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome — ensuring that hard work and personal responsibility remain key factors for success. Relatedly, it does not vilify the wealthy, since wealth-generation is still attributed to personal virtue, and while it believes that government interventions can be constructive, it is nonetheless attentive to fiscal discipline and individual freedoms.

The conservative embrace of labour unions and social spending is based on the belief that everyone who wants to move upward through hard work should be given a fair opportunity to do so — and this lionization of hard work remains a conservative value.

But why would working class voters think that conservatives can be better friends to them than socialists? It boils down to the uneasy dynamics that underpins contemporary progressive politics, which, broadly speaking, is an alliance between: the working class — often marginalized, earthy and pragmatic — and champagne socialists — often privileged, idealistic and grandiose.

Over the past two decades, growth in the knowledge economy has boosted the influence of the latter, aligning progressive politics with economic and cultural privilege. This trend is epitomized by the ascendance of “bourgeois bohemians” or “BoBos” ( a term recently popularized by David Brooks in The Atlantic ), who are the kind of people who advocate for the working class but would be mortified visiting a trailer park — aka: they want to be society’s saviours but condescend to people unfamiliar with their elite culture (i.e. post-industrial lofts, pretentious gastronomy, spicy Twitter essays).

In response, many working class voters have migrated to conservative circles where they feel culturally respected — with Trumpism being a messy example of that.

Conservative politicians have traditionally embraced these voters through pugilistic anti-elite rhetoric that, while emotionally satisfying, offers few actual solutions to working class woes. Trump’s failure to improve the rust belt’s economic conditions comes to mind, as does Maxime Berniers’ angry politicking.

In this context, the Conservative platform seems to treat the pandemic as an opportunity to more constructively pivot Canadian conservatism towards the working class — capturing disadvantaged voters who feel alienated by progressive elitism.

Should this reorientation succeed, an important question will be whether the Conservatives can fully reconcile their pro-business and pro-labour wings. How do you navigate between competing forces that disagree on the size and role of government?

Maintaining peace between these two factions would likely be doable in the short term, when higher spending is justified by the pandemic. Unlike the NDP, though, the Conservatives at least recognize that spending needs to be reigned in, but what would happen when cuts pit business against labour? It’s an interesting thing to think about, but likely too speculative at this point.

When Conservative leader Erin O’Toole first declared he was betting on union support last fall many were surprised, while others were skeptical. Yet, of all the political shifts created by the pandemic, the rise of a pro-labour Conservative party is in some ways not very surprising at all.


Palestinian activist's family seeks international justice

Issued on: 26/08/2021 - 
The death in custody of Nizar Banat, a leading critic of the Palestinian Authority, sparked angry demonstrations in the West Bank to demand justice
 ABBAS MOMANI AFP/File

Jerusalem (AFP)

The family of Palestinian activist Nizar Banat, who died in Palestinian custody in June, stepped up its quest for international justice on Thursday, turning to British police and the UN.

Banat -- a leading critic of the Palestinian Authority and its 86-year old president Mahmud Abbas -- died after security forces stormed his home in the flashpoint city of Hebron and dragged him away.

A post-mortem found he had been beaten on the head, chest, neck, legs and hands, with less than an hour elapsing between his arrest and his death.

Banat's family has said it has no confidence in the PA's capacity to deliver justice, and called for an international probe.

A statement from the family's lawyers, the British firm Stoke White, said they have asked Britain's Metropolitan Police to open an investigation under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

For a small number of serious offences, Britain's courts can hear cases even if the alleged crimes were committed abroad.

Stoke White also said it had asked multiple branches of the United Nations human rights system to open investigation, including the Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions and four special rapporteurs.

Ghasan Khalil Banat said his brother's "murder" was a "tragedy for our family, but also a tragedy for the Palestinian people."

"The so-called investigation that was carried out into his murder is an embarrassment and the PA should feel ashamed of it," he said in the statement.

The head of international law and Stoke White, Hakan Camuz, said: "Responsibility for the murder of Nizar Banat very clearly lies with the senior leadership of the Palestinian Authority including President Mahmud Abbas and Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh."

Shtayyeh and the PA have promised accountability over Banat's death.

Camuz accused the PA of a long-standing bid to silence dissent.

"They cannot be allowed to get away with this and this is why we are submitting these complaints and petitions to the British police and the UN," he said in the statement.

The UN and the European Union this week raised alarm over a spate of arrests of activists by Palestinian security forces since Banat's beath, warning the PA appeared to be cracking down on basic freedoms across the West Bank, a territory occupied by Israel since 1967.

© 2021 AFP
Half of US workers favor employee shot mandate: AP-NORC poll

© Provided by The Canadian Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Half of American workers are in favor of vaccine requirements at their workplaces, according to a new poll, at a time when such mandates gain traction following the federal government's full approval of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine.

The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that about 59% of remote workers favor vaccine requirements in their own workplaces, compared with 47% of those who are currently working in person. About one-quarter of workers — in person and remote — are opposed.

The sentiment is similar for workplace mask mandates, with 50% of Americans working in person favoring them and 29% opposed, while 59% of remote workers are in favor.

About 6 in 10 college graduates, who are more likely to have jobs that can be done remotely, support both mask and vaccine mandates at their workplaces, compared with about 4 in 10 workers without college degrees.

Christopher Messick, an electrical engineer who is mostly working from home in Brunswick, Maryland, said he wrote to his company’s human resources department to ask that employees be required to get vaccinated before they are recalled to the office.

Messick, who is vaccinated, said he doesn’t just worry about his own health. He said he also doesn’t want to worry about getting a breakthrough infection that could land an unvaccinated co-worker in the hospital.

“I don’t want sit an office for eight hours a day with someone who is not vaccinated,” said Messick, 41. “The people who are anti-vax, I see them as selfish."

So far, many vaccine requirements are coming from private companies with employees who have mostly been able to work from home during the pandemic. The companies, including major tech companies and investment banks, have workforces that are already largely vaccinated and consider the requirement a key step toward eventually reopening offices. Goldman Sachs joined that trend Tuesday, telling employees in a memo that anyone who enters its U.S. offices must be fully vaccinated starting Sept. 7.

In contrast, few companies that rely on hourly service workers have imposed vaccine mandates because the companies are concerned about losing staff at a time of acute labor shortages and turnover. Exceptions include food processing giant Tyson Foods and Walt Disney World, which reached a deal this week with its unions to require all workers at its theme park in Orlando, Florida, to be vaccinated.

The AP-NORC poll was conducted before the FDA granted full approval of Pfizer's vaccine, which some experts and employers are hoping will persuade more people to get the shot and support mandates.

Drugstore chain CVS said this week that pharmacists, nurses and other workers who have contact with patients will have to be inoculated, but the company stopped short of requiring the vaccine for other employees such as cashiers.

The AP-NORC poll showed high support for vaccine mandates among those who say they work in person in a health care setting, with 70% approving of vaccine requirements at their workplace.

The poll also showed divisions along racial lines.

Seventy-three percent of Black workers and 59% of Hispanic workers — who are more likely than white workers to work in front-line jobs — support mask mandates at their workplaces, compared with 42% of white workers. In addition, 53% of Black and Hispanic workers support vaccine mandates at their workplaces, as do 44% of white workers.

Despite mixed support for mandates among in-person employees, 71% of those workers said they themselves are vaccinated.

Mike Rodriguez, a maintenance worker at an auto dealership in Florida, said he got the vaccine in the spring after a diabetes diagnosis gave him a sense of urgency. But he said he leans against supporting a vaccine mandate at his job and does not mind that masks are not required.

“I don't like being told what to do. Never have,” said Rodriguez, 54. “I'm going to wear mine no matter what. Just like whenever I go into a store. That's my choice.”

Many large retailers, grocery store chains, food manufacturers and other companies have aggressively encouraged vaccinations with bonuses, time off, information campaigns and on-site vaccination access.

Janet Haynes of Topeka, Kansas, an education consultant who works part time as a package handler at a warehouse, said she struggled in March to get an appointment, putting herself on various waiting lists before she finally got a call. Now that vaccines are widely available, Haynes said she is frustrated with people who are reluctant to get them and she would support a requirement at her warehouse, where she dodges co-workers who flout a mask rule.

“We get so hung up on democracy and freedom, but the reality is that your freedom can't exist at the expense of someone else's loss,” said Haynes, adding that she recently had a breakthrough case of COVID-19 and credits the vaccine for her swift recovery. “We are not going to be free until we get vaccinated.”

____

The AP-NORC poll of 1,729 adults was conducted Aug. 12-16 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

Alexandra Olson And Hannah Fingerhut, The Associated Press
The Supreme (WHITE PEOPLES) Court has repeatedly sided with the police. Black Americans are paying the price

Analysis by Brandon Tensley, CNN 
A version of this story appeared in CNN's Race Deconstructed newsletter.
© Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
 Police in riot gear react to demonstrators in Washington as they gather to protest the murder of George Floyd in 2020.

The Senate has left for its August recess, meaning that two of the primary negotiators for policing legislation -- Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey -- can add another blown deadline to the tally.


More than a year after the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks and other Black Americans catalyzed a summer of uprisings, the atmosphere remains thick with calls for social transformation. Mostly, civil rights activists have laid the responsibility for curbing police abuse at the feet of national lawmakers, whose efforts have so far yielded nothing.

For all the ferocious debate about the US's racist policing regime, there's been very little discussion about an actor that deserves a lot of the blame for the wretched state of present-day policing: the US Supreme Court.

Consider the kind of chokehold that claimed Floyd's life. It's an abiding menace, particularly to Black Americans, because of 1983's City of Los Angeles v. Lyons. The case involved Adolph Lyons, a 24-year-old Black man. In 1976, four White police officers pulled him over for having a busted taillight. At some point, they thought that Lyons had "mouthed off." So, they put him in a chokehold. He blacked out, and also suffered an injured larynx
.
© Andrew Burton/Getty Images Demonstrators stage a die-in to protest a grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer involved in the death of Eric Garner in 2014.

Years later when Lyons sought an injunction to limit the use of the chokehold, the Supreme Court held, 5-4, that he lacked standing to challenge the practice that had nearly cost him his life. Why? He couldn't demonstrate that he, personally, was likely to be choked again by an LAPD officer. What utter speculation, the Supreme Court seemed to say, even when confronted with evidence establishing that of the 16 people who had died as a result of LAPD officers' use of chokeholds since 1975, 12 were Black men.

The dangerous obtuseness of the Supreme Court's decision wasn't lost on Thurgood Marshall, the first Black justice on the high court.

"Since no one can show that he will be choked in the future, no one -- not even a person who, like Lyons, has almost been choked to death -- has standing to challenge the continuation of the policy. The city is free to continue the policy indefinitely, as long as it is willing to pay damages for the injuries and deaths that result," Marshall wrote in his withering dissent.

It's impossible to overstate how deeply that 1983 case has influenced policing in the US.

"The chokehold that killed George Floyd in Minneapolis continues to be used because the Supreme Court refused to allow lawsuits to enjoin it in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons," Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, writes in his new book, "Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights." "Americans were taking to the streets to protest out of frustration and anger because constitutional limits have not been placed on the police, and as a consequence racism manifests in policing every day."

© Bettmann Archive/Getty Images The Warren Court. Thurgood Marshall, top right, wrote a withering dissent in the 1983 case City of Los Angeles v. Lyons.

To parse the under-told role that the Supreme Court has long played in entrenching the power of the police, I spoke with Chemerinsky. The following conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Why do we need to pay attention to the Supreme Court in order to understand the strained relationship between the police and communities of color?

The Constitution is meant to impose many limits on policing. Often, the political process fails to control the police. So, we really need the Constitution and the courts to do that. But the Supreme Court has rarely used the Constitution to control the police, and either by silence or explicitly, it's empowered the police -- it's empowered the police to engage in racialized policing.

To give one example: George Floyd died in Minneapolis from police use of the chokehold. Eric Garner died in New York City from police use of the chokehold. Many others, especially Black men, have died from police use of the chokehold. One would wonder: Why hasn't the Supreme Court said that the chokehold violates the Constitution, that there have been lawsuits trying to enjoin police use of the chokehold?

In 1983, in a case called City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts cannot hear requests for injunctions to stop the chokehold.

To give another example: In the 1996 case Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court said that it's fine for police to stop anybody, so long as they've got reasonable suspicion that they violated a traffic law, even if it's a pretext to search for drugs or other things. Well, if the police follow anyone long enough, they're going to find them changing lanes without a turn signal, not stopping long enough at a stop sign -- it just justifies the police doing what the statistics demonstrate: stopping Black and Latino people much more often than White people.

Another way that the Supreme Court has empowered law enforcement is through what it hasn't said about Constitutional limits on policing. Tell me a bit about that.

For the first century of US history, the Supreme Court didn't decide cases about limits on the police with regard to searches and arrests or questioning suspects or conducting eyewitness identification. And to not limit the police means implicitly approving whatever practices develop. And many were abhorrent.

Even in the 20th century, the Supreme Court was often silent. Let me give an easy example. We know from many studies that false eyewitness identifications have led to the convictions of innocent people. And yet, since 1986, there's been only one Supreme Court case dealing with the problem of eyewitness identification. And that case came down on the side of the police.

Why doesn't the Supreme Court figure more prominently into public discourse about policing?

I don't think that most people realize the direct connection between what the Supreme Court upholds and how policing is done.

Also, I think that most people don't focus on the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court doesn't set police budgets. Nor does it directly manage police departments in the way that police commissions do. And so, when we look at why the chokehold is still used, we look at all of the explanations, except we don't focus on the Supreme Court.

What might achievable change actually look like? Given that the Supreme Court has become more and more conservative since the Warren Court (1959-1969), it seems like advocates looking to transform the police will have to go around the Supreme Court.

The reality is that the Supreme Court is very conservative, and is going to be that way for a long time to come. This conservatism means that it's very pro-law enforcement and quite unlikely to put limits on policing. But I'm hopeful that the limits on policing can come from elsewhere.

For example, Congress, state legislatures, local governments and police commissions can put limits on policing. Many cities have already banned police from using the chokehold. There are many ways that the legislatures at the state and local levels can control policing. Also, state courts under state constitutions can impose limits on policing. State constitutions always can provide more in the way of rights than the US Constitution.

Also, there's a federal statute: 42 US Code § 14141 allows the Justice Department to file lawsuits against police departments when there's a pattern or practice of civil rights violations. These have been quite successful. We'll see if the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland make more use of this authority.
Coal mining is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel produced. How hard is it to transition from coal to meet sustainability goals?

insider@insider.com (Karen K. Ho) 
© Provided by Business Insider A coal power plant. J. David Ake/AP

Investors are being encouraged to sell their coal-related assets as part of the divestment movement.

Even coal-mining companies have participated in the movement.

China and India are increasing their production of coal as part of their growing economies.


There's a growing divestment movement among investors, including large institutions, to sell off their fossil-fuel assets from businesses and industries responsible for carbon emissions.


A major focus of the social, political, and economic pressure to divest is coal mining, especially thermal coal. The fossil fuel is used to generate 34% of the world's electricity but produces large amounts of carbon-dioxide and methane emissions during its production and consumption, more than oil or natural gas in 2018.


The recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has put a spotlight the urgent need to move into cleaner energy sources and reduce coal-mining activity. But rising prices of more than $170 per metric ton (nearly four times the lowest price in September) indicate a resurgence in demand.

Divestment targets the investment capital required to finance the production, distribution, and sale of coal mining. Despite its polluting reputation, coal-fired power has been attractive to investors because of the generating capacity of the largest plants (5 gigawatts), the often cheap price, and the relative stability of its supply in high-use countries like China, India, and the US.

Coal, both the kind for heating (thermal) and the manufacturing of steel (metallurgical), also makes up about 50% of the world's mining market. And the industry continues to grow, with 432 new mine developments and expansion projects announced or under development worldwide, according to a survey by the Global Energy Monitor published in May.

China and Australia are the leaders in two kinds of coal used in steel production, coking, and metallurgy. Both are among the more than 191 countries that have signed commitments for net-zero emissions by 2050. But to achieve the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which was set by the Paris Climate Accords, the amount of coal used to manufacture steel would need to decline by 80% in the next three decades compared with current levels, according to analysis by the consulting firm McKinsey.

Companies across several industries have been moving away from coal, and insurers like Allianz have publicly released policies restricting coal or investments in coal-related assets.

"Ideally, companies close coal power plants and do not sell them," the insurance company wrote in a statement published in May on coal-based business models.

The pressure to sell off coal assets has existed for years and has reached coal companies themselves, including the global mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto. But while global coal consumption and production fell worldwide in 2020, and hit a 60-year-low in the US, developing countries are leaning into coal for their economic recoveries.

Last year, China increased both its output and its use of coal to more than half the world's coal-fired power. Despite the country's plans to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, China added 38.4 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity last year - more than three times the amount built anywhere else worldwide, Reuters reported, citing international research.

The increase in coal-fired electricity generation in India for this year is expected to be three times higher than renewables. This increase in demand is expected to push carbon-dioxide emissions from coal in 2021 to 640 million metric tons, the highest levels since 2011.

For divestment of coal to be successful and global climate goals to be met, it will require greater regulations, economic disincentives, and a true understanding of how carbon emissions do not care about national borders.
#FIGHTFOR15   A GLOBAL MINMUM WAGE

The CEO of a Silicon Valley startup sees a future where global employees in locations like India make the same salary as those in San Francisco

insider@insider.com (Juliana Kaplan)
© Wutthichai Luemuang / EyeEm/ Getty Images

During the pandemic, many white-collar workers left behind big cities for cheaper areas.
In response, some companies have said they'll cut salaries for remote workers in different areas.

But CEO Phil Libin says he hopes to pay workers worldwide a San Francisco-level salary.


Amid the Great Reshuffling of the pandemic, Americans are moving out of big city hubs like San Francisco. The wave of the future might be San Francisco-level salaries going with them, or those salaries getting cut once they move. And what if the Bay Area salary is attainable around the world, even as far away as India?


Reuters reported that Google could cut pay for employees who opt to permanently work from home, and even has an internal calculating tool to determine that. Insider's Stephen Jones reported it could mean a 25% pay cut for some of them.

But as remote work and flexible economy seems here to stay, at least one CEO is taking the location and salary debate step further.

In an interview with Insider's Aki Ito, Phil Libin, who heads up video tool startup Mmhmm - he also cofounded Evernote - discussed the company's move to give all employees in the US a San Francisco-level salary, no matter where they're based.

Read more: There's a battle brewing over salaries for remote workers - and it could change the way everyone gets paid

"If you're an engineer working in India and you have a level of performance and productivity that's the same as an engineer working in Mountain View, you should be getting the same amount of money," Libin told Ito.


As Ito reports, data from Salary.com finds that there is at least one large pay disparity for software engineers in India, compared to their US peers - someone with 10 years experience in the US earns nearly three times as much as a worker in India with the same qualifications. India Today reports that a $70,000 salary gap exists between Indian engineers and US engineers.

It's another potential harbinger of the economy that could emerge as the world slowly emerges from the pandemic. Flexibility is already the name of the game for many workers and consumers. In a survey from remote and flexible jobs site FlexJobs of over 4,600 workers, respondents said they'd rather change roles to get better work-life balance - not for higher pay.

More CEOs could adopt Libin's thinking: He wants to pay employees for the value they provide, not based on where they choose to live or what country they happen to be citizens of. "This change to distributed work and life is going to make us question everything."
POSTMODERN FARMING
Community gardening helps queer Ugandans heal from trauma

LGBTQ+ activists in Kampala are using sustainable agriculture to survive crisis and social exclusion.




When the pandemic hit last year, Shawn Mugisha was sharing his two-bedroom apartment with nine other people. They were fellow members of Kampala's embattled queer community whom he'd met through his work as a human rights activist and paralegal — people who had been ostracized from family, or had come out of police detention with nowhere to go.

For them, lockdown presented particular problems, Shawn says: "What does 'stay at home' actually mean for someone who has no home? What does stay at home mean for someone who's doing sex work?"

Uganda first went into lockdown in April 2020, and food security quickly deteriorated. Supply chains collapsed, food prices soared and people began to go hungry. In cities like the capital Kampala, fresh produce and vegetables became particularly scarce.

Shawn, who is 34 and transgender, says that while many people in the city relied on family in rural areas to send supplies, those ostracized because of their sexual orientation or gender identity were often on their own.



Shawn grows fruit and vegetables in the garden of a suburban apartment block

"We found ourselves waiting on the government to give us food and some of us did not get that food even in the community," he says. "So, we had to think smart, think about: how do we survive?"

He decided the answer was to grow their own fruit and vegetables in the garden of his apartment block in the suburbs. This became the start of a new organization, FAMACE, an acronym for Farming, Art, Mental Health Advocacy, Collaboration, and Ethical human-centered design. Its goal is to use sustainable agriculture to boost the resilience of Uganda's queer community and help victims of abuse and discrimination to help themselves.

Having studied permaculture, Shawn believes sustainable food production can help victims of discrimination and abuse heal from trauma and build a life that isn't dependent on activities like sex work that could land them back in police hands. "Ethical human-centered design is really putting you at the center of solving your own problems and looking at the history of these problems," he explains.
Uganda's LBGTQ community faces violence and arrest

Uganda is a hostile place for its LGBTQ+ community. In 2019, gay rights activist and paralegal Brian Wasswa was brutally murdered in his house in what human rights campaigners say was a hate crime, reminiscent of the 2011 murder of David Kato.

Kato, also a gay rights activist, was bludgeoned to death after winning a case against a local newspaper that had named him among homosexuals under the headline "hang them."



Some Ugandans have fled the country to avoid discrimination

In 2014, parliament passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act. It was later declared unconstitutional by Uganda's Constitutional Court. But in May, the country's parliament approved a sexual offences bill, which, among other things, criminalized same-sex relations with a punishment of up to five years in prison.

Earlier this month, the President Yoweri Museveni said he would not sign the bill. But Florence Kyohangirwe, sexual minorities editor at Minority Africa, says the government even debating this kind of legislation legitimizes homophobia and is "sort of an endorsement to harass the LGBTQ community."


And activists say the pandemic itself has been used as a pretext for harassment, with police raiding LGBTQ+ homeless shelters and arresting people for engaging in acts likely to spread COVID-19.

Using gardening to heal trauma

In June, police raided an LGBTQ+ shelter on the outskirts of Kampala and arrested 44 people allegedly participating in a "same-sex wedding" for "spreading disease" — without specifying whether they meant COVID.

Shawn, who has worked as a paralegal and for several human rights NGOs, helped to secure their release. But he says that once free, LBGTQ+ people who have been persecuted by the state go to shelters where help is limited to providing for basic needs.



Shawn would like to integrate community gardens into shelters across Uganda

"Every time I was like, why don't we find a sustainable solution for this person's problem?" he says. "A lot of dignity is taken from the people who access these spaces. You're given basic accommodation, which is a blanket and maybe a mosquito net, and maybe one meal a day."

With FAMACE, Shawn would like to integrate community gardens into shelters across Uganda. For one thing, they could offer a better diet — which is particularly important for those on medications such as HIV prophylaxis. But nurturing plants could provide mental as well as physical health benefits.

Tumukunde* ran away from home to live with Shawn after being forced to marry a pastor because her family suspected she was gay. For her, the garden was a place of solace to heal.

"It was also more comforting for me because, during that time, I was going through a lot," she says. "And maybe I needed something that was less human. I didn't want to talk to anyone, I just always wanted to be by myself."


Shawn believes sustainable food production can help victims of discrimination and abuse

In January, the group was "randomly evicted" from Shawn's apartment — "just because we're queer," he says. Shawn moved into a large shared duplex nestled in a private compound filled with flowers and chirping birds and established a new vegetable garden there. Here, he can only support one person living in, and will have to move out by September. But for now, the garden is bearing fruit.

And for 39-year-old Charles*, it has brought a kind of peace. Charles moved in with Shawn after he was outed for downloading gay porn and ostracized from his community. He has survived three attempts on his life.

"It's quiet and I get to be invisible," Charles says of the garden, his eyes glassy with tears. "I think about life, I think about my choices... Gardening gives you ownership of something, control over something at least. There are aspects of my life I can't control, but with gardening, I can do that."


Watch video05:33
Uganda: Living in fear

Homegrown solutions

So far, FAMACE has supported five people. Shawn talks excitedly about plans for a queer eco-village, and how the ethics and principles of permaculture and ecofriendly agriculture might be integrated into projects for social change.

For now, he is struggling to find money to rent permanent premises. So far, he says the project has produced enough food for those immediately involved. With enough space, he would like to increase production and start selling some of the food at local markets. But he also sees potential in donating FAMACE's produce to help families in need.

"We live in a society where once you have any sort of contribution you give towards the community you have social protection," he says. "I think it's time we start relying on our own homegrown solutions to fight marginalization and discrimination." Particularly in urban areas where food is scarce, "it's something that we can use as an approach to advocacy and creating more social inclusion."

*Names have been changed on request for safety reasons


Could high-tech Netherlands-style farming feed the world?

As the global population swells, so does the need for food. Could a Netherlands approach to farming that doesn't rely on soil, sunshine, water and pesticides be the answer?




The small, overcrowded, low-lying Netherlands might not sound like the answer to feeding a world whose population is predicted to rise to 9.6 billion people by 2050, but farmers and agronomists there would beg to differ.

The country known best globally for its traditional tulips and wooden footwear, is the second largest vegetable exporter in the world — with exports totalling €6 billion annually. Onions, potatoes and some southern climate vegetables such as tomatoes, peppers and chiles are among its top selling products.

The Netherlands is growing them with far less water and pesticides than if production was happening in the soil or open air.

They do it using greenhouse technology, termed 'precision farming', that some in the Dutch food industry claim is the most advanced in the world.

An old technology modernized

Modern greenhouse farming took off in the country after World War II as a reaction to one of Europe's last experiences of famine. Up to 20,000 people died in the "Dutch hunger winter", during the last months of the German occupation.

Nowadays, the most advanced part of the country's greenhouse technology is in the southern region of Westland, where 80 percent of cultivated land is under glass.




In the Dutch farming region of Westland, farmers tend to grown tomatoes in bags rather than soil

In the vast high-tech greenhouses of sustainable producers Duijvestijn Tomatoes, vines drip with red, yellow, green and dark purple fruit. In these highly controlled spaces, visitors are required to wear hygiene overalls.

"In the end, the plant is around 13 to 14 metres (42.7 feet to 45.9 feet) long and will produce about 33 clusters of tomatoes," Ad van Adrichem, general manager at Duijvestijn Tomatoes told DW.


Reaching such heights is important in a country where land is as precious as it is scarce: the tiny Netherlands has one of the highest population densities in the world. In the greenhouses of Westland, an area that was reclaimed at great cost and effort from the sea, they grow almost 70 kilograms (154 pounds) of tomatoes per square meter.

That's at least 10 times the average yield from an open field in Spain or Morocco, but with eight times less water and practically no chemical pesticides.

Alternative thinking


The secret to the success is that Dutch tomatoes are grown in small bags of mineral wool — a fibrous material that can also be used for insulation and soundproofing.

"It gives you far more control," said van Adrichem. "So we can steer very precisely the amount of nutrition we need and the amount of water we need."

But that's not all that's at play. There are also the greenhouses themselves. Duijvestijn Tomatoes has invested in a revolutionary double-glass roof which conserves more heat and, thanks to special coatings, diffuses the light that gets through, thereby making sure it also reaches the plants' lower leaves.

The constant warm temperature comes from two geothermal wells. The level of CO2 gas on which the plants thrive, is doubled in the air inside the greenhouse, carefully piped in from the local oil refinery. LED lights inside these state of the art stuctures allow the crops to keep growing into the night.


Instead of using pesticides, Duijvestijn Tomatoes unleashes insects in a box to deal with pests

The water used is all pure Dutch rain, captured and stored in an underground layer of sand for use through the dry months. Whenever pests appear, they bring in insects to eat them.

They even have cardboard hives of bees on hand for pollination.

Yet some ecologists are skeptical of the new technology. Herman van Bekkem, campaign leader for Greenpeace Holland, is one of them.

"We indeed see promising examples of farmers doing their best to reduce pesticides," he told DW. "But if you look at the facts, like the statistics for water pollution in the Netherlands, there is no other region more polluted by pesticides than the greenhouse region."

He says water managers in Westland have been complaining about the high amounts of pesticides in surface water for many years.

"Not from us." said van Adrichem. "We work with a closed water circuit. We give the plants the exact amount of water they need and because the tomatoes aren't planted in the soil, there is no run-off."

A vertical future

Leo Marcelis, horticulture professor at Wageningen University and Research (WUR), the research hub for the Dutch food industry, says vertical farms are the way forward.

Students from around the world are researching future farming methods at WUR

"In the future, we'll have vertical farms that will go as high as tall buildings that will only use artificial light," said Marcelis. With units built on top of each other as high as you like, with only artificial light and where farming will be completely independent of the climate and completely reliable, he adds.

Half the students at WUR are from abroad, and when they finish their studies, many will be taking this new science home to countries in Asia and Africa. WUR Plant Sciences Group managing director Ernst van den Ende describes a project he is working on in Africa that optimizes the symbiosis between beans and a bacterium that is able to fix nitrogen — a key plant nutrient — from the air.

Read more: From grey to green: Urban farming around the world

"By optimizing this symbiosis, we are able to increase yields without using fertilizers," said van den Ende.

For him, WUR's research is about stopping people going hungry, as his grandparents' generation did in the Netherlands.

"My grandmother would travel 80 kilometers for a sack of brussel sprouts," he said. Now van den Ende believes the technology the Dutch are developing will, in years to come, be able to feed the world.

FEEDING THE WORLD OF THE FUTURE: IS HYDROPONICS THE ANSWER?
Tackling food insecurity with hydroponics
The challenge of feeding a planet that’s set to have 3 billion more people on it by 2050 - made even more acute by climate change as some parts of the planet become wetter, while others drier - means the pressure is on to find ways to feed the planet. So farming has to become more productive – and new areas to grow, especially in dry climates, must be found. One potential solution: hydroponics.

 

These two farming methods can feed the planet and help the environment — but they need to get along

Special to Financial Post 
© Provided by Financial Post Small-scale farmers and large agri-food corporations are adopting regenerative agriculture, an approach to farming that reverses climate change by building up soil-bound organic matter.

The planet’s farmers are struggling. Extreme heat, record droughts, and massive floods show the challenges from climate change piling up. There is also an elephant in the room; top-tier journal Nature: Food just estimated that a third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the farming sector. This isn’t a surprise; Nine years ago, a similar article also estimated this number at one third. Almost a decade has passed, little has changed.

Despite consensus on the seriousness of the situation, there is only disagreement around solutions. On one side is the idea that small-scale farming, seasonal production, and few or no chemical inputs equal a sustainable farming system. Others point out that since intensive greenhouses, vertical farms and food science can produce more food with less impact, we should embrace a “high-technology” approach. As this debate rages, experts and policy makers become polarized, stalling progress. We fiddle while the fields burn.

The truth will not please the purists. Alone, neither small-scale nor high tech can solve agriculture’s part in the climate crisis. But working together, sustainable food systems are possible.

Members of the small-scale farming community often promote “regenerative” agriculture, an approach to farming that reverses climate change by building up soil-bound organic matter. This is important because organic matter absorbs carbon dioxide, mitigating climate change. In addition, organic matter in the soil acts like a sponge, absorbing water when it is abundant and storing moisture for when it is scarce. Organic matter provides a habitat for beneficial microbes. Fields rich with organic matter do better during droughts and need less fertilizers. Industrial farming is seen as the antithesis of regenerative farming because it requires a lot of chemical inputs and relies on ploughing and tilling that break down organic matter, all the while producing a very limited number of crops (usually corn, soy, canola, and wheat in Canada). In contrast, regenerative agriculture uses complex crop rotations, keeps the soil relatively undisturbed, and uses cover crops to prevent erosion.

Today’s regenerative farming management systems use modern tools to enact practices that were common a hundred years ago and are finding their way back into the mainstream once again. Small-scale farmers and large agri-food corporations alike are adopting regenerative agriculture and wherever there are fields tilled by tractors there can be immense benefit to adopting such approaches to improve soil health. Regenerative agriculture’s proponents are onto something. However, it is not a complete solution. For one thing, most regenerative agricultural systems would see livestock moved out of intensive operations and into lower-density pasture-based systems. If this shift happens, livestock products may become more expensive as we will likely produce less animal protein per acre.

Those in favour of “high-technology” argue we should adopt innovations including vertical farms where a huge amount of food is produced in buildings that occupy a tiny amount of land. Vertical farms use artificial lighting and carefully designed growth media to produce year-round fruits and veggies for local consumers. Usually, these facilities are located within or next to cities where the producers ship fresh. While Canada has a longstanding, financially viable greenhouse industry that already produces tomatoes, cucumbers, and peppers year-round, the newest generation of technology makes lettuce, microgreens and even strawberries or blueberries possible. Progress is so rapid that it is plausible to imagine even a country like Canada becoming food secure for these crops within a handful of years, despite our winters.

Like adopting regenerative farming, technologies such as vertical farming will pay massive sustainability dividends. Our country depends on importing billions of dollars of fresh fruits and vegetables that come from industrial farms in California. These farms not only cause serious water pollution as pesticides run off fields but are also vulnerable to droughts that threaten the long-term supply of our imports. Done properly, a vibrant vertical farming industry in Canada could reduce our dependency on precarious and highly polluting imports while simultaneously creating new jobs for Canadians in the innovation economy

.
© Karim Sahib/AFP via Getty Images
 Vertical farms use artificial lighting and carefully designed growth media to produce year-round fruits and veggies for local consumers.

Meanwhile, producing non-animal protein could create another big windfall. These “alternative” proteins include plant-based products that may come from leguminous crops (such as peas or soybeans) all the way to more space-age sounding cellular agriculture that involves growing proteins in large tanks. This is an area where Canada should excel. Our grains and pulses can be converted directly into protein-rich ingredients thus fuelling the explosion of alternative protein products that are already arriving on grocery store shelves. And if governments are smart, they will encourage agri-tech entrepreneurs who are working to brew proteins in bioreactors to set up shop in urban Canada. Not only will this help lower our carbon footprint, it will also make up some of the deficit if animal production shifts towards a more regenerative model.

‘You’re sitting on your own fuel source’: How the harvest from hell and carbon tax is pushing farmers to greener fuel

Canada cannot afford to choose sides in a false either-or debate. We must embrace both regenerative and high technology. Regenerative agriculture provides a framework to transform land-based agriculture into a key strategy for protecting the environment. Vertical farming and other agricultural technology solutions are ideally suited to producing healthy foods year-round within or adjacent to urban areas.

Just like an investment banker would recommend a diversified investment strategy to protect a client’s retirement fund, so too should food systems planners embrace a portfolio of mutually supporting strategies. Only by adopting diverse approaches will we be able to address our immense environmental challenges, while also positioning the Canadian agri-food industry to be an engine of sustainable economic growth. But first, the two sides need to learn to talk with each other.

Evan Fraser is the Director of Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph; Lenore Newman is the Director of the Food and Agriculture Institute at the University of the Fraser Valley.

 


Blue Origin successfully launches New Shepard cargo mission with research for NASA

Michael Sheetz

Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin launched its New Shepard rocket for the fourth time this year but, despite carrying the billionaire founder in a crew on the last flight, Thursday's mission did not carry people inside the capsule.

Known as NS-17, this New Shepard mission is dedicated to carrying cargo. Blue Origin flew a NASA lunar lander technology demonstration and 18 customer research payloads inside the capsule — as well as an art installation on the top of the capsule.
© Provided by CNBC

The rocket launched from Blue Origin's private facility in West Texas. It reached a maximum altitude of 347,430 feet (or 105.6 kilometers) before returning to Earth safely. The NS-17 mission lasted 10 minutes and 38 seconds from launch to capsule landing.
© Provided by CNBC Billionaire businessman Jeff Bezos is launched with three crew members aboard a New Shepard rocket on the world's first unpiloted suborbital flight from Blue Origin's Launch Site 1 near Van Horn, Texas, July 20, 2021.

This New Shepard rocket booster, which is reusable, launched and landed for an eighth time. The booster and capsule for NS-17 are dedicated to flying cargo missions, with Blue Origin rotating it with another booster and capsule for crew missions. The company expects to launch its second crew flight before the end of the year.

While the company has not disclosed pricing, New Shepard competes with Virgin Galactic in the realm of suborbital space tourism. Bezos last month said Blue Origin has sold nearly $100 million worth of tickets for future passenger flights.
Rebels begin evacuation from last bastion in southern Syria - witnesses

By Suleiman Al-Khalidi 
 People walk past the main courthouse in Deraa

AMMAN (Reuters) - Fifty rebels and their families were evacuated on Thursday from the last opposition bastion in southern Syria under a Russian-sponsored deal to avert a military showdown in the strategic border area with Jordan and Israel, witnesses, rebels and army sources said.

A contingent of Russian military police on Tuesday entered the enclave https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/russian-army-patrol-rebel-enclave-syria-avert-offensive-sources-say-2021-08-24 to impose a plan that allows the army to take it over, while offering safe passage to former rebels who oppose the deal to leave for opposition areas in northwest Syria.

The Russian move halted an attempt to storm the enclave by pro-Iranian army units led by the elite Fourth Division who hold sway in the region and had in recent days tightened a two-month siege, escalating shelling and pushing for a military offensive.

The Syrian army, aided by Russian air power and Iranian militias, in 2018 retook control of the province of which Deraa is the capital and which borders Jordan and Israel's Golan Heights.

That deal forced thousands of mainstream Western-backed rebels to hand over heavy weapons but kept the army from entering the bastion known as Deraa al Balaad.

However, Moscow gave guarantees to Israel and Washington in 2018 that it would hold back Iranian-backed militias from expanding their influence in the strategic region.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had earlier this month condemned what he termed the "Assad regime's brutal" assault on Deraa and called for an immediate end to violence "that killed civilians and displaced thousands."

Over 50,000 civilians along with several thousand former rebels lived in the stronghold that was the site of the first peaceful protests against the Assad family rule, which were met by force before spreading across the country.

The area has now become a ghost town after weeks of intermittent fighting and shelling during which the army has prevented food, medical and fuel supplies coming in but opened a corridor for civilians to leave, residents and local officials say.

The enclave and other towns in southern Syria have, since the state regained control of the province, held sporadic protests against President Bashar al Assad's authoritarian rule that are rare in areas under state control.

(Reporting by Suleiman Al-Khalidi; editing by Jonathan Oatis)
THAT'S OUR COMMONWEALTH
US billionaires' collective wealth grew enough during the pandemic to pay off the $1.7 trillion student debt crisis

asheffey@businessinsider.com (Ayelet Sheffey) 
 Blue Origin CEO Jeff Bezos (left) and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk.
 Joe Raedle/Getty Images/Axel Springer

A new report found US billionaires collectively got $1.8 trillion richer during the pandemic.

That's enough wealth to pay off the entire $1.7 trillion student debt crisis.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, for example, got $150 billion - or 600% - richer.


The pandemic brought significant financial hardships onto the US, but the ultra-wealthy remained relatively unscathed. So much so, in fact, that billionaires in the country collectively got $1.8 trillion richer - enough to pay off the entire student debt crisis, and then some.

Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality (IPS) released a report on Tuesday that revealed how much wealth billionaires gained during COVID-19 as of August 17. It found that their combined wealth skyrocketed nearly two-thirds, or 62%, to $4.8 trillion since March 2020, after starting off the pandemic just short of $3 trillion.

According to the report, Tesla CEO Elon Musk's wealth increased by $150 billion during the pandemic - a 600% gain - and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' wealth grew $75 billion in the same time frame.

"The great good fortune of these billionaires over the past 17 months is all the more appalling when contrasted with the devastating impact of coronavirus on working people," the report said. "Over 86 million Americans have lost jobs, almost 38 million have been sickened by the virus, and over 625,000 have died from it."

This report came after a ProPublica report in June that detailed how the wealthiest Americans, including Bezos and Musk, managed to pay little-to-nothing in federal taxes.
The student debt crisis continues to grow

As US billionaires' wealth grew during the pandemic, so did the student debt crisis, which now stands at $1.7 trillion. Although President Joe Biden has canceled $8.7 billion in student debt for certain groups of people, that is less than 1% of the entire student debt burden, and borrowers across the country are struggling to keep up on their payments as their debt continues to grow.

Student debt payments, along with interest, have been on pause for the duration of the pandemic, and Biden recently announced a "final extension" of the pause through the end of January to give borrowers additional time to prepare restarting payments.

But, as Insider previously reported, while the pause has provided significant relief for borrowers, they will still not be ready to start making payments again come February and feel that without student-debt cancellation, there is no way out of their student debt.

"I've paid back almost all of my loans, but I still owe the full amount," Alexendria Mavin, who graduated $117,000 in student debt, has paid $70,000 of it, and still owes $98,000 told Insider. "It's a never-ending cycle."

That's why Democrats like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren are calling both for $50,000 in student-debt cancellation for every borrower and a wealth tax to create a tax code that is fair for everyone.

"America's billionaires have done great during this pandemic," Warren wrote on Twitter. "America's working families? Not so much. It's time for a #WealthTax on the ultra-rich to raise the revenue needed to invest in child care, expand health care coverage, and fight back against climate change."