The Need for Modern Child Care and Early Childhood Education

– Peggy Morton –

COMMUNIST PARTY OF CANADA (MARXIST LENNINST) 

The fight of women and families for modern child care and early childhood education goes back more than fifty years as reflected in the report of the Royal Commission on Women released in 1970, which called for such an endeavour.

Since then, the need has only become greater as one government after another has made sure it has not created a national child care program as a right. The cartel parties treat child care as an electoral football to attract votes while different governments use complicated systems of credits and create budget categories of various sorts which families have to wade through as they fend for themselves, juggle their finances and worry about the safety of their kids.

For the past 28 years, the Liberals have repeated promises at election time to create child care “spaces.” All the cartel parties offer various forms of subsidies or tax rebates as partial payment to families for child care and early childhood education. Meanwhile the situation has gone from bad to worse. With average costs per child in major cities of from $1,100 to $1,700 or more a month, child care is both unaffordable and unattainable for most families.

It is now an accepted fact that affordable child care is a necessity in a modern economy. The pandemic further exposed the failure of the existing system and private business interests are calling for governments to provide more money for child care, saying they have a shortage of workers and want more women back in the workforce. These employers want to buy the capacity to work of more women, but they refuse to pay for the costs of child care needed for women to join or rejoin the labour force. The financial oligarchy expects that all these costs will be borne through user fees and from the public treasury.

Private interests also see child care as a “market” in which they want to expand their reach and control, with profits guaranteed by the state. One monopoly alone openly states it aims to capture an additional 10 per cent of the “market” which would increase the private for-profit share to 46 per cent from the current 36 per cent.

In a discussion organized by Women for Rights and Empowerment on September 8, the clear conclusion was that women are sticking to and fighting for our own demands. We set the standards, we take the measure. Working women have long established what we need to guarantee the right to child care and the rights of the workers who provide child care and early childhood education based on the needs of women and families and of the society itself.

Upholding the right to modern child care and early childhood education requires upholding the rights of the workers who care for and provide early childhood education. These workers are overwhelmingly women (around 96 per cent). While the average wage is just under $20.00/hour across Canada and Quebec many earn less and their jobs are often precarious. They have a right to decent wages, benefits and working conditions and all who are recruited abroad as cheap labour to care for our children must be given full status on arrival in Canada. The super-exploitation of migrant women brought to the country to care for children in private settings must be ended.

Quebec has had a program of $9 a day child care for many years. Sounds great of course, but the reality is that the waiting lists for licensed care are long, the number of spaces available has never come close to meeting the need, and workers are still low-paid. Everything indicates that the same Liberal promise of $10.00 a day child care within five years and 40,000 additional child care workers will never materialize.

With 1.3 million regulated spaces in Canada and Quebec pre-pandemic and 20 per cent of them closed during the pandemic, this leaves a shortfall of 280,000 spaces just to return to pre-pandemic levels. Around 63,000 child-care workers had lost their jobs as of February 2021 compared to the previous year. Promises over which nobody exercises control are murky indeed, the stock in trade of the parties vying for power.

The suspicion is that current promises will be part of neo-liberal programs to pay the rich to extend their reach and control of early childhood education and child care, replacing those programs which have closed with corporate chains subsidized by the public purse while women and families have to continue to fend for themselves for access and cover “their share” of the costs. Workers on night shifts need not apply!

Through the half-century long fight since the 1970 Royal Commission, women and their advocacy organizations have established the standards of what constitutes modern child care and early childhood education based on the needs of women, families and society. This is the measure, not the competing claims and cynical promises of the parties vying for power.

High-quality child care must be available for all who need it, especially the most marginalized, and without “user fees.” Centres must be properly staffed, appropriately located, and provide a modern standard of care. Indigenous peoples must have control over all aspects of the care of their children. There can be no place for private ownership and control, and all pay-the-rich schemes should be ended and recognized as a source of corruption which robs child care of needed resources.

The possibility for innovative new arrangements are endless. Child care, along with other public enterprise and services for all children including sports and culture, nutritious and delicious meals and education must activate the human factor/social consciousness. One thing is certain: we cannot rely on governments which pay the rich to create the modern institutions we require and must fight to create them ourselves just as we must fight to establish an education system which serves the needs of a society which seeks to humanize the social and natural environment.

Facts about Child Care in Canada

There are roughly 5 million children under the age of 12 in Canada, and about 1.3 million licensed child care spaces. These include 636,157 full and part day centre spaces for 0-5 year olds, 570,022 centre spaces for school-age children to 12 years and 143,647 regulated family (home) child care spaces for 0-12 year olds.

Statistics Canada reported in June 2021 that in 2019 there were nearly 302,000 child care workers in Canada. One third were immigrants or non-permanent residents. Twenty-five per cent of child care workers were self-employed. From February 2020 to February 2021, around 63,000 or 21 per cent of child care workers in licensed facilities became unemployed. In comparison, total employment in Canada decreased by three per cent over the same period. Women make up 96 per cent of the child care workforce. In addition, many migrant workers employed as caregivers on temporary work permits in their employers’ homes also lost their jobs when their employers began to work from home or left the work force.

In 2019, on average, child care workers were making $19.97 per hour, compared to average hourly earnings of $27.91 for workers in all other occupations. Keep in mind that this average is somewhat misleading, given the fact that the highest paid receive remuneration several times greater than what the lowest paid receive.

Prior to the pandemic, about 28 per cent of families in the work force with children had a child in licensed child care. From February 2020 to February 2021, at least 20 per cent of all licensed day care spaces had closed, and it is uncertain how many will be closed permanently. Many of those which closed were operated as “not for profit” centres by community groups or voluntary operators.

According to an RBC Economics report, nearly 100,000 women aged 20 and older have left the labour force since February 2020, 10 times the number of men who left the labour force. The 2016 Canadian census found that both couples without a post-secondary education and single parents had decreased participation in the paid labour force from 2005 to 2015. The high cost of child care and education as well as housing etc. are considered major factors in this decline.

In 2016, around 36 per cent of regulated spaces were operated on a for-profit basis. Large corporate chains are expanding, with one such company alone having a stated goal to capture 10 per cent of the Canadian child care “market.” As with long-term care for seniors, for-profit child care has been shown to pay poorer wages, have fewer highly trained staff and a higher rate of failure to comply with legislated staff/child ratios.

(With files from Childcarecanada.org, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives)

#AUKUS

Stopping the new Cold War with China, before it’s too late

September 17, 2021

 BY JOE SIMS

CPUSA

Chinese President Xi Jinping and then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., in 2015. | Carolyn Kaster / AP


The Biden administration has been described as potentially transformative, equaling Lyndon B. Johnson’s years and possibly even rivaling Franklin D. Roosevelt’s tenure. While it’s still early, such comparisons may not be far off, considering the possible impact of pending environmental, infrastructure, voting, and labor rights legislation. If they become law (and at this stage that’s still a big if, thanks to Mr. Manchin & Co.), these bills would go a long way toward not only rescuing the country from the scourges of the health, environmental, racial, economic, and political crises that currently beset it. They would also mark a break with the neoliberal doctrine that has gripped decision-making since the 1980s. Or would they?

This question is brought into bold relief when considering the nine-month-old administration’s “inflection point” foreign policy doctrine. It too might be transformative, but the comparison now would not so much be to LBJ and FDR but rather to Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Dwight Eisenhower, and even Richard Nixon. Transformation, in this instance, would represent a 180-degree turn towards positions not assumed since the height of the Cold War, away from not only the Obama administration’s rather constrained international posture but from the very concept of peaceful coexistence that at least, in part, influenced U.S. foreign policy for the past half-century.

How so?

An F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet lands on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan in the South China Sea, Nov. 20, 2018. | Kin Cheung / AP

Having retreated from the Afghan theater in the war on terror, Mr. Biden’s administration now seems hell-bent on opening up a whole new battlefront, replacing “radical Islam” with China, socialism, and what are deemed autocratic states. In today’s Cold War redux, China is seen “as America’s existential competitor, Russia as a disrupter, Iran and North Korea as nuclear proliferators,” according to the New York Times.

Indeed, news of the military agreement between Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. aimed at China only underscores the danger.

“We’re in competition with China and other countries to win the 21st century,” the 46th president recently declared. “We’re at a great inflection point in history.” “On my watch,” he later boasted to reporters, China will not achieve its goal “to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world.”

The administration’s lurch rightward in foreign affairs flies in the face of U.S.-China detente that dates from 1979 with Deng Xiaoping’s entry onto the world stage and China’s “opening up.”

Only two years ago, Biden was referring to China’s leadership as “nice people.” What changed?

Thomas Friedman, in a recent Times column, sums up the U.S. rationale succinctly, identifying technology theft, Hong Kong, the alleged mistreatment of national minorities (notably the Uyghurs in Xinjiang), and Xi Jinping’s leadership. The last factor tops Friedman’s list: “Then there is the leadership strategy of President Xi Jinping, which has been to extend the control of the Communist Party into every pore of Chinese society, culture, and commerce.” He continues: “This has reversed a trajectory of gradually opening China to the world since 1979.”

Trade is another key issue. Here, Friedman suggests that to end the tariffs imposed by Trump, China must first end its commodity subsidies. “Many U.S. businesses are pushing now to get the Phase 1 Trump tariffs on China repealed—without asking China to repeal the subsidies that led to these tariffs in the first place. Bad idea.”

Clearly, what irks U.S. capital and its apologists are primarily two issues: the Communist Party of China’s campaign to deepen its role and the country’s commodity export policy—in other words, how what’s called “socialism with Chinese characteristics” handles trade. The CPC has been campaigning against corruption and attempting to politically and ideologically reinforce itself, an effort that makes the likes of Friedman cringe. The op-ed writer’s call to “end subsidies” is basically a demand to dismantle China’s organization of production—in other words, its drive toward socialism. One might ask Mr. Friedman, should the U.S. end its subsidies to agriculture and oil as well?

Some might call these questions of national sovereignty, matters on which outsiders should dare not intrude. Friedman, obviously, has other ideas as he quips: “When dealing with China, speak softly but always carry a big tariff (and an aircraft carrier).” Small wonder the Chinese general secretary replied in his speech celebrating the 100th anniversary of the CPC with such vigor to the “sanctimonious preaching” of those who have the gall to tell them what to do and combine it with threats of military force.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan is one of the architects of the Biden approach to China, which appears to be pairing ‘progressive’ domestic politics with anti-communist foreign policy. | Patrick Semansky / AP

Biden’s views, it seems, are widely shared in the circles of the 1 percent. Indeed, a new bipartisan ruling-class consensus has taken shape. Jake Sullivan, the administration’s current National Security Advisor, argued in a Dartmouth College interview in 2019 that the national security establishment of both parties in recent years had come to the conclusion that “we totally screwed up, we got China all wrong” in assuming that the People’s Republic would become more “liberal” and “responsible stakeholders” as they became integrated into the “rules-based order” (meaning the WTO and other international bodies).

When that didn’t happen, the powers that be concluded, says Sullivan, that the U.S./China equation is “no longer about cooperation; it’s about competition and competition in a way is kind of a code word for confrontation.”

Enter Cold War 2.0

But this is a standoff of a different type. U.S. policy towards the USSR and the socialist community of nations was premised on the strategy of containment and the hope that these newly emerging societies would collapse under the weight of their own inertia. Today’s plans toward China instead posit a zero-sum, winner-take-all pursuit of U.S. imperialist objectives. Last spring, Sen. Bernie Sanders sounded the alarm in Foreign Affairs: “It is distressing and dangerous, therefore, that a fast-growing consensus is emerging in Washington that views the U.S.-Chinese relationship as a zero-sum economic and military struggle.”

Kurt Campbell, a Biden loyalist who advised the vice president during the Obama years and is now a member of his National Security Council responsible for China, put it this way last spring at a Stanford University conference: The period of “engagement [with Beijing] has come to an end.” U.S. policy is now under a “new set of strategic parameters,” says Campbell. Fierce competition, according to the NSC staffer, is the new framework for the relationship.

Needless to say, this language is a far cry from the diplomatic niceties accorded state-to-state relations in normal times, at least in public. Still, it should be pointed out that these not-so-veiled threats must be weighed against Biden’s pledge to end the forever wars and repeated ill-fated U.S. attempts at nation building. At the same time, one might rightly ask, is the White House speaking out of both sides of its mouth?

Democrats, after all, are notorious for moving to the right on foreign policy, an alarming trend in normal times but extremely troublesome in light of the ongoing fascist threat. After all, it’s no secret that the conduct of the war on terror helped fuel far-right extremism, leading to Trump’s Muslim ban and ultimately the coup attempt of January 6th.

Here, Democrats contend that it’s possible to confront on the one hand (e.g., pulling back on technology transfers) and cooperate on the other (climate change), a most dangerous game.

Not surprisingly, Republicans just love it. Steve Bannon, alt-right gadfly and former Trump strategist, has long painted China as an existential threat. Now it seems, at least in spirit, ruling elites have found common cause.

The “authoritarianism” equation

Upon hearing the news, Hal Brands of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute waxed ecstatic: Biden views…competition as part of “a fundamental debate” between those who believe that “autocracy is the best way forward” and those who believe that “democracy will and must prevail,” a patently false juxtaposition if there ever was one. Here the casual equating of right and left “authoritarianism” obscures fundamental differences between social systems.

Tech competition is one aspect of the new Cold War confrontation targeting China. Here, a Chinese family visits a mock space station at an exhibition promoting China’s achievements under the Communist Party, in Beijing, on June 22, 2021. | 

Andy Wong / AP

According to Brands, the U.S. is contemplating a three-pronged response: forging a new coalition with advanced capitalist nations, pursuing international responses to transnational crises like COVID-19, and reinvesting in infrastructure and technology in order to contest China and other rivals.

Untangling the two countries’ economic ties will be no easy task, given the existing level of integration. Another observer, a former editor of Foreign Policy, argues that some measures already underway are more aggressive than those pursued by Trump:

“Since taking office, Biden’s administration has maintained former President Donald Trump’s trade sanctions against China. It has worked with the Senate to pass a massive, quarter-trillion-dollar industrial policy bill aimed at boosting U.S. competitiveness. It has launched a Buy American campaign that cuts foreign firms out of the extremely lucrative U.S. government procurement market. It has worked to block Chinese acquisitions and investments inside the United States and to keep Chinese students and researchers out of the country. And on June 17, Biden signed an executive order banning Americans from investing in Chinese companies linked to the military or to surveillance technology.”

Additionally, “the U.S. is looking to impose further restrictions on the export of leading-edge semiconductor technology to China, and the White House has raised the possibility of an Indo-Pacific-wide digital trade deal that excludes Beijing.”

National security for whom?

The situation is growing increasingly complicated. Consider that the foundations of the administration’s international objectives, spelled out in an Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, are premised on benefiting working- and middle-class families: “We have an enduring interest in expanding economic prosperity and opportunity,” the document’s authors aver, “but we must redefine America’s economic interests in terms of working families’ livelihoods, rather than corporate profits or aggregate national wealth.”

Make no mistake: this is new. Without a doubt, a redefinition of U.S. economic interests, prioritizing working-class well-being over corporate profits, would indeed be welcome. That it’s framed within the context of U.S. national security is also noteworthy. The couching, however, of these ideas within the framework of such retrograde language and plans is extremely problematic. Biden’s National Security Advisor, Mr. Sullivan, it appears, is among the chief authors and architects of this strategy.

What’s behind it? Sullivan himself seems to have been moved by the 2016 election campaign and the realization of “how profoundly such a large segment of our country felt their government wasn’t working for them.” Hence he concluded that “the strength of U.S. foreign policy and national security lies primarily in a thriving American middle class, whose prosperity is endangered by the very transnational threats the Trump administration has sought to downplay or ignore.”

Bernie Sanders’s campaign, too, had an impact: “I didn’t always agree with his ultimate policy solutions, but there’s no question he connected with how much of America experiences and perceives the impacts of systemic inequality and this sense that the system was somehow working against them.”

Hence Sullivan’s belief in the need to address transnational issues like the pandemic, global warming, and trade along with massive reinvestments in infrastructure both traditional and human. But these are one individual’s subjective considerations, hardly a basis for the class policy shift that’s in the works. What then could be among the objective factors?

Here a shift away, if not a break from, neoliberal policy may be part of a wider change in advanced capitalist countries. One writer points to the nationalization of a steel plant in the U.K. and writes that in “Europe, the EU is in the process of overhauling its State Aid rules to allow greater government support to industry, citing the need to meet competition from China.”

A big issue, it’s argued, is the growth of big data and the absence of rules governing intellectual property, both of which demonstrate the need for government intervention:

“The broader point here is that the material base of the global economy has, in the past decade, been decisively reshaped around data technologies and a major new competitor economy outside the West and that this, in turn, has promoted a direct challenge to neoliberal norms of government across the globe. To the extent that the pandemic has accelerated the shift toward the digital economy, and has expanded the range of government intervention, it has brought neoliberalism’s death rather closer.”

Then there are the objective imperatives of real life. Confronted with the aftermath of January 6th and the events leading up to it, the objective of the Biden administration, at first glance, seems to be to rewrite the social contract in fundamental ways by addressing working-class concerns with the added benefit of winning back some of those influenced by Trump: “Biden has been pursuing investments in scientific research and development, digital and physical infrastructure, and other areas to improve competitiveness and address working- and middle-class alienation,” offers a Bloomberg analyst. He continues: “In Biden’s view, improving the economic fortunes of the middle class is insurance against a Trumpist resurrection and a way of strengthening the domestic foundations of U.S. diplomacy.”

Other commentators appear either skeptical or at best nonplussed: “Allies are also asking what Biden’s concept of a foreign policy for the middle class can do to advance prosperity in the free world as a whole. Some worry that it is just a softer version of Trump’s protectionism, skeptical of free trade agreements and partial to tariffs.”

But clearly, there’s another goal at work here. Team Biden’s Security Guidance hints at it: “Anti-democratic forces use misinformation, disinformation, and weaponized corruption to exploit perceived weaknesses and sow division within and among free nations, erode existing international rules, and promote alternative models of authoritarian governance.”

Canceling socialism

Who, it must be asked, is advocating “alternative models” of governance? Thomas Wright, writing for the Atlantic, comes close to an answer. “In his [Biden’s] view, the United States is in a competition of governance systems with China.” It’s one thing to compete as to who is best, East or West, and quite another to frame such competition in far broader and more insidious terms.

Nader Mousavizadeh, founder and CEO of Macro Advisory Partners and an advisor to the late Kofi Anan, quoted in the Friedman op-ed, hits the nail directly on the head. Questioning the advisability of the entire Biden foreign policy project, he asks, “Are we sure we understand the dynamics of an immense and changing society like China well enough to decide that its inevitable mission is the global spread of authoritarianism?”

Canceling socialism? Washington’s campaign to confront China is also aimed at halting the country’s effort to build a socialist society. Here, workers install flowers on a decoration with the Communist Party’s hammer and sickle emblem in Beijing, in June. 

| Andy Wong / AP

It’s a damn good question. Biden and company have been led to believe that China’s main purpose in life is the global export of its revolution. But this is clearly a misreading of intentions. As a question of practice, “socialism with Chinese characteristics” is very China-specific, a model based on that country’s unique conditions. As a matter of theory, as Gus Hall used to say, “socialism is not a foreign import.” In other words, there are no universal models of socialism fit for every time and place. If the 20th century has proven anything, social revolution is not an exportable commodity—it cannot be shipped in and imposed from without.

U.S. imperialism seems particularly alarmed at China’s Belt and Road initiative, a wide-reaching infrastructure plan aimed at developing nations. So alarmed in fact, that in response to Belt and Road, the U.S. pushed the G7 in June to launch a lamely labeled “Build Back Better World” (B3W) program aimed at a similar international audience.

When it’s all said and done, the linking of a left progressive domestic program to anti-communist foreign policy aimed at “canceling” China’s drive toward socialism marks a new stage in U.S. imperialism’s effort to regain lost positions and right the ship of state. As a tactic, however, the ploy is not new. During Cold War 1.0, sections of the left, particularly in the European social democratic movements, were encouraged to take similar positions. It would be a tragedy for history to repeat itself here at home.

The danger, of course, is that this left/right pairing of bread-and-butter priorities at home with great power imperatives abroad carries with it the potential for faux populist appeals, with all the dangers that come with them. Instead of responding to the genuine aspirations of Black Lives Matters movements, immigrant rights, union strikes, organizing drives, and shop floor activism, in other words, the “socialist moment,” the nation could be diverted toward potentially nationalist and xenophobic paths—the dramatic increase in anti-Asian hate and violence is a case in point.

The Biden administration has already extended the Trump sanctions against Cuba and remains hostile to Venezuela. What country will be next? Nicaragua now appears to be in imperialism’s sights.

Setting this aside for the moment, another question looms large: Are any of these actions in the objective interests of African American, Latino, Asian American, Native American, and white workers of the United States? And how will the labor movement respond? Hopefully not with a new round of China bashing in exchange for a few pieces of badly needed silver.

Notwithstanding these challenges, the concept of connecting security to working-class interests should not be dismissed out of hand. It would be a huge mistake to frame this problem narrowly. The issue is separating, if possible, these more-than-worthy domestic intentions from their entrapment in Cold War 2.0 designs.

The good news here is that some early on have seen through the Cold War rhetoric and are taking sharp issue with it. As pointed out above, already in late spring Bernie Sanders took exception to the emerging consensus and called for its reversal. Sanders, who also buys into a bit of China bashing, nevertheless correctly noted, “The primary conflict between democracy and authoritarianism, however, is taking place not between countries but within them—including in the United States,” and called for a global minimum wage to help address worldwide inequality. Biden has proposed a global minimum corporate tax, and the G20 and OECD have agreed in principle on a 15% minimum corporate tax. This is a good beginning if implemented. U.S. corporations currently pay an effective corporate tax of 17%.

Importantly, around the same time, 40 organizations took issue with the hawkish U.S. policy toward China, warning that it threatened climate collapse. Politico writes, “It’s the latest salvo in the months-long drama between progressive Democrats who say cooperation on climate change should take precedence over competition with China, and moderates who think the administration can do both things at once.”

The article continues:

The progressive organizations, including the Sunrise Movement and the Union of Concerned Scientists, “call on the Biden administration and all members of Congress to eschew the dominant antagonistic approach to U.S.-China relations and instead prioritize multilateralism, diplomacy, and cooperation with China to address the existential threat that is the climate crisis,” their letter reads. “Nothing less than the future of our planet depends on ending the new Cold War between the United States and China.”

It seems that the Biden administration itself is not of one mind on these issues.

The Atlantic writes that “some in the [Democratic] party’s foreign-policy establishment hope that his views on China are not yet settled and that he will moderate his rhetoric and outlook over time, deemphasizing the contest between democracy and authoritarianism. They worry that the United States could find itself embroiled in an ideological struggle with China akin to the Cold War.”

The divisions extend deep into the administration: “A Biden administration official [said] that, while the top foreign policy officials are simpatico with the president, some in the government share the restorationists’ concerns, while others have yet to grasp the significance of the president’s statements.”

The Biden administration is also risking a hot war with Russia over Ukraine and with Iran in the Middle East. U.S. imperialism is being challenged at the same time that Biden attempts displays of resoluteness in showing U.S. military and diplomatic “strength.”

Thus, there is plenty of room and opportunity to push the administration in a better direction, and pushing is a must. The goal here must not necessarily be to change the administration’s hearts and minds but compel change with real, mass, on-the-ground politics. This should include demanding a change of personnel in the State Department, which, having already badly managed the withdrawal from Afghanistan, is now pushing the country into a new balance of military and nuclear terror with China and possibly Russia.

The future of human civilization may depend on what mass movements do. It’s either peaceful coexistence or no existence.

This article first appeared at CPUSA.org.

RELATED STORIES:

China doesn’t want a new Cold War

U.S. pushes NATO to target China, risking new Cold War

Xi Jinping warns against foreign aggression in Communist Party centenary speech

CONTRIBUTOR

Joe Sims
Joe Sims is co-chair of the Communist Party USA. He is also a senior editor of People's World and loves biking.

SOCIALISM IS; 

STATE CAPITALISM AND ELECTRICITY 

V. I. LENIN

US military basing to expand in Australia, directed against China

Mike Head@MikeHeadWSWS

WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE

This week’s announcement of a new Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) military alliance, with the US and UK to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, is the spearhead of a closer integration of Australia into US war preparations against China.

A Royal New Zealand Air Force NH90 helicopter and an Australian Defence Force MRH90 land at Sam Hill Airfield in Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area in Central Queensland [Source: Australian Department of Defence]

Behind the backs of their populations—without any mention in the parliaments or Congress—the three governments have placed Australia on the frontline of plans for war against China to reassert US global hegemony.

For the first time, the Australian government has explicitly named China as the target of the military buildup, abandoning previous efforts to avoid doing so because China remains Australian capitalism’s biggest export market.

At a meeting in Washington the day after the AUKUS announcement, the US and Australian defence and foreign ministers issued a communiqué that commits Australia to hosting US troops, bombers, fighter aircraft and warships and acting as a logistics base for a military conflagration between nuclear-armed powers.

The 31st annual Australia-U S Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) joint statement was entitled “An Unbreakable Alliance for Peace and Prosperity.”

At its core was an agreement on “Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation and Alliance Integration.” This takes to a new level the Force Posture Initiatives pact signed between the Obama administration and the Gillard Labor government 10 years ago, which featured the rotational basing of US Marines in the strategic northern Australian city of Darwin.

The four ministers—US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton and Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne—agreed to:
Enhanced air cooperation through the rotational deployment of US aircraft of all types in Australia and appropriate aircraft training and exercises.
Enhanced maritime cooperation by increasing logistics and sustainment capabilities of US surface and subsurface vessels in Australia.
Enhanced land cooperation by conducting more complex and more integrated exercises and greater combined engagement with Allies and Partners in the region.
Establish a combined logistics, sustainment, and maintenance enterprise to support high end warfighting and combined military operations in the region.

At a media conference, Dutton foreshadowed a further expansion of US military operations in Australia. “I do have an aspiration that we can increase the numbers of troops through the rotations, the air capability will be enhanced, our maritime capability [too],” he said. “If that includes basing and includes storage of different ordinances, I think that’s in Australia’s best interest at this point in time.”




After three decades of US-led wars, the outbreak of a third world war, which would be fought with nuclear weapons, is an imminent and concrete danger.

Blinken ramped up the Biden administration’s provocative allegations and threats against China, accusing Beijing of “economic coercion” against Australia and declaring that the US would “not leave Australia alone on the field,” in confronting China.

Payne followed suit. “Today, we also discussed strategic competition. We discussed the competition of China at a number of levels that requires us to respond and to increase resilience.”

Speaking from Australia, Prime Minister Scott Morrison declared: “The relatively benign environment we’ve enjoyed for many decades in our region is behind us. We have entered a new era with new challenges for Australia and our partners.”

A comment in the New York Times on the AUKUS pact noted that when Morrison became prime minister three years ago, he insisted that the country could maintain close ties with China, its largest trading partner, while working with the United States, its main security ally.

“Australia doesn’t have to choose,” he had said in one of his first foreign policy speeches. But the New York Times said: “On Thursday, Australia effectively chose … With its move to acquire heavy weaponry and top-secret technology, Australia has thrown in its lot with the United States for generations to come…

“The agreement will open the way to deeper military ties and higher expectations that Australia would join any military conflict with Beijing.”

The article said the US had made a choice also: “That the need for a firm alliance to counter Beijing is so urgent that it would set aside longstanding reservations about sharing sensitive nuclear technology. Australia will become only the second country—after Britain in 1958—to be given access to the American submarine technology, which allows for stealthier movement over longer distances.”

Significantly, the AUSMIN communiqué specifically referred to Taiwan, which the US and its allies are using as a potential trigger for conflict against China. The document further undermined the “One China” policy by which the US recognised Beijing as the legitimate government of China as a whole, including Taiwan, in 1979.

“The Secretaries and Ministers re-emphasized Taiwan’s important role in the Indo-Pacific region,” the communiqué stated. “Both sides stated their intent to strengthen ties with Taiwan, which is a leading democracy and a critical partner for both countries.”

This aggressive alignment against China will be intensified in Washington next week by the first-ever in-person meeting of the leaders of a de facto anti-China military alliance, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,”—the US, Japan, India and Australia.

Confident of bipartisan backing, the Morrison government has proceeded in close consultation with the Labor Party. Opposition leader Anthony Albanese and three key shadow ministers were briefed in advance of the AUKUS announcement.

In line with Labor’s unequivocal decades-long commitment to the US military alliance, Albanese immediately stated Labor’s agreement with the alliance and the acquisition of nuclear submarines.

Albanese called for three assurances, which were already included in the deal: no civil nuclear energy capability, no breach of nuclear non-proliferation treaties and no acquisition of nuclear weapons. These are essentially meaningless, because the logic of nuclear-powered weaponry involves the acquisition of nuclear warfare capability.

Morrison, Dutton and other Australian ministers bluntly rejected China’s condemnation of the AUKUS and submarine agreements, heavily backed by the corporate media.

The Australian’s foreign editor Greg Sheridan wrote: “The deal promises not only nuclear submarines but an even more intimate involvement of the US, and Britain, in regional security and in our security. … In the wake of the Afghanistan debacle, this is a good development in itself.”

Nevertheless, concerns have been voiced within the political and military establishment about the nakedness of the moves against China. Former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd defended the US alliance but called for Australia to be an “intelligent” ally, not one that “paints a very large target on our forehead.”

Hugh White, an Australian National University professor and former defence official, warned: “As the US-China rivalry escalates, the United States will expect Australia to do more. If the US is allowing Australia to have access to its nuclear technology, it’s because the US expects Australia to be deploying its forces in a potential war with China.”

These responses reflect nervousness in ruling circles over the likely loss of lucrative Chinese markets, the prospect of a disastrous war and, above all, the triggering of widespread anti-war sentiment.

ANTI #BDS 

CAN NJ SAY #FREEPALESTINE
New Jersey set to shed $182 mln Unilever assets over Ben & Jerry's boycott

Reuters
Ross Kerber
Publishing Sep 15, 2021 

A New Jersey state treasury official said on Wednesday it is set to divest $182 million in Unilever Plc stock and bonds held by its pension funds over the restriction of sales by the consumer giant’s Ben & Jerry’s ice cream brand in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

It is the latest action by a U.S. state challenging Unilever over Ben & Jerry’s move in July to end a license for its ice cream to be sold in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Ben & Jerry’s said selling its products there was “inconsistent with its values.”

New Jersey’s Division of Investment had said on Tuesday it made a preliminary determination that maintaining its investment in Unilever would be a breach of a state law barring it from investing in companies boycotting Israel. It gave the company 90 days to request a modification of the order.

A Unilever representative said it had no comment on the state decision, but cited a letter to the state from CEO Alan Jope from August stating Unilever has “a strong and longlasting commitment to our business in Israel,” where it employs nearly 2,000 people.

Jope noted Ben & Jerry’s has an independent board overseeing its social mission, and said Unilever does not support the “Boycott Divestment Sanctions” movement that seeks to isolate Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians. The decision to stop selling ice cream was made by Ben & Jerry’s and its board, Jope said.

A Ben & Jerry’s spokesman did not respond to messages.

Many countries consider Israeli settlements on Palestinian land to be illegal. Israel disputes this.

Ben & Jerry’s, based in South Burlington, Vermont, is known for its commitment to social justice that has recently included strongly supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, LGBTQ+ rights and electoral campaign finance reform.

It was acquired by Unilever in 2000 in a deal that allows it to operate with more autonomy than other subsidiaries, including giving powers to an independent board to make decisions over its social mission, brand integrity and policies.

Arizona state Treasurer Kimberly Yee said earlier this month the state would sell $143 million in Unilever holdings for similar reasons. (Reporting by Ross Kerber in Boston, editing by Greg Roumeliotis and David Gregorio)

In Russian Far East city, discontent smolders amid election

1 of 11

Election posters and billboards are displayed Thursday, Sept. 9, 2021, in the Russian city of Khabarovsk, in the country's Far East. The parliamentary and local elections will be closely watched to gauge how much anger against the Kremlin remains in the region, where its popular governor was arrested last year, causing mass protests.

​(AP Photo/Igor Volkov)


KHABAROVSK, Russia (AP) — The handful of demonstrators gathering each evening in Khabarovsk are a shadow of the masses who took part in an unusually sustained wave of protests last year in the Russian Far Eastern city, but they are a chronic reminder of the political tensions that persist.

The demonstrators have been demanding the release of the region’s popular former governor, Sergei Furgal, who was arrested last year on charges of being involved in killings.

Now, his Kremlin-appointed replacement, Mikhail Degtyaryov, is on the ballot for governor in the three days of regional voting that concludes Sunday. The regional election is taking place at the same time that Russians are voting for members of the State Duma, the national parliament.

The race for governor is being closely watched to gauge how much anger remains in the region, located seven time zones and 6,100 kilometers (3,800 miles) east of Moscow.

“The region really worries the Kremlin because they don’t want a repeat of those incidents (last years’ protests) of course. Khabarovsk is now under close supervision,” said Andrei Kolesnikov of the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank.

Three other people are on the ballot for governor, but supporters of Furgal and others in the city of about 600,000 complain they are insignificant candidates who were allowed to run to give the appearance of a democratic and competitive race.

“Whoever posed even the smallest threat was barred from running, and they left only spoiler candidates,” said 64-year-old protester Zigmund Khudyakov.

Notably, United Russia — the country’s dominant political party and loyal backer of President Vladimir Putin — is not fielding a candidate for governor in Khabarovsk. Nor is Russia’s second-largest party, the Communists.

Degtyaryov, a member of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party, is widely believed to be backed by the Kremlin with both advice and money.

The man who wanted to run on the Communist ticket was kept off the ballot because he was unable to get enough signatures from officials. That aspiring candidate, Pyotr Perevezentsev, told The Associated Press that municipal authorities in some districts had been told by their superiors whose nominating petitions to sign.

“People representing the presidential administration curated these elections,” he said.

Separately, Furgal’s son Anton says he was kept off the ballot for the national parliament. “There is an opinion that if my last name had been Ivanov, for example, I would likely be allowed to run,” he said.

Degtyaryov rejects such claims.

“As head of the Khabarovsk regional government, I am obligated to ensure transparent, legal, free and fair elections, and we are following all of these provisions,” he said on a recent televised question-and-answer session with residents.

The weeks of protests that arose after Sergei Furgal’s arrest in July 2020 appeared to catch authorities by surprise. Unlike in Moscow, where police usually move quickly to disperse unsanctioned rallies, authorities didn’t interfere with the unauthorized demonstrations in Khabarovsk, apparently expecting them to fizzle out.

A Liberal Democratic Party member, Furgal won the 2018 regional gubernatorial election even though he had refrained from campaigning and publicly supported his Kremlin-backed rival.

His victory was a humiliating setback for United Russia, which also lost its control over the regional legislature.

While in office, Furgal earned a reputation as a “people’s governor,” cutting his own salary, ordering the sale of an expensive yacht bought by the previous administration, and offering new benefits to residents.

His arrest, which was shown on Russian TV stations, came after the Investigative Committee, the nation’s top criminal investigation agency, said he was accused of involvement in the murders of several businessmen in the region and nearby territories in 2004 and 2005. During interrogation in Moscow, Furgal denied the charges, according to the Tass news agency.

Ultranationalist lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a veteran politician with a reputation for outspoken comments and also a member of the Liberal Democrats, once called Furgal “the best governor the region ever had.”

FILE - In this July 18, 2020, file photo, thousands of demonstrators turn out for an unsanctioned protest in the city of Khabarovsk, Russia, in the country's Far East in support of Sergei Furgal, the governor of the region. The posters read, "Freedom for Sergei Furgal, I am, we are Sergei Furgal," "Give us Furgal back, "Call Furgal home." The demonstrators demanded his release after his arrest on charges of being involved in killings. (AP Photo/Igor Volkov, File)

A small group of demonstrators hold posters reading "Degtyaryov, go to the bathhouse!!!" and "I'm, we are Sergei Furgal" in Khabarovsk, Russia, in the country's Far East, on Saturday, Sept. 11, 2021. A few demonstrators each evening gather in a persistent reminder of the mass protests last year demanding the release of Furgal, the region's former governor, who was replaced by the Kremlin with Mikhail Degtyaryov. (AP Photo/Sergei Demidov)

Furgal’s arrest brought hundreds, and then thousands, of people into the streets of Khabarovsk in a regular Saturday protest. A year later, the rallies — albeit much smaller — continue.

Local activists say that’s because of sustained pressure from authorities interested in ensuring Degtyaryov wins the election.

Under new rules enforced by police who monitor and film the protests, the rallies are restricted to 10 people at most. Officers disperse anything larger.

The protesters say they are pressured at work and at university, with some adding that they lost their jobs after being seen at the demonstrations.

Many wear T-shirts with the face of imprisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny, while others carry signs depicting Furgal or denouncing the new governor.

“We constantly live in fear because any day we can be arrested,” said Denis Pedish, a 47-year-old education worker who says he now comes to protests with a packed bag of essentials in case he is detained.

“It’s difficult. But people have hope and faith and are actively fighting the lawlessness of the authorities and the lawlessness of the elections, which are a laughingstock for the world to see,” Pedish said.

___

Anna Frants and Olga Tregubova in Moscow contributed reporting.

Aluminum wrap used to protect homes in California wildfires

1 of 7

In this Sept. 2, 2021 file photo a cabin partially covered in fire-resistant material stands behind a property destroyed in the Caldor Fire in Twin Bridges, Calif. Aluminum wraps designed to protect homes from flames are getting attention as wildfires burn in California. During a fire near Lake Tahoe, some wrapped houses survived while nearby homes were destroyed. The material resembles tin foil from the kitchen drawer but is modeled after the tent-like shelters that wildland firefighters use as a last resort to protect themselves when trapped by flames. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong,File)


RENO, Nev. (AP) — Martin Diky said he panicked as a huge wildfire started racing down a slope toward his wooden house near Lake Tahoe.

The contractor had enough time to do some quick research and decided to wrap his mountain home with an aluminum protective covering. The material that can withstand intensive heat for short periods resembles tin foil from the kitchen drawer but is modeled after the tent-like shelters that wildland firefighters use as a last resort to protect themselves when trapped by flames.

Diky, who lives most of the time in the San Francisco Bay Area, bought $6,000 worth of wrapping from Firezat Inc. in San Diego, enough to cover his 1,400-square-foot (130-square-meter) second home on the edge of the small California community of Meyers.

“It’s pretty expensive, and you’d feel stupid if they stopped the fire before it got close,” he said. “But I’m really glad we did it. It was pretty nerve-wracking when the flames came down the slope.”

The flexible aluminum sheets that Diky affixed to his $700,000 home are not widely used because they are pricey and difficult to install, though they have saved some properties, including historic cabins managed by the U.S. government.

Fire crews even wrapped the base of the world’s largest tree this week to protect it from wildfires burning near a famous grove of gigantic old-growth sequoias in California’s Sequoia National Park. The colossal General Sherman Tree, some of the other sequoias in the Giant Forest, a museum and some other buildings also were wrapped amid the possibility of intense flames.

It comes after another aluminum-wrapped home near Lake Tahoe survived the Caldor Fire, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) west of Diky’s home, while neighboring houses were destroyed.

The wrapping deflects heat away from buildings, helping prevent flammable materials from combusting. It also keeps airborne embers — a major contributor to spreading wildfires — from slipping through vents and other openings in a home. With a fiberglass backing and acrylic adhesive, the wraps can withstand heat of up to 1,022 degrees Fahrenheit (550 Celsius).

Until about a decade ago, most wildfire damage was blamed on homes catching fire as flames burned nearby vegetation. Recent studies suggest a bigger role is structure-to-structure fires that spread in a domino effect because of tremendous heat that causes manufactured materials to burst into flames.

The company where Diky bought his wraps gets about 95% of its sales from the U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service. Firezat Inc. founding president Dan Hirning estimates the Forest Service has wrapped 600 to 700 buildings, bridges, communication towers and other structures in national forests this year alone.

Firefighters on social media liken the wraps to a “big baked potato.” One who helped install some said he felt like he was “wrapping Christmas presents.”

Forest Service officials say they have been using the wraps for several years throughout the American West to protect sensitive structures. At Lake Tahoe, they have wrapped the Angora Ridge Lookout, a nationally registered historic fire lookout tower, said Phil Heitzke, an agency battalion chief.

“Many times, Forest Service structures are wrapped well in advance of the fire,” he said in a statement. Crews often can then focus on protecting other buildings or other work.

Firezat sells fire shield rolls that are 5 feet (1.5 meters) wide by 200 feet (61 meters) long for about $700 each. Installation by a contractor typically costs thousands of dollars.

“People think we should be selling tons of these things, but it’s not as much as everybody thinks,” Hirning said. Despite the cost, he said a building won’t burn unless “fire falls right on it.”

A mechanical engineering professor at Ohio’s Case Western Reserve University published 10 years of research about protective wraps in the Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering journal in 2019, saying they “demonstrated both remarkable performance and technical limitations.”

The aluminized surface blocked up to 92% of convective heat and up to 96% of radiation, Fumiaki Takahashi said.

The wrapping is most effective if a wildfire burns past with exposure of less than 10 minutes, he said. It’s less effective in areas with high-density housing, where spreading infernos can burn for hours without being stopped by firefighters.

The wraps “show promise in being effective, but further research is needed to develop more efficient yet still lightweight” protection against severe fires, Takahashi said in an email. He said he wouldn’t recommend them for everyone because they require proper installation.

“But once the installation methods are established (like a standard), I would,” he wrote. “There have been multiple successful stories for saving historic cabins by the U.S. Forest Service.”

Hirning said most of individual buyers he’s had over the years are looking to protect “really expensive cabins, really expensive homes, resorts, etc.” They include homeowners on $5 million lots in Malibu, California, who are asked to sign an agreement that the Forest Service isn’t responsible for protecting their property in some cases.

FILE - In this Sept. 1, 2021 file photo Martin Diky's home completely wrapped in fire-resistant material to protect the property against the approaching Caldor Fire in Meyers, Calif. Diky decided to order $6,000 worth of aluminum protective covering to wrap his home near Lake Tahoe in June as the last big wildfire roared through the Sierra dozens of miles southwest of the forested alpine waters. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong,File)

A Wyoming rancher once put Hirning on a conference call with a fire commander and insurance adjuster who was going to reduce his rates if he wrapped a cabin worth about $1.5 million.

“Often it’s people who can’t get fire insurance or their insurance has been dropped. They want to wrap it to protect their investments that way,” he said.

Diky suggests getting extra help putting up the wrapping.

“They recommended three people could do it in 3.5 hours. I brought four contractors with me and worked all day into the night ... busted our butt for 12.5 hours,” he said.

As far as sales taking off as a result of recent wildfires, Hirning emphasized that it’s “an extremely seasonable business.”

“The first five years, new competitors were coming on each year. And at the end of each year, I got a phone call: “Would you be interested in buying our inventory?”’ he said.

Once it starts raining and snowing, he says he often doesn’t sell anything for nine months straight. That could change, however, as climate change contributes to more intense weather and more destructive, nearly year-round wildfire seasons.

#ECOCIDE

World on 'catastrophic' path to 2.7C warming, warns UN chief

Issued on: 17/09/2021 - 

UN chief Antonio Guterres on September 17, 2021 warned a failure to slash global emissions is setting the world on a "catastrophic" path to 2.7 degrees Celsius heating. 

© Fabrice Coffrini, AFP
Text by:NEWS WIRES
3 min
Listen to the article

A failure to slash global emissions is setting the world on a "catastrophic" path to 2.7 degrees Celsius heating, UN chief Antonio Guterres warned Friday just weeks before crunch climate talks.

His comments come as a United Nations report on global emissions pledges found instead of the reductions needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change, they would see "a considerable increase".

This shows "the world is on a catastrophic pathway to 2.7-degrees of heating," Guterres said in a statement.

The figure would shatter the temperature targets of the Paris climate agreement, which aimed for warming well below 2C and preferably capped at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

"Failure to meet this goal will be measured in the massive loss of lives and livelihoods," Guterres said.

Under the landmark 2015 Paris deal, nations committed to slash emissions, as well as to provide assistance to the most climate-vulnerable countries.

But a bombshell "code red" for humanity from the world's pre-eminent body on global warming in August warned that Earth's average temperature will be 1.5C higher around 2030, a decade earlier than projected only three years ago.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that emissions should be around 45 percent lower by 2030 compared with 2010 levels to meet the 1.5C goal.

The UN said on Friday that current pledges by 191 countries would see emissions 16 percent higher at end of the decade than in 2010 -- a level that would eventually cause the world to warm 2.7C.

"Overall greenhouse gas emission numbers are moving in the wrong direction," said UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa in a press conference.

But she said there was a "glimmer of hope" from 113 countries that had updated their pledges, including the United States and European Union.

These new pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions, would see their emissions reduced 12 percent by 2030 compared to 2010.

Big emitters

With only 1.1C of warming so far, the world has seen a torrent of deadly weather disasters intensified by climate change in recent months, from asphalt-melting heatwaves to flash floods and untameable wildfires.

The Paris deal included a "ratchet" mechanism in which signatories agreed to a rolling five-year review of their climate pledges in which they are supposed to display ever greater ambition for action.

But many major emitters have yet to issue new targets.

That includes China -- the world's biggest emitter -- has said it will reach net zero emissions by 2060, but has not yet delivered its NDC that would spell out emissions reductions by 2030.

Meanwhile new targets from Brazil and Mexico were actually weaker than those they submitted five years ago, according to an analysis by the World Resources Institute.

The UN report was a "damning indictment" of global progress on climate, particularly by G20 nations, responsible for the lion's share of emissions, said Mohamed Adow, who leads the think tank Power Shift Africa.

"They are the countries which have caused this crisis and yet are failing to show the leadership required to lead us out of this mess," he said.

Time to 'deliver'

Another issue on the table at the Glasgow summit will be a pledge as yet unfulfilled -- the pledge by wealthy nations to provide annual climate funding of $100 billion from 2020 to poorer countries, who bear the greatest impact of warming.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on Friday said progress was "disappointing", with developing countries receiving $79.6 billion in 2019.

It warned that the target for 2020, which saw the world shaken by the Covid-19 pandemic, would be missed.

"The fight against climate change will only succeed if everyone comes together to promote more ambition, more cooperation and more credibility," said Guterres.

"It is time for leaders to stand and deliver, or people in all countries will pay a tragic price."

(AFP)

UN: Climate pledges put world on ‘catastrophic pathway’

FILE - In this Jan. 30, 2020 file photo, a ThyssenKrupp coking plant steams around the clock for the nearby steel mill in Duisburg, Germany. The cuts in greenhouse gas emissions pledged by governments around the world aren't enough to achieve the headline goal of the Paris climate accord, according to a United Nations report published Friday. The U.N. climate office said it reviewed all the national commitments submitted by Paris pact signatories until July 30 and found that they would result in emissions of planet-warming gas rising nearly 16% by 2030, compared with 2010 levels. 

(AP Photo/Martin Meissner, File)


BERLIN (AP) — The world is on a “catastrophic pathway” toward a hotter future unless governments make more ambitious pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the head of the United Nations said Friday.

A new U.N. report reviewing all the national commitments submitted by signatories of the Paris climate accord until July 30 found that they would result in emissions rising nearly 16% by 2030, compared with 2010 levels.

Scientists say the world must start to sharply curb emissions soon and add no more to the atmosphere by 2050 than can be absorbed if it is to meet the most ambitious goal of the Paris accord — capping global temperature rise at 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) by 2100.

“The world is on a catastrophic pathway to 2.7 degrees (Celsius) of heating,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said.

Experts say the planet has already warmed by 1.1 C since pre-industrial times.

“We need a 45% cut in emissions by 2030 to reach carbon neutrality by mid-century,” Guterres said.

Some 113 countries including the United States and the European Union submitted updates to their emissions targets, also known as nationally determined contributions or NDCs, by the end of July. Their pledges would result in a 12% drop in emissions for those countries by the end of the decade — a figure that could more than double if some governments’ conditional pledges and assurances about aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050 are translated into action.

“That’s the positive side of the picture,” said U.N. climate chief Patricia Espinosa, whose office compiled the latest report. “The other one is more sobering.”

Dozens of countries, including major emitters such as China, India and Saudi Arabia, failed to submit new pledges in time for the report.

Espinosa called for leaders at next week’s annual U.N. gathering in New York to put forward stronger commitments in time for the global body’s upcoming climate summit in Glasgow.

“Leaders must engage in a frank discussion driven not just by the very legitimate desire to protect national interest, but also by the equally commanding goal of contributing to the welfare of humanity,” she said. “We simply have no more time to spare, and people throughout the world expect nothing less.”

Espinosa added that some public pledges, such as China’s aim to be carbon neutral by 2060, haven’t yet been formally submitted to the U.N. and so weren’t taken into account for the report. An update, which would include any further commitments submitted by then, will be issued shortly before the Glasgow summit, she said.

Still, environmental campaigners and representatives of some vulnerable nations expressed their disappointment at the findings.

“We must ask what it will take for some major emitters to heed the scientific findings and deliver our world from a point of no return,” said Aubrey Webson of Antigua and Barbuda, who chairs the Association of Small Island States. “The findings are clear – if we are to avoid amplification of our already devastating climate impacts, we need major emitters and all G20 countries to implement and stick to more ambitious NDCs and make strong commitments to net-zero emissions by 2050.”

Jennifer Morgan, the executive director of Greenpeace International, said meeting the Paris goal would only be possible with “courageous leadership and bold decisions.”

“Governments are letting vested interests call the climate shots, rather than serving the global community,” she said. “Passing the buck to future generations has got to stop — we are living in the climate emergency now.”

___

Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/Climate

US JUSTICE IS AN ASS

Judge: Prosecutors can’t show Rittenhouse link to Proud Boys

1 of 13

Kyle Rittenhouse appears in court for a motion hearing in Kenosha, Wis., on Friday, Sept. 17, 2021. Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Antioch, Ill., about 20 miles (32 kilometers) to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, after seeing a post on social media for militia to protect businesses. Rittenhouse faces multiple charges in the August 2020 shootings in Kenosha. (Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP)

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A judge ruled Friday that prosecutors can’t argue that a man who shot three people during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin is affiliated with the Proud Boys or that he attacked a woman months before the shootings, bolstering his position as he prepares for a politically charged trial.

Kyle Rittenhouse is set to stand trial beginning Nov. 1 on multiple counts, including homicide. The 18-year-old argues he opened fire in self-defense after the men attacked him. Prosecutors say they have infrared video from an FBI surveillance plane that shows Rittenhouse followed and confronted the first man he shot.

Kenosha was in the throes of several nights of chaotic demonstrations after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, a Black man who was paralyzed from the waist down. Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Antioch, Illinois, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, in response to a call on social media to protect businesses there.

Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle, killing Rosenbaum and Huber and wounding Grosskreutz. Conservatives across the country have rallied around Rittenhouse, raising $2 million to cover his bail. Black Lives Matter supporters have painted him as a trigger-happy racist.

During a hearing Friday on several motions, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked to argue at trial that Rittenhouse subscribes to the Proud Boys’ white supremacist philosophies and violent tactics. Binger pointed out that Rittenhouse was seen at a bar with members of the white nationalist group’s Wisconsin chapter in January and traveled to Miami days later to meet the group’s national president.

Binger also asked the judge to allow evidence that Rittenhouse attacked a woman in June 2020 as she was fighting his sister. He also wants to show jurors video from 15 days before the shootings in which Rittenhouse said he would like to shoot some men he thought were shoplifting from a pharmacy.

Binger said Rittenhouse’s affiliation with the Proud Boys, the fight and the video show Rittenhouse’s propensity toward violence. He described Rittenhouse as a “chaos tourist” and “teenage vigilante” who came to Kenosha looking for trouble.

Rittenhouse attorney Corey Chirafisi countered that none of the events are relevant to the shootings. Nothing shows Rittenhouse was connected to the Proud Boys on the night of the protest or that the shootings were racially motivated, Chirafisi said, pointing out that Rittenhouse and the men he shot were white.

Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed with the defense about the June fight and interactions Rittenhouse has had with the Proud Boys. He deferred a decision on the pharmacy video but said he was inclined to exclude it.

It was during discussion about that video that Binger said prosecutors have infrared surveillance footage that he said shows Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum, who was the first person Rittenhouse shot.

Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards maintained it was Rosenbaum who started chasing Rittenhouse, yelling out, “Kill him!” He said Rosenbaum cornered Rittenhouse in front of a row of cars in a parking lot and threw a bag at him before trying to grab Rittenhouse’s gun.

Binger said the surveillance footage shows Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum with a fire extinguisher before Rosenbaum turned to confront him. Binger said Rosenbaum was probably trying to push the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle away.

After Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum, people in the streets began chasing him. Video from the night of the protests shows Rittenhouse shot Huber after Huber hit him with a skateboard and tried to grab his gun. Grosskreutz then approached Rittenhouse with a gun and Rittenhouse shot him.

Schroeder denied a defense request to argue that Rosenbaum was trying to steal Rittenhouse’s rifle because Rosenbaum was a sex offender and couldn’t legally possess a firearm.

He delayed ruling on defense requests to dismiss a charge that Rittenhouse possessed his gun illegally because he was a minor and to allow testimony from an expert on police use-of-force. He set another hearing for Oct. 5.

___

Associated Press writers Michael Tarm in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and Doug Glass in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

CAPITALI$M IS ADDICTION

Use of OxyContin profits to fight opioids formally approved

FILE - This Feb. 19, 2013, file photo shows OxyContin pills arranged for a photo at a pharmacy in Montpelier, Vt. A judge formally approved a plan Friday, Sept. 17, 2021 to turn OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma into a new company no longer owned by members of the Sackler family and with its profits going to fight the opioid epidemic. A U.S. bankruptcy court judge signed the plan Friday, more than two weeks after giving it preliminary approval. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot, File)

A judge formally approved a plan Friday to turn OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma into a new company no longer owned by members of the Sackler family and with its profits going to fight the opioid epidemic.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain officially confirmed the reorganization Friday, more than two weeks after he announced he would do so pending two largely technical changes to the plan presented by the company and hashed out with lawyers representing those with claims against the company.

His confirmation took more than six hours to read in court earlier this month, and the written version is 159 pages long, full of reasoning that appeals courts can consider later. Several states among other parties have already appealed the decision.

The deal resolves some 3,000 lawsuits filed by state and local governments, Native American tribes, unions, hospitals and others who claimed the company’s marketing of prescription opioids helped spark and continue an overdose epidemic linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S. in the last two decades.

The plan will use company profits and $4.5 billion in cash and charitable assets from members of the Sackler family to pay some individual victims amounts expected to range from $3,500 to $48,000, and help fund opioid treatment and prevention programs across the U.S.

Members of the Sackler family are also required to get out of the opioid business worldwide in time.

Millions of company documents, including communications with company lawyers, are to be made public.

The changes are to take effect when the bankruptcy process is finalized; the earliest that could be is in December.

The attorneys generals from the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Washington and the District of Columbia, as well as the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee have all announced appeals. Their chief objection is that members of the wealthy Sackler family would be granted protection from lawsuits over opioids.

For many people in recovery from opioid addictions or who have lost loved ones to overdoses, the deal is infuriating.

Ellen Isaacs, a mother whose son died from an overdose, filed court papers requesting Drain not accept the plan. At a hearing on Monday, she gave a passionate some sometimes tearful 40-minute speech on her request. Like other activists, she asserted that Sackler family members — who have never been charged with criminal wrongdoing — are getting away with crimes, and that politicians and courts are not doing enough to end the opioid epidemic.

“The attorneys are playing games on paper and humans are dying,” she said.

Drain said the money from the settlement would help avert more deaths, even if it will come too late for Isaacs’ son.

“I did not become a judge to get things wrong,” he told her.

He stood by his confirmation of the plan.

At the hearing, Drain also said he would approve a request from Purdue to use nearly $7 million to start setting up the funds that will distribute settlement money to victims, government entities and others. He also, for the third year, approved a plan of incentive payments for Purdue executives if they meet certain goals.

US Study: Rising number of parents refuse HPV vaccine for adolescent children



Growing numbers of parents and caregivers are refusing the HPV vaccine for their adolescent children, according to a study of the newest data available. File Photo by rawpixel/Pixabay

Sept. 17 (UPI) -- An increasing number parents in the United States are refusing to vaccinate their adolescent children against HPV because of concerns about the safety of the shot, a study published Friday by JAMA Network Open found.

Just over 23% of parents surveyed in 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, said they would not have their adolescent children inoculated against HPV, or the human papillomavirus, citing safety concerns, the data showed.


Three years earlier, 13% of responding parents said they would reject the vaccine on behalf of their children.

The increase in HPV vaccine refusal coincided with a 33% decline in the number of vaccine-related side effects reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the same period, according to the researchers.

"This growing perception that the vaccine is not safe seems unfounded when we look at vaccine safety surveillance data," study co-author Kalyani Sonawane told UPI in an email.

"The HPV vaccine has been around for more than a decade -- it can prevent six HPV-associated cancers. Multiple studies suggest that it is safe" said Sonawane, an assistant professor of management, policy and community health at UTHealth School of Public Health in Houston.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, with 43 million cases in 2018 alone, the CDC estimates.

RELATED HPV vaccination is lowering U.S. cervical cancer rates

Most of these infections occur in people in their late teens or early 20s, and those with the virus are at increased risk for cancers of the vagina, penis, anus and throat, given that it is spread through sexual contact, according to the agency.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the first HPV vaccine, Gardasil, in 2006, before green-lighting an improved version, called Gardasil 9, in 2014.

The newer version of the vaccine is designed to protect against nine types of HPV, and it has been shown as nearly 90% effective at preventing persistent infection, genital warts, vulvar and vaginal precancerous lesions, cervical precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer, according to the FDA.

RELATED Too few young men have received HPV vaccine, experts say

The CDC recommends HPV vaccination at age 11 or 12, and those who are not inoculated by that age recommended to get the shot until age 26.

While the vaccine has been approved for use by people up to age 45, the agency recommends people older than 26 discuss it's necessity with their doctors.

Up to two-thirds of those eligible to receive the HPV vaccine in the United States have done so, the CDC estimates, though public health officials believe that about 80% will need to be inoculated to limit the spread of the virus, Sonawane said.

For this study, Sonawane and her colleagues analyzed data on more than 39,000 responses to a national survey of parents and caregivers that assessed their attitudes toward vaccination for their children.

They focused on survey responses collected between 2015 and 2018, and compared them with reports of vaccine-related side effects recorded by the CDC over the same period.

Over the four-year period, HPV vaccine hesitancy rose in 30 states, with the largest increases -- more than 200% -- seen in California, Hawaii, South Dakota and Mississippi.

Parental attitudes toward vaccines, such as the measles-mumps-rubella shots currently recommended for children, have remained relatively consistent in recent years, with nearly 90% supporting their use, according to Pew Research.

However, over the past year, vaccine hesitancy has been at the forefront of the pandemic response in the United States, as more than half of the respondents to another Pew survey feel that there is too much pressure on people to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

Just under 64% of those eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine nationally are fully vaccinated, CDC figures show.

While the new data on HPV vaccine hesitancy predates the COVID-19 pandemic, some researchers have suggested that overall vaccine hesitancy in the United States has played a role for those not yet vaccinated against the coronavirus.

"Vaccine hesitancy was acknowledged as one of the top 10 threats to public health by the World Health Organization in 2019 and anti-vaccination communities in the U.S. are more active than ever," Sonawane said.

"We believe that exposure to misleading claims regarding HPV vaccine safety on online forums and through mainstream media might have led to an increase in HPV vaccine hesitancy," she said.