Friday, September 17, 2021

Conservatives wouldn't meet Canada's new UN climate target. Here's what that could mean

Paris Agreement doesn’t include sanctions, but Canada could face tariffs, reputational damage, experts say

Emily Chung · CBC News · Posted: Sep 15, 2021 

Conservative Party of Canada Leader Erin O'Toole has indicated his party's emissions target is not Canada's current target of a 40 to 45 per cent reduction compared to 2005 by 2030, but the 30 per cent target set under Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. 
(Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

If the Conservatives are elected as Canada's government this fall, they've indicated they won't meet Canada's current greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris Agreement.

What does that mean? And what could the consequences be? Here's a closer look.
What kinds of targets do countries set under the Paris Agreement?

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, Canada and 195 other countries have committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to limit global warming to well below 2 C, and ideally 1.5 C compared to pre-industrial temperatures, in order to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, from extreme weather damage to rising seas.

As part of the United Nations treaty, which is legally binding, countries are required to submit plans and targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in order to reach the global target as soon as possible.
What are Canada's Paris Agreement targets — and why have they changed?

Canada's original NDC, submitted by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, committed to cutting annual emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, from 732 megatonnes to 513 megatonnes.

However, under the Paris Agreement, countries submit new, "increasingly ambitious" NDCs every five years, and were required to send new ones in by 2020, according to the United Nations.

In April, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Canada's new target was to reduce emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, requiring emissions to drop to at least 439 megatonnes by the end of the decade. The target was formally submitted to the United Nations in July.

But wait, didn't Erin O'Toole say the Conservatives will meet the Paris objectives?

Yes, the Conservative leader has said that throughout the election campaign. He clarified on Aug. 27, "We will meet the Paris objectives that were actually set by the tail end of the Conservative government and signed onto by the Liberal government" — that is, the outdated 30 per cent emissions cut, rather than Canada's current commitment of 40 per cent.

Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia, said she thinks O'Toole's claim is misleading. "In fact, that's not Canada's Paris Agreement target anymore."

O'Toole would cut emissions to meet target set by Harper, rejects Liberals' new, more aggressive goal

Trudeau pledges to slash greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030

The Liberals, NDP and Green Party all say they will meet or exceed the new 40 to 45 per cent target.

O'Toole told undecided voters this week that he is not going to try to out-target his opponents just to get elected, but was proposing a plan that he felt his government could hit without damaging the economy.

"What we have to do is make sure we deliver," he said.

Can the new commitment be changed or withdrawn?

Yes. "A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution," the Paris Agreement says, "with a view to enhancing its level of ambition." That is, while changes are allowed, downgrading is against the spirit of the agreement.

CBC News reached out to the Conservative Party of Canada to ask if they planned to change or withdraw their 30 per cent commitment, but they had not responded to the questions by Wednesday. (They did send a quote of Erin O'Toole talking in general terms about Conservative climate change policy).That said, they've indicated that any change would not increase Canada's level of ambition in cutting greenhouse gases.
If a target is lowered, can a country be penalized?

No, not under the Paris Agreement itself.

Jutta Brunnée, professor and dean in the University of Toronto's faculty of law, said countries' legally binding obligation under the Paris Agreement is to prepare and communicate their climate targets and plans. That forces countries to be transparent about their climate action, or lack thereof.

Tipping point? Experts say the Paris agreement changed the climate on climate
ANALYSISFederal climate platforms: What's in them and what sets each apart

But the targets and plans are not themselves legally binding. That means countries can technically downgrade their targets.

"They would not be violating an obligation under the Paris Agreement," Brunnée said, "but they would run counter to the entire normative architecture and the expectations that the agreement rests on."

What the reporting obligations do is make it clear to other countries if someone does set lower targets or fails to meet them.

"So it would become very public if a party went the opposite direction, so to speak," Brunnée said. "And that, I think, has actually proven to be a remarkably strong incentive, and also a kind of a mechanism to get parties to [do] their bit."




Is lowering the target worse than not meeting it?

"They're both equally bad," said Sébastien Jodoin, Canada Research Chair in human rights health and the environment at McGill University's faculty of law.

But they're also equally without penalties under the Paris Agreement.

It's worth noting that even prior to this election, under the Liberal government that set the new targets, Canada was not on track to meet them, according to a report from the Pembina Institute, an energy and climate think-tank.

A new report by the Pembina Institute suggests Canada isn’t on track to meet its climate change targets by 2030 and provinces need to take more responsibility in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 1:53

The lack of penalties for not fulfilling plans or meeting targets is, in fact, a key difference between the Paris Agreement and its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol. This was so the Paris Agreement would be adopted by more countries. In fact, the penalties were the reason Canada withdrew from Kyoto in 2011 under Stephen Harper's Conservative government — by not meeting its targets, it was going to be found in non-compliance and would have had to pay $14 billion.
Could there be potential consequences outside the Paris Agreement itself?

Brunnée said governments could face a hit to their reputation domestically and internationally if they fail to meet the expectations of the Paris Agreement.

"I don't think that it looks good on any country," she said.

Lowering targets or explicitly failing to meet targets might also encourage other countries to follow suit, she said. "And if that were to happen, the entire edifice would potentially unravel… This would be something that the other parties [who signed the Paris Agreement] wouldn't take lightly."

To prevent or punish those who go against Paris Agreement expectations, other countries could impose carbon border adjustments, levies or tariffs, which would penalize trading partners that aren't reducing their emissions quickly enough, said Jason MacLean, assistant professor of law at the University of New Brunswick.

"So countries are still free to work either individually or in concert to try and put pressure on other countries [so] that they are living up to their pledges under the Paris Agreement."

ANALYSIS Fear of climate change rust belt has governments considering carbon border levy
ANALYSIS Fact check: have GHG emissions risen under Trudeau?

Jodoin said given that Canada is a trading nation and that our major trading partners, the European Union and the United States, have been releasing more ambitious emissions targets, "that's a real risk for Canada."

But Canada also faces risks domestically, where laws such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms have built-in penalties for violation, Jodoin said. Activists have launched lawsuits against the government over its alleged failure to take enough action on climate change, one of which is planning an appeal to the Supreme Court after being dismissed by Federal Court in October.

Jodoin said Canada's approach to its Paris obligations could give activists extra ammunition: "You're exposing yourself to the possibility of constitutional litigation."
Posted by at No comments:

 

These charts show how much more often unvaccinated Albertans are being hospitalized and dying from COVID-19

Alberta Health data accounts for age, vaccination status and population size of each group


Robson Fletcher · CBC News · 
Kathryn Kazmerik, 32, receives her COVID-19 vaccine at the Telus Convention Centre
 mass-vaccination in Calgary on April 19, 2021. (Leah Hennel/AHS)

Recent rates of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death among unvaccinated Albertans have been at least eight times higher — and as much as 60 times higher — compared to the fully vaccinated population, depending on which age range you look at.

That's according to a new CBC News analysis of data published by the provincial government.

Data experts with Alberta Health reviewed the analysis and confirmed the methodology as an effective way to compare severe outcomes relative to both vaccination status and age — while also accounting for the population sizes of each group.

These types of comparisons can be tricky, because the risk of severe outcomes increases with age, but so too does the rate of vaccination. As such, population-wide comparisons don't tell the full story.

For example, it's often reported that unvaccinated Albertans make up just 32 per cent of the population but a whopping 74 per cent of the COVID-19 patients in hospital. But this actually under-represents the risk for unvaccinated adults, because a huge proportion of the unvaccinated population is made up of children who are both ineligible for the vaccine and unlikely to end up in hospital.

Breaking the data down by age helps to better understand how things compare among the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated.

"Age, in particular, really controls a few outcomes here in the province," said Craig Jenne, a professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Infectious Diseases at the University of Calgary.

Craig Jenne is an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and infectious diseases at the University of Calgary. (Jennifer Lee/CBC)

Jenne also reviewed the data analysis and says it illustrates how effective vaccination against COVID-19 has been in Alberta, so far.

"We see that there's huge protection offered by vaccines, and that's something I think gets missed in the daily updates when we simply see numbers or the percentage of people in hospital," he said.

Here's how it breaks down.

Hospitalizations

It's well known by now that older people are far more likely to end up in hospital than younger people, but looking at the data by both age and vaccination status reveals some stark comparisons.

For instance, it shows that unvaccinated Albertans in their 30s have been ending up in hospital with COVID-19 at roughly the same rate as fully vaccinated Albertans over the age of 80.

From mid-May to mid-September, 400 unvaccinated people in their 30s were admitted to hospital with COVID-19.

That works out to a rate of about 146 hospitalizations per 100,000 unvaccinated 30-somethings over that four-month span.

And that's almost identical to the rate of hospitalization among fully vaccinated Albertans aged 80 and up.

Meanwhile, among unvaccinated Albertans 80 and over, the rate was nine times higher — 1,271 hospitalizations per 100,000.

And the differences in ICU admissions were even starker.

Intensive care units

Just seven fully vaccinated Albertans in their 50s have been admitted to an intensive care unit with COVID-19 since mid-May.

That compares to 181 unvaccinated people of the same age — despite the fact that there are far fewer of them.

Fully vaccinated 50-somethings were admitted to ICU at a rate of less than 3 per 100,000.

The rate among the unvaccinated, by comparison, was 139 per 100,000.

It was a similar story among unvaccinated Albertans in their 60s and 70s, who were admitted to ICU at rates about 60 times higher than their fully vaccinated counterparts.

There were major differences among younger Albertans, as well.

Not a single fully vaccinated person under the age of 40 was admitted to ICU over the past four months.

That compares to 129 people under the age of 40 who were eligible for the vaccine but didn't get a shot.

One person in their 30s who was partially immunized, with a single dose of vaccine, did wind up in ICU during that time.

Deaths

Similar with ICU admissions, there was not a single death among fully vaccinated Albertans under the age of 40 in the past four months.

That compares to seven deaths among unvaccinated people of the same age.

When it comes to the most vulnerable age group — those 80 and over — there were 61 deaths among the unvaccinated, who represent a tiny proportion of the total population in that age range.

That translates to a rate of about 393 per 100,000.

The rate among fully vaccinated Albertans aged 80-plus, meanwhile, was 42 per 100,000.

Bottom line: Vaccinated versus unvaccinated

For Jenne, the infectious-disease expert with the University of Calgary, the implications of the data are clear.

"Vaccines are dramatically reducing loss of life, hospitalization and intensive-care-unit admissions across the province," he said.

This can be seen, he said, by directly comparing the rates of hospitalization, ICU admission and death among the fully vaccinated and the unvaccinated in each age range.

Those numbers are set out in the table below.

As the number of COVID-19 patients in ICU set another new high on Thursday, the Alberta government reached out to Ontario to ask for help, in case Alberta completely runs out of capacity in the near future and needs to fly patients out of province for intensive care.

"I cannot stress enough how serious the situation is in our hospitals," said Dr. Verna Yiu, president and CEO of Alberta Health Services.

"I also cannot stress enough that we need your help. Please get immunized. ... The vaccine is safe — and effective."

Notes about the data and methodology:

Alberta Health publishes two different sets of data that were used for this analysis.

The first is the total number of people who have been hospitalized, admitted to ICU or died over the past 120 days, broken down by their age range and vaccination status.

The second is the number of people in each age range who are fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated or unvaccinated. For the purposes of the analysis, the size of the fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated population in each age range was calculated by taking an average of daily data over the past 120 days.

These population sizes were then used to calculate the rates of hospitalization, ICU admission and death per 100,000 fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated people in each age range. 

This method doesn't account exactly for the individual vaccination status of every person who was hospitalized, admitted to ICU or died of COVID-19, but officials with Alberta Health said "as an overall method this approach does make sense" as a means of making better comparisons between each of these sub-groups at an aggregate level.

One other caveat Alberta Health noted is that the data on hospitalization, ICU admission and death by vaccination status over the past 120 days defines a "fully vaccinated" person as someone who had their second dose at least two weeks earlier, and a "partially vaccinated" person as someone who had their first dose at least two weeks earlier. This differs from the vaccine-uptake data, in which the dates are "based strictly on receiving a dose."

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robson Fletcher

Data Journalist

Robson Fletcher's work for CBC Calgary focuses on data, analysis and investigative journalism. He joined CBC in 2015 after spending the previous decade working as a reporter and editor at newspapers in Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba.

Posted by at No comments:
How we got here: A timeline of Alberta’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic

By Richie Assaly
Toronto Star
Thu., Sept. 16, 2021

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has declared a state of public health emergency and announced a broad range of new measures, including the introduction of vaccine passports and far-reaching public health restrictions.

The announcement — which comes as Alberta battles a deadly fourth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that has threatened to overwhelm the province’s hospitals — marks a major reversal for Kenney’s United Conservative Party, which for months had resisted further restrictions and pushed back against the idea of vaccine mandates.

All that changed on Wednesday, just hours after Alberta Health Services reported that 24 people had died from the virus in a single day. The new measures are a culmination of a tumultuous few months since Kenney declared the province “open for summer” on July 1.

Here’s a look back at how the Alberta government has dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic since its arrival in March last year.

March 17, 2020

Premier Jason Kenney declares a public state of health emergency to combat the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. Several restrictions and social distancing rules are introduced, including a ban on organized gatherings of more than 50 people.

March 27, 2020


As the number of cases in the province surpasses 500, Kenney introduces more restrictions, limiting outdoor and indoor events to 15 people. Some non-essential businesses are closed.

April 20, 2020

As the first wave continues to grow, the Cargill meat processing plant in High River, Alta., temporarily closes after the operation is linked to more than 350 cases of COVID-19.



Spring/summer 2020

Though some restrictions are lifted following the peak of the first wave on April 30, all mass gatherings and events are called off for the remainder of the spring and summer. The Calgary Stampede is cancelled for the first time in a century.

Aug. 21, 2020

Teachers, parents and students across the province hold rallies to protest the UCP’s school re-entry plan, which does not include funding to reduce class sizes. Concerns also grow around topics such as ventilation, sanitation and staffing.


Sept. 1, 2020

Kenney says his government has accepted that COVID-19 infections in schools are inevitable and don’t warrant closing down all classrooms: “It’s time to go back to some kind of normal.”

November 2020

New restrictions, including limits on indoor and outdoor gatherings, are introduced as the second wave arrives. Grades 7 to 12 move to online learning.

December 2020

Through December, more than 1,000 Alberta schools report at least one case of the virus, including more than 300 where in-school transmission was suspected, according to the Calgary Herald.

Dec. 8, 2020

Kenney introduces strict lockdown measures to combat the rapidly growing second wave. The lockdown includes a ban on indoor and outdoor gatherings, the shuttering of non-essential businesses, and mandatory mask mandates. By mid-December, Alberta has the highest rate of active COVID-19 cases in the country.




January to March 2021

As cases slowly subside from a peak in mid-December, the Alberta government introduces a step-by-step framework to ease restrictions contingent on hospitalization rates.

April 6, 2021

Citing widespread rule-breaking and new COVID-19 variants, Kenney announces that Alberta is in a third wave of the pandemic, as the province averages 1,000 new cases each day. The government announces it will return to “Step 1” of its reopening framework, introducing new restrictions on dining, gyms and other non-essential businesses.

April 7, 2021

Fifteen UCP MLAs release a public letter criticizing new measures, despite the fact Alberta has the highest case counts and some of the loosest public health restrictions in the country.

May 4, 2021

After months of resisting the type of stay-at-home orders seen in Ontario, Kenney reverses course with a suite of new pandemic restrictions. This includes online learning for students, closing indoor dining and new limits on gatherings.

Mid-May 2021

Alberta makes national headlines as its case rate rises to one of the highest in North America. The third wave was “unrivalled in Canada, and propelled by what experts argue is a miasma of lacklustre policy, political unwillingness to alienate the province’s libertarian fringes, and dependency on a flagging oil industry that was struggling even before the pandemic,” wrote the Star’s Alex Boyd and Omar Mosleh.

May 26, 2021

The Alberta government announces a new reopening plan, replacing the “Path Forward” framework with a plan aimed to make the province “open for summer.” Tied to both vaccination rates and hospitalizations, the plan aims to drop all restrictions by July.

July 1, 2021

Alberta becomes the first Canadian jurisdiction to drop all restrictions after hitting the government’s goal of getting a first dose into 70 per cent of the eligible population. “Don’t live in fear,” Kenney told Albertans, before promising the “best summer ever.”

July 9, 2021

The Calgary Stampede returns, marking the first major event in Canada since the start of the pandemic. Kenney, who was spotted tossing pancakes at a traditional Stampede breakfast, tells reporters that Alberta will not have a vaccine passport.



July 28, 2021

Despite rising case counts and a vaccination rate that lags other parts of the country, Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Deena Hinshaw announces that by Aug. 16, masks will no longer be required in taxis or on transit in Alberta; that children won’t be required to wear masks in schools; and that there will no longer be a legally required isolation period should someone test positive for COVID-19.

Aug. 9, 2021

As concerns about the highly infectious Delta variant grow, the Alberta Medical Association section of pediatrics pens a letter to Kenney expressing grave concern over Alberta’s decision to eliminate COVID-19 testing and tracing, and its plan to end mandated isolation for positive cases.

Aug. 13, 2021

Following weeks of pressure, the Alberta government reverses course, extending remaining public health restrictions for six more weeks. “We are not going backwards. We are pausing to monitor and assess before taking a step forward,” Hinshaw said.

Late August 2021

Doctors begin to raise the alarm as Alberta’ fourth wave continues to grow. By late August, the province had about 34 per cent of the total active cases in Canada, with just 11 per cent of the country’s population.



Sept. 1, 2021

Kenney addresses Albertans for the first time since Aug. 9, after modelling from a team of independent pandemic researchers suggests a health crisis is unavoidable unless there is strong action. It is later confirmed that Kenney took a two-week vacation in Europe in late August.

Sept. 3, 2021

Kenney offers $100 gift cards to Albertans who aren’t vaccinated to try to curb the fourth wave. “For the love of God, please get vaccinated now,” Kenney told the media. “If you are unvaccinated, it is urgent that you protect yourself.”


Early September

Alberta Health Services announces it is postponing elective surgeries and outpatient procedures in an effort to create “sufficient ICU and in-patient capacity.” By Sept. 13, access to surgery decreased by up to 70 per cent in the Edmonton Zone.

Sept. 7, 2021

Twelve Alberta mayors call for Kenney to bring in provincewide COVID-19 vaccine passport rules.

Sept. 13, 2021

Hinshaw admits lifting all public health restrictions in July was the wrong move. “The expectations did not match the reality,” she said.



Hinshaw says she looked at evidence, consulted with colleagues and watched modelling in early summer — all which led her to recommend that Alberta move toward “endemic” at the outset of summer.

“Clearly, the move to endemics was too early,” she said.

Sept. 15, 2021

Kenney declares a state of public health emergency and introduces a slate of new measures, including the introduction of vaccine passports and wide-ranging public health restrictions.

Kenney defends his decision to lift restrictions during the summer, but says he is sorry for being “too enthusiastic” that the province would be open for good and for underestimating the virus.

Kenney also announces a number of new measures regarding social distancing as recommended by provincial health authorities, including a ban on any organized gatherings of more than 50 people.

Despite having promised for weeks that the province would not do so, Kenney told the news conference a vaccine passport system will be brought in for some businesses beginning on Sept. 20. These include restaurants, some events and non-essential businesses.

Eligible businesses and events that agree to require proof of vaccination or proof of a negative test will be exempt from other public health restrictions being brought in on Sept. 20.

Sept. 16, 2021

At least eight post-secondary schools in Alberta temporarily cancel in-person classes as they work to adapt to a new range of provincial COVID-19 health restrictions.


--------------

Richie Assaly is a Toronto-based digital producer for the Star. Reach him via email: rassaly@thestar.ca


Posted by at No comments:
The Kenney effect? Alberta premier’s COVID-19 reversal could see O’Toole’s Tories ‘bleed both to the left and right’ in election race, observers say


By Alex McKeen
Vancouver Bureau
TORONTO STAR
Thu., Sept. 16, 2021

As a tight federal election race enters its final days, the Conservative party is suddenly faced with the possibility of paying a political price for the actions of one of its highest-profile alumni — Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

This week, facing a COVID-19 crisis for which many have blamed his government, Kenney dramatically reversed course, bringing in sweeping pandemic restrictions and acknowledging that his province’s health system is on the verge of collapse.

Some experts are now speculating that Kenney, a former cabinet minister in the federal government of Stephen Harper, could have the same kind of ballot-box impact on the fortunes of Erin O’Toole’s Tories that Ontario Premier Doug Ford had on Andrew Scheer’s in 2019.

That is to say, an unpopular Conservative premier could end up inadvertently driving voters to the Liberals or New Democrats on the federal stage.

In Alberta, such a shift could be a major blow to the party’s base.

The premier’s move Wednesday night to declare a public health state of emergency and launch a slate of new restrictions pointed to how serious Alberta’s fourth pandemic wave has become — only months after Kenney lifted almost all provincial restrictions in anticipation of what he boasted would be Alberta’s “best summer ever.”

On Thursday, federal leaders faced questions over how they would do better as prime minister.

Facing the most scrutiny was O’Toole, the Conservative leader who has previously said he supported Alberta’s approach to the pandemic and that it was better than the approach taken by the federal government.

O’Toole did not rescind that support when asked about Alberta’s crisis Thursday. He just said he, as prime minister, would work with all premiers to rein in the pandemic.

The developments in Alberta have brought COVID-19 back into the election conversation, experts say.

“For much of the campaign, it didn’t seem COVID would be an effective wedge issue for the Liberals, despite them trying to make it such,” said Stewart Prest, a political science lecturer at Simon Fraser University, in an interview with the Star.

“But when Premier Kenney pretty much admitted that their approach to moving beyond COVID had failed, and failed badly, it threw that back into the fray as a difference between the parties.”

The issue, of course, is whether voters will inherently link Kenney’s much criticized efforts to his federal counterpart, O’Toole.

Prest says the greatest impact will be in the province of Alberta itself, where voters tired of Kenney may turn to the NDP or Liberals, and voters who wanted Kenney to stick to his original, restriction-free reopening plan may give their votes to the far-right People’s Party of Canada.

It set the stage, Prest wrote on Twitter, for the CPC to “bleed both to the left and right,” in Alberta, and potentially beyond.

“Kenney is one of the two most notable Conservative premiers in the country right now,” Prest said. “It creates this new opportunity for the Liberals to use this as a wedge issue.”

Mark Winfield, a York University professor in the faculty of environmental and urban change with expertise in politics, said the way Kenney’s COVID-19 about-face may influence the 2021 election is not too different from how Ford’s unpopularity in 2019 may have affected the federal election that year.

“Ontarians expressed their displeasure with the Ford government by voting Liberal in 2019,” he said. “And I suggest strongly that you may see a parallel event where people express their displeasure with their UCP government by voting most likely NDP.”

It may be a message that strengthens support for the Liberals or NDP among voters who want to avoid a Kenney-style COVID-19 response, he said.

“If they’re not prepared to distance themselves from Mr. Kenney on this what does that say? Are they really moderated or not?” Winfield said.

Even if Kenney’s apparent missteps only resonate in Alberta, that could still be significant for the Conservatives, who took all but one riding there in 2019.

“I think if the Liberals and the NDP pick up seats in Alberta — and they were already poised to pick up one or two — but if it becomes four or five, there’s going to be finger pointing at the premier,” said Duane Bratt, a political scientist with Mount Royal University in Calgary.

“And if O’Toole loses, and, you know, he’s been on a downward slide this past week, there’s going to be a lot of people looking at the role of Alberta in this.”

When the other party leaders were asked about the Alberta situation Thursday, and what it means about the Conservative approach to handling COVID-19, the harshest criticism of the Alberta premier came not from Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who simply said things would have been better in Alberta right now if Kenney had taken action sooner on the fourth wave of the pandemic. It came instead from both the left and the right: NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and PPC Leader Maxime Bernier.

Singh said in no uncertain terms that he condemns Kenney’s leadership on the pandemic.

“Mr. Kenney is a failure in leadership; the people of Alberta are suffering because of that failure, there’s no doubt about that,” he said in Toronto.

He also criticized Trudeau for calling an election rather than staying focused on the pandemic.

In a campaign stop in Oakville, Ont., Bernier took aim at Kenney not for reopening too soon and allowing COVID-19 to surge, but for reversing course.

“Jason Kenney, as you know, said a couple of weeks ago that he doesn’t want a vaccine passport, but today he flip-flopped like O’Toole on the vaccine passport,” Bernier said. “Shame on them.”

On Wednesday night, Kenney seemed to acknowledge that the province’s aggressive reopening in July had been a mistake. Despite previously vowing not to, he unveiled a vaccine-passport system, and brought back a series of public health restrictions.

The province is nonetheless in the throes of its fourth wave of the pandemic. In 24 hours this week, 24 people died from COVID-19. Kenney said the intensive-care units of his province could be overwhelmed in just over a week.

It will likely take weeks, officials added, before the effect of the new measures is felt in reducing pressure on the heath system.

With files from Alex Boyd

Alex McKeen is a Vancouver-based reporter for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @alex_mckeen


RELATED STORIES
Posted by at No comments:
Australia Will Get Nuclear-Powered Subs In New Partnership With US, UK

Dubbed AUKUS, the new security partnership will increase focus on the Indo-Pacific.


A Collins-class guided missile submarine is moored at Royal Australian Navy base HMAS Stirling, Australia.
 U.S. NAVY / MASS COMMUNICATION SPECIALIST 2ND CLASS JEANETTE MULLINAX


BY JACQUELINE FELDSCHER
SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
Updated to add Biden remarks at 5:32 p.m. ET.

Australia will get its first nuclear-powered submarines under a new trilateral relationship with the United States and United Kingdom intended to improve security in the Pacific, President Joe Biden announced Wednesday.

The move will put nuclear-powered submarines, which have longer range than Australia’s current conventional subs and can stay underwater for months, in China’s backyard as the administration seeks to pivot its foreign policy to the Indo-Pacific region.

“This is about investing in our greatest source of strength—our alliances—and updating them to better meet the threats of today and tomorrow,” Biden said at the White House, flanked virtually by leaders from the United Kingdom and Australia. “This initiative is about making sure that each of us has a modern capability, the most modern capability we need to maneuver and defend against rapidly evolving threats.”

A senior administration official expanded a bit on the idea.

“We undertake this effort as part of a larger constellation of steps including stronger bilateral partnerships with our traditional security partners in Asia...and also stronger engagement with new partners like India, Vietnam, and new formations like the Quad,” the official said.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., applauded the deal, saying that it is a “concrete” step to counter Beijing.

“Partnering with Australia on a new nuclear-powered submarine fleet is a huge investment in the long-term health of our alliances and sends a clear message of strength to Chairman Xi,” Sasse said in a statement. “The President’s Asia team deserves credit for jumpstarting this important work — but we still need more urgency.”Chinese officials have yet to respond to the news. The increased presence of more capable submarines in the Pacific could be viewed by Beijing as a threat, but Narang pointed out that there are already American nuclear submarines patrolling in the Pacific and the South China Sea, which could soften China’s reaction. It will also likely take years before the submarines are actually in the water with trained crews onboard, which gives China a long time to respond and prepare if needed.

China has a fleet of 60 submarines, including six nuclear-powered attack subs, according to a Nuclear Threat Initiative report from February.

Asked if this is a military move aimed at China, the senior administration official stressed that “this partnership is not aimed [at] or about any one country. It’s about advancing our strategic interests, upholding the international rules based order and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.”

More broadly, the new trilateral partnership, which will be known by the acronym AUKUS, will include increased cooperation on cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, as well as more integration of industrial bases and supply chains, the senior administration official said.

But the group’s first priority will be sharing technology with Australia to help it develop and field nuclear-powered submarines, the senior official said. This is only the second time the United States has shared this type of sensitive technology with an ally. The first was with the United Kingdom in 1958.

“This is a fundamental decision that binds decisively Australia to the United States and Great Britain for generations,” the official said.

Officials from the three countries will begin an 18-month consultation period during which they will determine details about things such as the workforce, training requirements, production timelines, nuclear nonproliferation and safety, Biden said. The effort will be led by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in consultation with officials from the Energy Department and State Department.

The partnership will include only nuclear propulsion, and Australia has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons or a civil nuclear capability, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said.

Some nuclear experts raised concerns about any proliferation of nuclear technology. James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program, called it a “mistake” and worried that the partnership would establish a dangerous precedent that could make nuclear material more widespread around the globe.

“If the US and UK help Australia acquire nuclear submarines, will they say no to, for example, South Korea, whose nonproliferation credentials are less than perfect (sorry) and which has stronger potential incentives to proliferate?” Acton wrote on Twitter.

Others disagree, saying that Australia is not a proliferation risk. Vipin Narang, a professor of nuclear security and political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argued that, because Australia is so far south with so much ocean to patrol, the benefits of the increased range offered by a nuclear-powered submarine outweigh the potential risks,

“If there’s any country I trust, it’s really Australia,” Narang said. “I know there are proliferation risks, but to me they’re offset by the warm fuzzy feeling I get from Australia having SSNs to help us out.”

The senior administration official pushed back on the idea that this could spark nuclear proliferation.

“This technology is extremely sensitive. This is frankly an exception to our policy in many respects,” the official said. “We view this as a one-off.”

One open question is whether the Australian subs will be powered by highly enriched uranium, a weapons-grade power source that fuels both American and British submarines, or low enriched uranium, which powers the French nuclear navy and can not be used directly for bombs, said Kingston Reif, the director of disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association. Using low-enriched uranium could help calm fears about nuclear proliferation, Reif said.

The United States is also expected to run out of the highly enriched uranium that powers its subs and aircraft carriers by 2060, and it’s unclear how giving fuel to Australia might affect that supply, Reif said.

Australia, which is planning to refurbish its six conventionally powered Collins-class guided-missile submarines, had also intended to buy another 12 conventional subs designed by French shipbuilder Naval Group. The first ship in the $90 billion program was expected to be delivered in the early 2030s. That program will reportedly be canceled so that Australia can pursue acquisition of nuclear subs instead.
Posted by at No comments:

Aussie/UK/US pact threatens global efforts to stem spread of nukes

September 17, 2021
Ceasefire.ca
Blog
A “terrible decision” for nuclear non-proliferation

On September 15, 2021 the American, British and Australian presidents announced a new strategic partnership, with the acronym AUKUS, intended to improve security in the Indo-Pacific.

President Biden stated:

Today, we’re taking another historic step to deepen and formalize cooperation among all three of our nations, because we all recognize the imperative of ensuring peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific over the long term.

This partnership comes with the further “bombshell” announcement that the United States and the UK will transfer highly sensitive nuclear-propulsion technology to Australia. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in an article entitled The new Australia, UK, and US nuclear submarine announcement: a terrible decision for the non-proliferation regime, Sébastien Philippe states:


Such a decision is a fundamental policy reversal for the United States, which has in the past spared no effort to thwart the transfer of naval reactor technology by other countries, except for its World War II partner, the United Kingdom….

If not reversed one way or another, the AUKUS decision could have major implications for the nonproliferation (sic) regime.

Philippe recalls American opposition to Canadian efforts in the 1980s to acquire French or British nuclear-powered submarines, although he overstates the role of the USA in Canada’s cancellation of the programme.

RI President Peggy Mason, then working in the office of Foreign Minister Joe Clark, comments:


The arrogant, heavy-handed American reaction gave Canadian nuclear-powered sub proponents the rallying cry of “arctic sovereignty”, making it harder for those of us within the Foreign Ministry opposed to this plan on non-proliferation grounds to make our case.

What ultimately killed the deal, however, was the spiralling cost since neither the French nor the British had under-ice capable submarines.

On the content of the nuclear non-proliferation concerns that were conveyed to Canada at the time by officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Philippe explains:


[T]he nonproliferation treaty has a well-known loophole: non-nuclear weapon states can remove fissile materials from international control for use in non-weapon military applications, specifically to fuel nuclear submarine reactors. These reactors require a significant amount of uranium to operate. Moreover, to make them as compact as possible, most countries operate their naval reactors with nuclear-weapon-usable highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel.

With tons of weapons-grade uranium out of international safeguards, what could go wrong?

Arms control experts have long been concerned about the naval propulsion loophole, particularly when Brazil in the 1960s began its long (and still-ongoing) effort to acquire nuclear-propelled submarines.

Whether it is Brazil or Australia that is first to deploy a nuclear-powered naval submarine, that country will be the first non-nuclear weapons state party to the NPT to remove fissile material — uranium — from international safeguards to non-monitored military use.

Potential cascading effects of this decision

Philippe speculates on the potential demonstration effect of this action by Australia, heretofore considered a staunch defender of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Among the highly negative effects he outlines are:
France may relax its position on not transferring naval reactor technology to Brazil as they continue to help that country build its first nuclear-powered attack submarine;
South Korea may ask the USA or other nations for an arrangement similar to Australia’s, citing threats from North Korea;
Russia could begin new naval reactor cooperation with China to boost that country’s submarine capabilities; and
Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan could explore new transfer opportunities in relation to this technology.

Note that Iran in 2012 expressed interest in enriching uranium to HEU levels for a possible submarine programme.

Philippe concludes:


Until now, it was the US commitment to nonproliferation that relentlessly crushed or greatly limited these aspirations toward nuclear-powered submarine technology.

With the new AUKUS decision, we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards. [emphasis added]

Huge technical hurdles, unknown costs lie ahead for Australia


There are huge technical hurdles for Australia to overcome, given its almost complete lack of civilian nuclear power infrastructure. And the cost is “anyone’s guess”.

But the biggest challenge will undoubtedly be that of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even if Australia voluntarily agrees to international monitoring, Philippe describes the IAEA dilemma:


The agency, which is currently battling to prevent Iran from acquiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon—25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU according to the internationally agreed standard—will have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount without gaining access to secret naval reactor design information.

The AUKUS agreement provides 18 months for the parties to hammer out the details. In the meantime, domestic opposition is brewing and the current Australian Prime Minister is struggling in the polls.

China and France denounce US nuclear sub pact with Britain, Australia

The title above is also a 16 September 2021 Reuter’s headline, demonstrating that this ill-conceived deal has united in opposition both a close American ally and the very adversary that the new defence pact is intended to guard against.

China’s opposition is two-fold, citing both nuclear non-proliferation concerns and an “obsolete cold war zero sum mentality”. In the words of the Foreign Ministry spokesperson:


The nuclear submarine cooperation between the US, the UK and Australia has seriously undermined regional peace and stability, intensified the arms race and undermined international non-proliferation efforts.

The export of highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology to Australia by the US and the UK proves once again that they are using nuclear exports as a tool for geopolitical game and adopting double standards. This is extremely irresponsible.

As for France &mash; whose $90 billion dollar contract with Australia for diesel-powered subs was summarily cancelled to make way for the nuclear-powered subs — one quote from Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian suffices to underscore the intensity of their reaction:


It’s a stab in the back. This unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision is very similar to what Mr. Trump used to do.

And this condemnation was followed on Friday by France taking the extraordinary step of recalling its ambassadors to the US and to Australia.

New Zealand PM: these subs will not be permitted in our waters

As for Australia’s neighbour, New Zealand, while careful not to criticize the new defence pact per se, Prime Minister Ardern made it clear that the nuclear-powered subs would not be welcome:


New Zealand’s position in relation to the prohibition of nuclear-powered vessels in our waters remains unchanged.

In the view of Ceasefire.ca, the agreement to transfer highly sensitive nuclear technology and nuclear material to Australia should be condemned on both arms control and non-proliferation grounds and we concur with the following conclusion by Sébastien Philippe:


It is difficult to understand the internal policy process that led the Democratic Biden administration to the AUKUS submarine announcement. It seems that just like in the old Cold War, arms racing and the search for short-term strategic advantage is now bipartisan.

Whither Canada?

Like New Zealand, Canada has soft-pedalled the significance of this new pact, and made no public comment on the negative non-proliferation implications.

That Conservative leader Erin O’Toole would seek Canada’s participation in this misconceived deal is entirely unsurprising.

What is truly astonishing and disturbing, however, is the apparent concurrence of NDP leader Jagmeet Singh:


The pact seems like a potential avenue to add more pressure [on China]. Canada was absent.

Since the NDP has a strong, long-standing position in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, we can only assume that Singh was not briefed on the highly problematic implications of the AUKUS deal for containing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Election Call:

We call on all federal parties to recommit publicly to the goals of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament enshrined in the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The growing chasm between China and the USA

For some balance and context that is utterly lacking in most Canadian media coverage of China, we draw readers’ attention to an excellent webinar hosted by the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy (IPD) entitled Ambassador Chas Freeman: The Sino-American split.

The event webpage includes a transcript of the ambassador’s opening remarks as well as a link to the full webinar. The ambassador concludes his opening statement thusly:


And that is why it distresses me as an American to say that, while China will not gain from the Sino-American split, the United States seems likely to lose from it.

We strongly recommend reading the opening remarks in their entirety, as well as listening to the one-on-one discussion between Ambassador Freeman and Dr. Wenran Jian, an IPD advisor, by clicking here.

Call from across party lines to end Canadian arms sales to Saudi Arabia


So long as the arms continue to flow, this war is just going to get worse

Four former members of Parliament, from four different parties, joined together to pen an opinion piece for the Ottawa Citizen urging Canada to stop arming Saudi Arabia. They are Libby Davies (NDP), Daniel Turp (BQ), Douglas Roche (PC) and Adam Vaughan (Liberal).

They write:

[A]s former members of Parliament from four of Canada’s five major political parties, we find ourselves in agreement on a pressing foreign policy issue that must transcend party lines: Ending Canada’s arms exports to Saudi Arabia must be a priority of the next government, regardless of its political stripe….

The next government of Canada should follow in the footsteps of several European countries and immediately suspend arms exports to Saudi [Arabia], expand humanitarian assistance to Yemen, and play a diplomatic role in bringing an end to this brutal conflict.

Upcoming webinar on Afghanistan on 23 September from 11:00 to 12:30 EST

Further to our many recent posts on the situation in Afghanistan, we are pleased now to announce a webinar hosted by the University of Ottawa Centre for International Policy Studies (CIPS) and the Fragile States Research Network entitled Afghanistan 360 Degrees… So Now What? The poster accompanying the event announcement reads in part:

Join us for a deeper look at Afghanistan and the post-9/11 path to 2021 and beyond.

Professor and development practitioner Nipa Banerjee will moderate a discussion featuring former Afghanistan Ambassador to Canada Omar Samad and current Rideau Institute President Peggy Mason. This will mark the first public engagement together for Samad and Mason since their online Globe and Mail moderated discussion on 18 May 2006.

Don’t miss this timely discussion! To register on Eventbrite, click here.

Photo credit: Wikimedia (UK Trafalgar class nuclear-powered submarine)

Posted by at No comments:



Inspiration4: How much does SpaceX’s all-civilian space launch cost?
Adam Smith
Thu, 16 September 2021

The Independent
Inspiration4, an all-civilian private space flight from SpaceX, is set to launch on 15 September.

A team of four astronauts – including a teacher, a cancer survivor, a raffle winner, and an internet entrepreneur - will leave Kennedy Space Center in a SpaceX Dragon capsule will be put on top of a Falcon 9 rocket. They will journey upwards to a maximum of 600 kilometres from Earth, and descend into the Atlantic Ocean after three days.

The mission’s purpose is predominantly marketing for private space travel, and the amount of money spent on the mission remains unknown. Jared Isaacman, the billionaire chief executive of Shift4 Payments, has an estimated net worth of $2.4 billion, and agreed a confidential deal with SpaceX to travel into orbit, but there are clues to how much it might have cost.

“This mission has been secured by a private transaction between Jared Isaacman and SpaceX. The terms are not being disclosed. Separately, Inspiration4 has a goal of raising over $200 million dollars for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital with Jared Isaacman personally committing $100 million”, says a statement on the space company’s FAQ page. The choice of charity is because its global impact “really resonated with Jared”.

Mr Isaacman’s company apparently “did not invest in the mission [and this] is very much a private transaction between Jared Isaacman and SpaceX.”

While it is not exactly clear how much money would have changed hands between Mr Isaacman and SpaceX, CEO Elon Musk has said since 2016 that the launch cost of a Falcon 9 rocket is $62 million, and SpaceX director of vehicle integration Christopher Couluris said in a briefing in 2020 that the company can “bring launches down to below $30 million per launch.”

″[The rocket] costs $28 million to launch it, that’s with everything,” Couluris said, adding that reusing the rockets is “bringing the price down.”

The Inspiration4 mission is likely to have accrued extra costs, however, given the additional resources needed because it will include a crew. Unlike most of its missions – the launch of its Starlink internet satellites, for instance – SpaceX will also have to make sure the crew are safe in orbit as well as when they land on the ground.

The cost of the launch is also likely to cost less than the money raised by the raffle ticket sales. Almost 72,000 people entered the competition, raising around $113 million – with the winner being chosen at random.

Critics of private space launches, who have levied complaints against billionaire CEOs including Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson taking vanity trips to high altitudes rather than spending their money solving the multitude of problems on Earth, will argue that this flight has little other meaning bar advertising for SpaceX.

On its FAQ, the company has an answer: that “hardship and suffering have unfortunately been present throughout human history, but we can no sooner turn away from the great need all around us than we can put innovation and progress on hold. We have to find ways to do both”.

It goes on to claim that Inspiration4 “represents an investment in the future, so we can solve the problems of tomorrow”, comparing it to the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the subsequent development of nuclear medicine.

“There have been a number of significant innovations and recent progress that we can attribute to space travel in our recent history alone, ranging from the health and medical advances such as improved water purification technology, greatly-improved human prosthetics, even bringing the world closer together through SpaceX Starlink program, would have been unaffordable had it not been for investments made years ago in reusable rocket technology”.

Read More

SpaceX launch live: Inspiration4 latest updates as crew reaches orbit

When will SpaceX’s Inspiration4 be visible?
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)