Union seeks Biden admin's help in Charleston port dispute


A sign marks the site of a new South Carolina Ports Authority terminal named for longtime state Sen. Hugh Leatherman on Monday, Oct. 25, 2021, in North Charleston, S.C. Currently, the International Longshoremen's Association is calling on the Biden administration for help resolving a labor dispute at the terminal. 

(AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)

MEG KINNARD
Mon, November 1, 2021

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — As port logjams across the country continue to constrain the U.S. supply chain, the union that represents dockworkers at South Carolina's ports tells The Associated Press it is calling on the Biden administration for help in a dispute related to a new shipping terminal.

But the chief executive in charge of the state's ports authority tells AP that the “hybrid” union-non-union employment model at the Port of Charleston “has worked to the benefit" of all employees.

At issue is the September decision of a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge, who ruled that the International Longshoremen's Association could not prevent shipping lines from calling on the new Leatherman Terminal in North Charleston.

The $1 billion first phase of the terminal, named for longtime state Sen. Hugh Leatherman, opened earlier this year and is operating at 35% of its current capacity. Under a contract reached with the United States Maritime Alliance, which represents shipping carriers, the union has claimed that only its members will be the ones to operate heavy-lift equipment, like cranes, at newly constructed terminals in the state, such as Leatherman.

Currently, those cranes are operated by State Ports Authority employees, not longshoremen.

Attorney General Alan Wilson and the South Carolina Ports Authority filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union and the alliance. The case, Newsome said, accuses both entities of pressuring carriers not to call on the Leatherman terminal, implementing what Newsome called a “secondary boycott” — an illegal tactic under the National Labor Relations Act.

But, according to the judge who heard that complaint, that deal was intended to preserve work for the union, not take over previously non-union jobs. The longshoremen, the judge wrote, cannot “threaten, restrain or coerce” shipping lines “to cease doing business with the South Carolina State Ports Authority, the State of South Carolina or any other person."

In a statement provided Monday to AP — the union's first comments since the decision — Kenny Riley of the International Longshoremen’s Association called South Carolina's climate toward unions “hostile” and vowed to keep fighting the issue in court. The association also said it would "seek the support of the Biden administration to advocate for a strong and sustainable future for union workers.”

South Carolina is a “right-to-work” state, meaning workers can’t be compelled to join unions, even if the organizations represent them. According to data released earlier this year by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, South Carolina had the lowest union membership rate, at 2.9 percent.

Newsome, in an interview with AP, said “there’s no advantage to” Ports Authority employees joining the union, where he said they would not be paid as well as they are currently.

“I think our guys would take a cut in pay if they went to work for the union," Newsome said.

Last month, President Joe Biden announced a deal to expand the Port of Los Angeles to a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week operation as a way to try to tamp down inflation. It comes as prices keep climbing and container ships wait to dock, a traffic jam threatening the U.S. economy and holiday shopping.

Prices are jumping in large part because container ships are stranded at ports, and because unloaded goods are waiting for trucks, leading to mass shortages and delays that have caused a longer than expected bout of inflation.

As for the port slowdown, Riley blamed South Carolina's Republican leadership like Wilson and Gov. Henry McMaster for the Leatherman terminal sitting “nearly idle” while they are “trying to score political points” with the NLRB case. The ordeal, he said, represented “an ugly pattern of relentless efforts by the state’s most ardent union busting Republican lawmakers to oppress trade unionism, no matter the cost or consequence.”

Newsome, conversely, said it was the union whose tactics were intimidating mostly foreign-owned carriers from calling on the Leatherman terminal, out of fear of running afoul of U.S. labor laws, thereby allowing supply chain issues to fester.

“There's no reason that they can’t call there," Newsome said, of the Leatherman terminal, which is currently home to one shipping line, Hapag-Lloyd. “When we have supply chain issues out the wazoo in this country ... why constrain this terminal? There's no reason to.”

___

Meg Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP.

Democrats Are Close To Implementing Big Fines For Illegal Union Busting

The deal reached on Biden’s Build Back Better framework includes monetary penalties of up to $100,000 for employers who violate labor law.

Dave Jamieson

HUFFPOST
10/29/2021 04:25pm EDT


It may finally cost something for employers to illegally break unions.


Congressional Democrats and the White House on Thursday reached a tentative deal on a trimmed-down yet still historic $1.75 trillion spending package that would broaden the social safety net and address climate change. Although it’s still subject to changes, the current version of the Build Back Better framework includes a potentially landmark reform to labor law: monetary penalties for union busting.

The latest iteration of the bill released by House and Senate leaders Thursday would fine employers up to $50,000 for each “unfair labor practice,” and up to $100,000 in cases where a worker was illegally fired. An unfair labor practice ― commonly called a ULP ― is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, the New Deal-era law that protects the right of workers to form unions or join together to improve their working conditions.

“These fines will actually make the law real.”

- Rebecca Givan, Rutgers University

These fines would have big impact because currently, there’s almost no downside to breaking the law. If an employer is found to have illegally fired union supporters, the most they have to do is offer reinstatement and backpay. And the backpay is “mitigated” — meaning any other wages the worker earned elsewhere after getting fired would be subtracted from what the scofflaw employer owes the person it fired.

In many cases, an employer found to have committed ULPs merely has to hang a poster in the workplace acknowledging they did so. With such weak penalties, employers are acting rationally when they violate the law, which is why ULPs are so common in organizing drives.

But with monetary penalties, employers might make a different calculation.

“These fines will finally give a fairly toothless law some enforcement power. Employers have been able to break the law with impunity,” said Rebecca Givan, an associate professor of labor studies at Rutgers University. “These fines will actually make the law real, and will force employers to follow rules that have been on the books for over half a century.”

The penalties have a place in Democrats’ spending bill because they raise revenue. To survive under the rules of budget reconciliation — the process Democrats are using in an effort to pass the legislation on a party-line vote — a provision needs to have some kind of budgetary effect.

But the real idea behind the penalties isn’t to bring in money ― it’s to stop employers from breaking the law, and make it easier for workers to organize. That’s why the penalties are included in another one of Democrats’ sweeping plans: the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, which seeks to buck up labor rights. The penalties would be the most significant piece of the PRO Act to make it into the Build Back Better framework.

Union membership in the U.S. is hovering near historic lows, particularly in the private sector, where just 6.3% of workers now belong to a union. In the years following World War II, roughly a third of U.S. workers were in unions. President Joe Biden has pledged to help turn around the labor movement, promising to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen.”




Amazon settled a case involving unfair labor practice charges over the firing of two workers who’d criticized the company on climate change.

Benjamin Sachs, a labor law professor at Harvard Law School, said the inclusion of labor law reforms in Biden’s signature bill would show that collective bargaining is part of the administration’s broader vision for economic fairness.

“The Biden administration understands why organizing rights are essential to rebuilding the economy. Those things are related to one another,” Sachs said.

Like many other experts, Sachs has argued for a complete reconstruction of labor law to give workers more leverage, finding that the current system has essentially failed to create a needed counterweight to employers.

“We need a real overhaul to labor law, and that’s not this,” he said of the union-busting penalties. “But in terms of fixes to the current system, this is great progress.”

According to a 2019 analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, employers were charged with committing ULPs in 41.5% of union elections overseen by the National Labor Relations Board in 2016 and 2017. The employer was accused of illegally firing workers in nearly 20% of cases, and coercing or threatening employees in nearly 30%.

Researchers cautioned that their findings “likely understate the extent of employer aggression against unions,” since many violations go unreported.

The NLRB often changes rules and precedents making conditions more or less favorable to workers organizing, depending on whether there’s a Democratic or Republican majority on the board. But amendments to the law like the one being considered by Congress right now are extremely rare, said Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell’s Industrial and Labor Relations School. One notable example would be when Congress extended collective bargaining rights to nonprofit health care workers in 1974.

“The way the process works now, they tend to get settled out because the penalties are just pieces of paper. ... But when these penalties start to have value, the unions are not going to settle them. It will become much more high-stakes.”

- Kate Bronfenbrenner, Cornell's Industrial and Labor Relations School

Bronfenbrenner’s research has shown that employers have grown more aggressive in combating organizing campaigns in recent decades, which she believes is a major factor in the declining rate of unionization.

She cautioned that there are still large, powerful employers that would view even a $100,000 fine as the “cost of doing business.” She cited Amazon, which unleashed a robust anti-union campaign to defeat an organizing drive at its Bessemer, Alabama, warehouse earlier this year.

A labor board official has called for that election to be rerun because Amazon went to great lengths to have a U.S. Postal Service mailbox for ballots installed on warehouse grounds. Amazon also settled a case involving unfair labor practice charges over the firing of two workers who’d criticized the company on climate change.

But most employers will have to take the fines seriously, she said. And unions may be less likely to seek settlements when there are meaningful penalties attached to the cases.

“The way the process works now, they tend to get settled out because the penalties are just pieces of paper. To the union, the penalties are not that important because they don’t do anything,” Bronfenbrenner said. “But when these penalties start to have value, the unions are not going to settle them. It will become much more high stakes.”

Axel Springer's 401(k) Blunder Boosted Politico Union Effort

The German media company's acquisition of Politico left staffers without a retirement plan while organizers were gathering union cards.

By Dave Jamieson

HUFFPOST
11/02/2021 



Axel Springer acquired Politico last month in a $1 billion deal.

Journalists at Politico and E&E News had been working to form a union for several months when their new owner, the German media company Axel Springer, gave the organizing effort an inadvertent boost.

On Oct. 19, hours after Axel Springer officially acquired the news sites from Robert Allbritton for $1 billion, Politico human resources chief Traci Schweikert sent an email to staffers regarding an “important update” on their benefits. The top of the note explained that their paid time off and health care would remain unchanged, but the third bullet point was what journalists call a “buried lede”: their 401(k) plan would be halted for at least several months.

“We anticipate that the new plan will be available in early 2022,” she wrote.

Losing the 401(k) plan, even temporarily, would amount to a compensation cut, since employees received a match from Politico worth up to 3% of their salary. A followup note from Schweikert said Axel Springer was “committed to finding a solution that compensates 401(k) participants for the temporary gap.”

Staffers wondered why the retirement plan wasn’t tended to as the deal closed. A private Signal group for employees filled with concern and anger, several said.

“It blew up much more over that than it did over the Ben Smith piece in The New York Times,” said one reporter, referencing Smith’s investigation detailing sexual harassment complaints at the German publisher.

The reporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the company’s mishandling of the 401(k) undoubtedly gave the union campaign some added momentum. Last Friday, a week and a half after Schweikert’s initial email, staffers at Politico and E&E announced that they had gathered union cards from 80% of the expected bargaining unit of 250 workers, Bloomberg reported. They intend to unionize under the name PEN Guild, as an affiliate of the NewsGuild-CWA.

“It was one of those things that undermines trust in management,” the reporter said of the 401(k) snafu. “And if you’re management and you know there’s a concerted union drive going on at the moment, it is not a good time to undermine trust with your employees.”

Allbritton had urged staffers not to seek out union representation in August, saying it was “not in the publication’s interests, our reader’s interests, or in the interests of individual employees.”

“It was one of those things that undermines trust in management.”

- a Politico reporter

Workers have many different reasons for joining a union effort, and several Politico employees said they have broader concerns over pay equity and working conditions. But the temporary loss of a 401(k) plan hits everyone on the income scale who participates ― including high earners who might otherwise be lukewarm on a union ― and serves as a reminder of how easily benefits can disappear when they’re not contractual.

Gavin Bade, who covers trade for Politico Pro and is a member of the PEN Guild organizing committee, agreed that the 401(k) likely contributed to the union’s extremely high signup rate, though it was not “the overwhelming factor.” The committee tracked support over time and could see a boost after the 401(k) brouhaha.

“We were obviously talking to a lot of people throughout the newsroom, and pressing people to sign union cards,” Bade said. “But we definitely saw another surge of support after the 401(k) issue, and just solidifying support among people who might have been on the fence.”

Four other Politico and E&E staffers said they agreed with that assessment.

Eric Phillips, an Axel Springer spokesperson, said the company was working on fixing the 401(k) issue.

“It is our top priority to find a solution that compensates 401(k) participants for the temporary gap in coverage,” he said in an email. “We are working to resolve the matter as quickly as possible and expect to announce details very soon.”

For now, the money that workers would have put into their retirement accounts is going straight into their paychecks.

In theory, the company could give workers a lump payment or temporarily increase the employer contributions once a new 401(k) plan is up and running. But several staffers noted that they weren’t sure how the company might account for potential market gains during the months they didn’t have a plan.

Even trickier is how Axel Springer could expect to make up for employees’ lost tax advantages.

Employer 401(k) plans divert your pre-tax income to a retirement account, lowering your adjusted gross income and therefore your tax bill. Going without a 401(k) plan for a while not only costs you the employer contributions but increases your tax liability. Having a higher gross income than expected can have other downsides, too, since it could impact a filer’s eligibility for the new child tax credit or the ability to make Roth IRA contributions.

Politico and E&E employees will apparently be moving from one Vanguard plan to another. In one of her emails to staff, Schweikert said the 401(k) hiatus came about because of the speed of the deal between Axel Springer and Allbritton. “Due to the short time between signing and closing of the acquisition, Vanguard was not able to establish the new plan immediately following close.”

“We definitely saw another surge of support after the 401(k) issue.”

- Gavin Bade, PEN Guild organizing committee

A $1 billion acquisition creates a lot of paperwork for lawyers, and human resource issues can sometimes fall by the wayside, said Ted Benna, a retired consultant who’s often credited with creating the first 401(k) plan following the Revenue Act of 1978. Benna said the 401(k) plan transition can be smooth with proper planning.

“There isn’t any reason there has to be any break or disruption in participation, other than it’s not as high a priority as other things,” he said.

Representatives of the PEN Guild met for the first time Monday with Politico’s general counsel to discuss several issues, including the 401(k). The union is hoping to work out a deal for “voluntary recognition,” in which Axel Springer would opt to start bargaining with the union rather than force an election through the National Labor Relations Board. In the latter scenario, the union would need to win a majority of votes.

The apparent supermajority of support gives the union a strong position. From the employer’s standpoint, forcing an election can start to look a little futile when 80% of employees support the union effort. That may be especially true in journalism, where employers who demand NLRB elections in the face of a stack of union cards don’t have a great track record.

Strong union participation would be particularly important at Politico and E&E, which are based in Rosslyn, Virginia. Virginia is a right-to-work state, making the workplace an “open shop” where contributing dues would be optional, even though the union would be obliged to bargain on everyone’s behalf. Open shops require unions to do more work signing up members, but they can also make for a stronger, more engaged membership.

One Politico employee said they were onboard with the union effort all along, but the 401(k) news served as a reminder of why it was necessary.

“Without a voice at the table, the things you think are pretty good can actually change pretty quickly,” they said.




Dave Jamieson
Labor Reporter, HuffPost

A STRONG RANK & FILE

Deere employees reject contract offer, will stay on strike



Deere ContractFILE - Members of the United Auto Workers strike outside of a John Deere plant, Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2021, in Ankeny, Iowa. The farm equipment manufacturer reached a tentative labor agreement Saturday, Oct. 30, with the United Auto Workers union. But a UAW strike that began Oct. 14 will continue -- and details of the proposed contract will not be released -- while workers study the terms of the agreement in advance of a vote. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)More

JOSH FUNK
Tue, November 2, 2021

Most workers at Deere & Co. rejected a contract offer Tuesday that would have given them 10% raises and decided to remain on strike in the hopes of securing a better deal.

The raises in the new agreement reached over the weekend were twice as big as the ones in the original offer United Auto Workers union members rejected last month, but those raises and improved benefits weren't enough to end the strike that began on Oct. 14. The new agreement also would have provided an $8,500 ratification bonus, preserved a pension option for new employees, made workers eligible for health insurance sooner and maintained their no-premium health insurance coverage.

The disputed contract covers more than 10,000 Deere workers at 12 facilities in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. A smaller group of about 100 workers at two Deere facilities in Colorado and Georgia voted to accept an identical deal.

The union said 55% of its members at the 12 main plants voted against this latest contract offer Tuesday.

Last month, 90% of union members also rejected a proposed contract that included immediate 5% raises for some workers and 6% for others, and 3% raises in 2023 and 2025.

Deere officials said they were disappointed the agreement was voted down.

“Through the agreements reached with the UAW, John Deere would have invested an additional $3.5 billion in our employees, and by extension, our communities, to significantly enhance wages and benefits that were already the best and most comprehensive in our industries,” said Marc A. Howze, Deere's chief administrative officer. “This investment was the right one for Deere, our employees, and everyone we serve together."

Employees would have received wages between $22.13 an hour and $33.05 an hour under the latest rejected contract, depending on their position.

Tuesday's vote means that the first major strike since 1986 will continue at the maker of agriculture and construction equipment. Currently, many companies are dealing with worker shortages, making workers feel emboldened to demand more.

Douglas Woolam told the Des Moines Register that he voted against the contract because he didn’t think it provided enough for the majority of workers who are on the lower end of the pay scale.

Woolam, who has worked for the company for 23 years in Moline, Illinois, said members of his family have been working for the company for 75 years, beginning with his grandfather. He said his father retired from Deere making a higher wage than he earns now.

Forklift operator Irving Griffin, who has been with Deere for 11 years, told the newspaper Monday that he planned to vote against the contract because he believed the company can offer even more.

Griffin said he thought workers should hold out for a better offer even though workers are receiving only $275 a week from the union while they’re on strike.

“Now is the best time to strike and take a stand for what we’re really worth,” he said to the newspaper.

Sales have been strong at the Moline, Illinois-based company this year as the economy continued to recover from the pandemic. Deere has predicted it will report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion.

Deere ContractMembers of the United Auto Workers strike outside of a John Deere plant, Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2021, in Ankeny, Iowa. About 10,000 UAW workers have gone on strike against John Deere since last Thursday at plants in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

John Deere Workers Reject Tentative Deal, Decide To Stay On Strike


Dave Jamieson

HUFF POST
Tue, November 2, 2021,

Workers at John Deere voted Tuesday to reject the latest tentative agreement negotiated between the company and their union, a sign that the largest U.S. private-sector strike in two years is likely to continue.

Local affiliates of the United Auto Workers union informed members late Tuesday that the deal had been voted down by a 55-45 margin. The failure of the deal will send the union’s bargaining committee back to the table with the company in an effort to secure better terms for the 10,000 workers covered by the contracts.

“The strike against John Deere and company will continue as we discuss next steps with the company,” the UAW said in a brief statement Tuesday night.

The proposal for a new six-year deal included immediate 10% pay raises followed by raises of either 3% or 5% in subsequent years. It also offered a separate cost-of-living adjustment to keep wages ahead of inflation and an $8,500 bonus for ratifying the contract.

John Deere workers on the picket line in Iowa. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Those were improvements over an earlier agreement the United Auto Workers reached with the agriculture and construction equipment manufacturer last month. Members overwhelmingly rejected that proposal by a 90-10 margin, prompting the strike on Oct. 14.

Although this latest deal seemed much better than the first one, it did not go far enough for a majority of workers.

Many members have demanded an end to the “two-tier” compensation system established at Deere in 1997, creating lesser health and pension benefits for new hires. They wanted to see post-1997 workers put on the same path as “legacy” employees. The contract rejected Tuesday would not have eliminated that system.

Marc A. Howze, Deere’s chief administrative officer, said in a statement that the deal would have “significantly enhance[d] wages and benefits that were already the best and most comprehensive in our industries.”

Deere has enjoyed record profits so far this year, buoyed by high agricultural commodity prices and high demand for farm and construction equipment. Strikers insisted that the company share more of those profits with the workforce, especially at a time when high inflation is eating away at wages.

The decision to strike at Deere reflects a broader shift in leverage from employers to workers as the tight labor market in this stage of the coronavirus pandemic has made it hard for many companies to hire. Many Deere workers said it seemed like a favorable time to walk out because the company might struggle to find replacements.

The strike is the first to hit Deere since 1986 and the largest work stoppage at a private U.S. company since the one at General Motors in 2019.

University of Adelaide built a robot spider to scan Australia’s Naracoorte Caves




Igor Bonifacic
·Contributing Writer

ENDGADGET
Tue, November 2, 2021, 4:48 PM·1 min read

In the southeast of South Australia lie the Naracoorte Caves. The national park is an UNESCO World Heritage Site known for its stalactites, stalagmites and prehistoric fossils. Recently, a group of students from the University of Adelaide built a robot to complete a 3D scan of the site. The project, called CaveX, saw the group create 15 iterations of the model you see above before they settled on a final design. They went with a robot that walks on a set of six legs out of a fear that one with treads or wheels would damage the surface of the caves. The design also allowed it to traverse uneven terrain with a variety of different gaits.

CaveX scan

As for the 3D scans, the hope is that they’ll lead to new discoveries at the site. "We're looking at the cave surface to find new cave entrances which will hopefully lead to new fossil deposits," Craig Williams, one of the PhD students who worked on the project, told ABC Australia. "That will help us enhance the range of knowledge on the fossils that are here." The team that worked on the project hopes a new generation of engineering students will continue to work on the robot. One day, they'd like to see it take advantage of technologies like computer vision AI to make it better at its job.

Sunny but isolated, Cyprus toils to boost green energy

"We have 340 sunny days per year"

Anais Llobet
Mon, 1 November 2021

Solar panels cover the roof of a house in the village of Kalavasos, in front of a mosque minaret, but Cyprus is still struggling to increase its use of renewable power (AFP/Emily IRVING-SWIFT)

The 1,478 megawatt Vasilikos power station runs on imported diesel and heavy fuel, BUNKER OIL

placing Cyprus among the worst EU nations for its use of fossil fuels in producing energy (AFP/Emily IRVING-SWIFT)

In 2019 just 13.8 percent of Cyprus's power came from solar and wind energy, including the Alexigros wind farm, pictured, near the southern coastal city of Larnaca (AFP/Roy ISSA)


Sunny but isolated, Cyprus toils to boost green energy
Melissa Ahearn sits at the entrance of the A-frame dwelling which she lives in and built with her partner to run exclusively on solar energy (AFP/Emily IRVING-SWIFT)


"We have 340 sunny days per year," Georgia Mouskou said, as sunlight streamed through her windows. "But we're still not betting on renewable energies in Cyprus."

Faced with her skyrocketing electricity bill, Mouskou says she wants to "rent a plot" to install solar panels.

Like Mouskou, rising energy costs and environmental concerns have caused residents of the east Mediterranean island to see solar power as an obvious option.


In the past year, the number of solar panels increased by 16 percent, according to the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC).

But Cyprus is still struggling to increase its use of renewable power.

In 2019, just 13.8 percent of its energy came from solar and wind energy, well below the 19.7 percent European average, according to Eurostat figures.

Cyprus hopes to boost its share of renewable energy to 23 percent by 2030 as part of its National Energy and Climate Plan.

- Heavy polluter -

But a shift to green power faces many hurdles.

"The problem is renewable energies are unpredictable," said Markos Asprou, an electricity specialist at the University of Cyprus' KIOS research centre. "In case of shortfall, you need to be able to act."

Cyprus, which lies some 800 kilometres (500 miles) from the Greek mainland, its nearest EU neighbour, does not have a nearby national power network that can at present bail them out in an emergency.

In 2011, the island's main Vasilikos power plant on the island's southern coast was damaged by a massive explosion on a nearby naval base.

For weeks, Cyprus suffered frequent power cuts.

Vasilikos, a 1,478 megawatt oil-powered station using imported diesel and heavy fuel, covers nearly two-thirds of Cyprus' needs, placing it among the worst EU nations for its use of fossil fuels in producing energy.

In the control room of the plant, co-director George Moniatis points to an empty column on his screen indicating the absence of wind energy.

"What do we do if there's no wind?" he said. "It's very difficult. We can only rely on ourselves."

To overcome its isolation, Cyprus has struck the costly EuroAsia Interconnector deal to link the electricity grid of Cyprus with Israel and Greece.

In October Cyprus also signed a deal with Greece and Egypt to transfer electricity through lines connecting the three countries.

Covid-19 times aside, the island of 800,000 inhabitants must also grapple with, on average, some four million tourists annually, concentrated in the hotter summer months.

Energy needs on the island surge from 300 megawatts in the spring to 1,200 megawatts in the sweltering summer heat, Moniatis said.

- 'Switching lifestyles' -

But renewable energy doesn't offer the adaptability to meet these needs, he added. Methods for storing renewable energy do exist but they are complicated and costly.

"People want to sleep with their AC (air conditioner) on, but you don't have solar energy during the night," Moniatis continued.

But relying on fossil fuels has hit the pockets of consumers.

A kilowatt-hour cost 16.97 cents at the end of 2020, but soared to 21.78 cents in August, according to the EAC.

"With this bill, I got completely caught off guard," Mouskou complained. "It affected our budget for the next few months."

Despite her support for green energy, Mouskou says she cannot at present afford the cost of switching to solar panels.

"Even with state aid, it is impractical for us," she said.

But some in Cyprus have found green energy is possible, seeing it as the future.

At Chirokitia, close to the giant power station, Melissa Ahearn has been living off the grid with her partner for almost a year using solar panels.

"When it comes down to switching to this new lifestyle, you realise you don't need anything," the former forex broker said. "Four light bulbs, a phone charger and the computer battery, that's all."

all/awa/jsa/pjm/jkb

SCAT, YOU NASTY CROWS

Country diary: How crows make the rowan trees grow

Mark Cocker
Mon, 1 November 2021, 


The rowan trees opposite my office are now devoid of either leaf or fruit, but from August until recently they have been centres of intense activity for jackdaws, rooks, carrion crows and even magpies. The birds crowded the tops or chased each other through the foliage while they feasted daily on the red fruits. I had never previously noticed the connection between rowan berries and corvids.

These observations, in turn, helped me to understand an older puzzle, because on the slopes along the high moorland edge, the ground had been sown with 30 young rowans. I’d previously credited this habitat creation to another tree-planting group, the thrushes. In their wonderful book Birds and Berries, Barbara and David Snow suggest that blackbirds were the chief consumers and propagators of rowans in their Hertfordshire study area. Here, however, it’s a far less beloved black bird that is the creative force.

A third piece in the ecological jigsaw was a fragment of Aberdeenshire dialect once recounted to me by a farmer near Turiff. Saplings that spring up mysteriously in that area are known as “craa-sown”. Now I understand it.

Once you are attuned to the rowan-planting efforts of these often despised black creatures, you realise how much we owe them. It turns out that hawthorns are equally popular with members of the crow family, and often the only native trees growing in the infertile soils of the High Peak are these two fruit-bearing bushes. The other name for rowan is mountain ash, and of all trees it is the one most tolerant of high, wind-swept places. It is the crows that we should thank partly for the colour, complexity and texture in parts of our upland landscape. Without them some areas of Derbyshire would almost certainly have no trees at all.

If there had previously been doubt about who had sown the 30 young rowans, I am rather more certain about who chopped them down. Last spring it appears someone from a nearby driven-grouse moor took a chainsaw to them and felled the lot. I’m now putting my money on crows as the truer custodians of this landscape.

• Country Diary is on Twitter at @gdncountrydiary

Why tackling deforestation is so important for slowing climate change

Tom Pugh
Mon, 1 November 2021

Dudarev Mikhail/Shutterstock

Humanity injects an almost incomprehensible 42 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere every year. The majority of this comes from burning fossil fuels, but a substantial portion, about 16%, arises from how we use the land. Most of these land-use emissions are caused by deforestation, particularly in the tropics.

In order to slow climate change, the global community needs to reduce this 42 billion tons of emissions to net zero, a situation where any remaining emissions are balanced by uptake elsewhere. A tonne of CO₂ has the same impact on the climate whether it comes from fossil fuels or forest loss, so halting deforestation is a necessary part of tackling climate change.

As part of its push for a deal at COP26, the UK government is expected to announce a plan to “halt and reverse” global deforestation by 2030. Just how much would this help limit global warming?

To understand this, we have to understand the concept of carbon budgets. The 2015 Paris Agreement aimed to prevent the global average temperature rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The amount of warming is tightly linked to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This means that there is a fixed amount, or budget, of CO₂ that the world can emit without exceeding this target.

This budget is tight. Limiting future emissions of CO₂ to 460 billion tonnes, counting from the beginning of this year, will give a 50:50 chance of warming staying below 1.5°C. If emissions continue at 2019 levels, the budget will be exhausted in only 11 years, by 2032. So to have a decent chance of meeting the goal set in Paris, deep cuts in emissions are needed, declining towards net zero globally by about 2050.

Watch: COP26 pledge to end deforestation by 2030: Landmark deal or rerun of past failures?

Deforestation and the carbon budget

Many countries, including the UK, are aiming for net zero in 2050. But there are several benefits from pushing harder to stop deforestation by 2030. First, land-use emissions are large. At their current rate, emissions from land-use change would consume 15% of the global budget over the next decade alone. Every tonne of carbon lost from forests reduces leeway in decarbonising the rest of the world economy.

Read more: Climate crisis: what can trees really do for us?

Second, halting deforestation does not immediately halt all the emissions from past forest loss. A large portion of these are only released in the decades after the chainsaws fall silent, as carbon continues to be lost from the soil. An earlier halt to deforestation will allow these delayed emissions to get closer to zero before 2050, leaving less to balance elsewhere.

Third, the world’s forests are more than a store of carbon which needs protecting – they are also actively taking it up. By our recent estimate, forests are removing about 20% of the emissions that people put into the atmosphere each year. This happens because trees can grow faster with more CO₂ and because many forests today are filled with trees which are relatively young and vigorous, gobbling up the emissions which were released when older trees were cut down in the past.

Watch: Climate change: Household banks have invested billions in firms involved in deforestation, report claims



Climate change: Household banks have invested billions in firms involved in deforestation, report claims

Household banks and asset managers have invested tens of billions of pounds financing businesses involved with deforestation, according to a new report.

Calculations for the global carbon budget are made assuming that this uptake continues, but every bit of forest lost is an area no longer contributing to that uptake. In the tropics, the total area of forest lost since 1990 is nearly two million square kilometres, an area the size of Mexico. In some areas, such as the Amazon, these losses are at risk of pushing past tipping points, beyond which whole regions of forest switch from taking up carbon to releasing it.

What about the “reversing” component of the plan? This is less clear cut. The loss of complex and biodiverse old-growth forest cannot be reversed within the lifetimes of people alive today. But increasing the total area of young forest, if done properly, can help reach net zero by temporarily balancing limited emissions from industries where low-carbon alternatives are still some way off, such as aviation.

Reforestation is a tool for tackling climate change which does not rely on unproven technology, yet it can only ever be a temporary stopgap. The area of land that could be reforested is finite and limited by competing demands, such as food production or the growth of biofuels.

Allowing forests to naturally regenerate is often better than tree planting.

Bob Pool/Shutterstock

The science is clear: failing to rapidly reduce deforestation will make the enormous challenge of limiting climate change to 1.5° even tougher – perhaps impossible. The faster the world can do this, the more of the carbon budget will be available elsewhere.

That is not to suggest that halting, or even reversing, deforestation will be plain sailing – far from it. It must be done in a sustainable and equitable manner. The vast majority of forest loss is occurring in poor countries of the global south, at magnitudes ranging from the industrial-scale clearing of major agrobusinesses to the minor depletions of subsistence farmers. The livelihoods of many rural communities are intertwined with the forest – they must be genuine partners in efforts to protect them.

Decoupling local economies from deforestation without harming the people living there may prove as challenging as cutting emissions from the rest of the world economy. Halting deforestation has advantages that stretch well beyond the climate, including protecting biodiversity and securing clean water. Nonetheless, world leaders must not think of it as a quick or easy fix, or that it allows them to be less ambitious elsewhere.

COP26 the world's biggest climate talks

This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.

Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. More.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Tom Pugh receives funding from the European Research Council, through the TreeMort project, and the European Forest Institute.

Zero deforestation commitment: Empty promises or a workable plan?

A pledge to end deforestation by 2030 is the first headline agreement from COP26. But environmentalists say the world's forests will not be saved by a political declaration alone.


Greenpeace activists paint the word 'crime' on a barge at the site of an illegal logging operation in Brazil

More than 100 countries have pledged to end deforestation by 2030 to combat global heating at the UN climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland. But environmentalists, skeptical of the commitment, say more needs to be done to end the so-called "chainsaw massacre" of the world's forests.

The deal commits 105 signatory states to work to together to halt and reverse forest loss, while "delivering sustainable development and promoting an inclusive rural transformation."

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) — which advocates for improved forest management — told DW that it was pleased to see the number of countries involved, covering 85% of the planet's forests. Crucially, the deal includes Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia — home to most of the world's wildlife-rich tropical forests as well as to most of its deforestation.

The agreement is important because deforestation is one of the most significant drivers of climate change after fossil fuel combustion. But with the failures of previous international forest protection agreements firmly in their minds, environmental organizations say the agreement lacks specifics.

"Fundamentally, the world's forests will not be saved by a political declaration," FSC told DW, "unless it is followed up by specific political and financial initiatives to make forest protection and sustainable forest management economically attractive solutions for the people who depend on the forests for their income and livelihood."
But what about the money?

Funding will play a key part in the success of the agreement. It's is currently backed up by €16 billion ($19 billion), one-third of which will come from private sector investors and asset managers, including Aviva, Schroders and AXA.

But groups such as the Rainforest Alliance, an intergovernmental organization that represents up to 50 forested tropical countries in climate negotiations, say an additional $100 billion a year over the next decade could be required to bolster the agreement.

"Forests, for developing nations, are a resource. And unfortunately, still, trees are worth more dead than alive. Governments are able to issue a concession to cut down trees for timber to sell back to the West or to develop commercial agriculture," the coalition's managing director for media and communications, Mark Grundy, told DW in Glasgow.

That robs the earth of crucial carbon sinks and leads to forms of land use that generate even more emissions, but "brings monies into the government's coffers," said Grundy.

"If we're going to stop that, then financing for the carbon of those forests needs to be of high-enough value to offset that concession."
Why the focus on Indigenous communities?

The countries with the greatest loss of primary forest are Brazil — by a very long way — the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia and Peru. Some 12 million hectares of tree cover in the tropics was lost in 2020 alone. And a third of that occurred in important humid tropical primary forests, resulting in carbon emissions equivalent to the annual emissions of 570 million cars, according to data from the World Resources Institute, a global research non-profit.

These forests are also home to Indigenous groups – and the agreement has placed a strong emphasis on such communities as "guardians" of the forest.

A recent UN report found that deforestation rates are up to 50% lower in territories occupied by Indigenous groups and stated that one of the best ways to tackle the problem is to recognize their rights.

Indigenous rights activists have welcomed the move.

The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), which promotes indigenous rights, told DW that despite accounting for just 6% of the world's population, Indigenous peoples protect nearly a quarter of the global land surface, including areas of significant biodiversity.

"(The agreement) explicitly recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples, which is significant, especially when you look at the list of signatory governments," Stefan Thorsell, Climate Advisor for the IWGIA, said.

But Thorsell added that the declaration didn't specifically reference territorial or tenure rights for Indigenous communities, as they face being ejected from their land to make way for logging and other activities.

"Without legal recognition of their territories, Indigenous peoples struggle even more in defending their forests and other vital ecosystems," said Thorsell.

Rights safeguarding Survival International, which advocates for the survival of tribal people, voiced concern that conservation efforts can lead to abuses of Indigenous groups.

Fiore Longo, head of Survival's Decolonize Conservation campaign, said forest offset projects enable those in the Global North to continue polluting while Indigenous lands are taken for afforestation offset projects. Such schemes allow individuals or companies to invest in environment projects to neutralize the emissions they create.

"The same goes for the private sector 'investment,' which we believe will largely be for the purchase of carbon offsets, so will do nothing to reduce emissions or help stop climate change," said Longo.

Indigenous groups in Brazil protesting a bill they say would limit the recognition of reservation lands during the summer of 2021

Didn't we agree to this before in 2014?

A lot of this will sound familiar, with a very similar agreement being struck in 2014. At that time, 40 countries signed up to the New York Declaration on Forests, which pledged to half deforestation by 2020 and end it by 2030. That was largely unsuccessful, but proponents do hope this time will be different.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, the greater focus on private sector financing in 2021 will help with implementation.

"Many corporations are even more powerful than these developing countries. So we need all hands on deck. We need alignment, we need philanthropies, we need private capital. We need financial institutions to step up," Josefina Brana Varela, WWF's Vice President and Deputy Lead for forests told DW in Glasgow.

Another key difference is the much broader commitment to the deal, with key forest nations such as Brazil signing on this time. The FSC say the number of countries backing the deal is probably it's "strongest point," given that it includes the most important forest countries as well as the developed countries needed to financially support the efforts.

Taliban in Afghan provinces enforce ‘far harsher rules’ against women than advised by Kabul leaders


Maya Oppenheim
Mon, 1 November 2021,

Researchers say Ministry of Vice and Virtue is in building where Ministry of Women’s Affairs was located until the Taliban recently got rid of the department (Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved)

Members of the Taliban ruling Afghanistan’s provinces are using a manual with far stricter and more abusive rules against women than the policies outlined by the Taliban leaders based in Kabul, a leading human rights organisation warned.

Human Rights Watch said the manual was established by the Taliban’s Ministry of Vice and Virtue – a government department which was a “notorious symbol of abuse”, especially against women and girls, when the Taliban previously ruled the country from 1996 to 2001.

Researchers said the Ministry of Vice and Virtue is in the building where the Ministry of Women’s Affairs was located, until the Taliban recently got rid of the department.


The Taliban swept to power in mid-August as the US and other Western troops withdrew. The last time the hardline Islamist group ruled the country women were barred from working, girls were blocked from going to school, and women had to be chaperoned by a male relative if they wanted to leave the house. While there were reports gay men had been stoned to death in formal executions.

“It barred women from educating girls in home-based schools, from working, and from begging,” researchers said of the Ministry of Vice and Virtue during the Taliban’s previous rule in the 1990s.

“It enforced draconian restrictions on women and men through public beatings and detention. Ministry officials beat women publicly for dress deemed ‘immodest’; showing their wrists, hands, or ankles; and not being accompanied by a close male relative. The officials beat men for trimming their beards.”

While the current manual predominantly lays out rules against “vice”, it also includes stringent rules on the behaviour of women and girls.

“It instructs religious leaders to teach people about which male family members can act as a mahram (a chaperone) for women and older girls and states that women ‘shall be commanded to put on a veil when faced with non-mahram,’” campaigners at Human Rights Watch said. “Another provision states: ‘Women shall be prohibited from not wearing hijab and veil in public and against non-mahrams’.”

The Taliban issued the manual back in 2020 before publishing an amended version in February 2021 when it was beginning to oversee increasing parts of Afghanistan. The manual has been used by the ministry in several provinces since the Taliban seized Kabul in August, Human Rights Watch said.

Heather Barr, associate women’s rights director at the charity, said: “The Taliban have tried to reassure the world that they respect human rights, including the rights of women and girls. But the rules instructing their officials are a patchwork of abusive policies enforcing gender and LGBT discrimination, and harsh repression of autonomy and free expression.

“The Taliban’s world view and abusive practices have been relatively consistent, as this manual demonstrates. Countries that spent the last 20 years promoting human rights in Afghanistan need to negotiate with the Taliban to try to end worsening rights violations, including against women and girls.”

While secondary schools have reopened for boys in Afghanistan, they are still shut for the overwhelming majority of girls.

Ms Barr said: “Women are banned from most employment; the Taliban government added insult to injury by saying women in their employ could keep their jobs only if they were in a role a man cannot fill - such as being an attendant in a women’s toilet.

“Women are mostly out of university, and due to new restrictions, it is unclear when and how they can return. Many female teachers have been dismissed. The policy of requiring a mahram, a male family member as chaperone, to accompany any woman leaving her home, is not in place according to a Kabul official but Taliban members on the street are still sometimes enforcing it, as well as harassing women about their clothing.”

The Taliban has “systematically” shut shelters for women and girls escaping violent and abusive partners, she said, adding that women’s sports have also been prohibited.

Human Rights Watch warned the Taliban routinely ignores the human rights safeguards which the manual establishes – explaining the handbook bars sex outside of marriage, adultery, and same-sex relations. The manual is also said to ban parties, cinemas, gambling, as well as “inappropriate use of tape cassettes, dish antenna, computer and mobile.”

“The Taliban also condone abusive responses to so-called ‘vice’,” the charity added. “The manual sets out five stages for people to respond to prohibited acts, beginning with educating the person and graduating to guidance, then prohibiting the vice in ‘an aggressive, angry and scary manner,’ prohibiting the action ‘physically,’ and finally reporting it to the district manager for action.”

Afghanistan is currently grappling with a humanitarian crisis as well as being on the precipice of economic catastrophe. Thousands, including women, LGBT+ people and officials with connections to the former administration, desperately tried to escape the country after the Taliban seized power, yet many did not manage to board flights fleeing Afghanistan.

‘The Taliban has a kill list’ for the Afghan LGBT community, NGO says


Tue, 2 November 2021


Since the Taliban took control of Afghanistan at the end of August the persecution of the country’s LGBT+ community has ramped up, forcing many to live in hiding, fearing for their lives. “We now know for sure the Taliban has a ‘kill list’,” said the head of the Rainbow Railroad, a Canadian NGO helping under-threat Afghans to flee into exile.

The situation for the LGBT+ community in Afghanistan has never been easy. Same-sex relations have always been taboo in the Muslim-majority country, where – even under the former Western-backed government – non-heterosexual relations were illegal and could lead to up to two years in prison.

But since the Taliban came to power after the US military withdrawal on August 30, the situation has deteriorated rapidly. Although the militant group has not yet officially said how it plans to deal with acts of homosexuality, reports are increasingly suggesting that the Taliban is applying a strict interpretation of Sharia law, under which same-sex relations may be punishable by death.

“This is a really scary time to be in Afghanistan,” Executive Director Kimahli Powell of Rainbow Railroad, the only international LGBT+ organisation on the ground in Afghanistan, told FRANCE 24 in a telephone interview.

“We now know for sure the Taliban has a ‘kill list’ circulating, identifying LBTQI+ persons.”

According to Powell, the Taliban most likely profited from the power vacuum that took place in the days and weeks leading up to the US withdrawal deadline to draw up these “kill lists” by paying close attention to the names of people that foreign rights groups were trying to evacuate. “After the fall of Kabul, there was a lot of information sharing,” he said, noting that the people who never made it aboard any of the departing flights were instead left vulnerable, with their identities exposed.

Powell also said the Taliban seem to have complemented these lists through active persecution, by means of “entrapment” and data leaks.

“[Some] individuals who have reached out to us have told us about how they’ve received a mystery email from someone claiming to be connected with Rainbow Railroad asking for their information and passport. That’s how we know the information has been leaked.”

Spike in requests for help

Rainbow Railroad was founded in 2006 with the aim of helping at-risk LGBT+ people around the world flee violence and persecution in their homelands. In 2017, the group shot to worldwide fame after helping more than a hundred people escape persecution during the deadly anti-gay purge in Chechnya. In the past few months, however, most of its efforts has been focused on Afghanistan, where it is helping threatened members of the local LGBT+ community find temporary refuge in safe houses, after which it tries to bring them “by land or by air” to permanent safety abroad.

“I can guarantee you already right now, that the number of requests we will receive this year will spike,” Powell said, noting that for Afghanistan alone, the group has already fielded 700 requests this year and identified at least 200 more people “in need of immediate evacuation”. The group usually receives a global total of 4,000 help requests per year.

In August, just prior to the US troop departure, Rainbow Railroad helped dozens of at-risk LGBT Afghans to safety via the military airlift. Last Friday, the NGO helped bring another 29 people into Britain via a second airlift.

“There are private citizens [in Afghanistan] that have been keen to help. But as far as LGBTQ organisations go, it's really just us there. But it has allowed us to form partnerships with non-LGBTQI+ groups who have also been getting people out,” he said.

Passport burned

Powell described a recent incident in which Rainbow Railroad was actively working to bring a threatened individual to safety, but who was then suddenly subjected to a Taliban raid. “People entered the house without any sort of uniform, and while ransacking the place they discovered information that made them suspect the person was part of the [LGBT+] community. Then they took their phone, through which they confirmed the person was a part of the community and proceeded to physically assault and humiliate the individual. Then they found their passport and burned it.”

“The person is still there, and our job to try to get them to safety is now infinitely harder,” he said.

Turned in by family members

Powell described the current climate in Afghanistan as “lawless”, saying the general uncertainty and unpredictability of what Taliban rule entails for the population as a whole has even led to some people turning in family members for suspected LGBT+ activity.

“As I said, this is really scary times, and people are trying to curry favour with the Taliban,” he said. “I think everyone's trying to navigate that environment, and so if they (the Taliban) have identified LGBTQ+ people as a target, there's an incentive to turn them in.”

Powell said that this has left members of Afghanistan’s LGBT+ community even more vulnerable and isolated, since they can’t even count on the support and protection of their families. In the meantime, he said, they don’t have much choice but to hide.

“This has been the most complicated mission that we've done, and continues to be so."

AFP

The Taliban has a sinister ‘kill list’ for Afghanistan’s LGBT+ community, charity boss says


Patrick Kelleher

PINK NEWS UK
Tue, 2 November 2021

The Taliban has compiled “a kill list” of LGBT+ Afghans, according to the executive director of a charity helping queer people flee the country.

Human rights groups have been expressing significant concern for Afghanistan’s embattled LGBT+ community ever since the Taliban seized power in August. The extremist militant group holds a strict view of Sharia law, and anecdotal evidence suggests that queer people are already feeling the brunt of the Taliban’s power.

Kimahli Powell, executive director of Rainbow Railroad, told France 24 that it is “a really scary time” for LGBT+ people in Afghanistan as many could be targeted by the Taliban.


“We now know for sure the Taliban has a ‘kill list’ circulating, identifying LGBTQI+ persons,” Powell said.

According to Powell, the Taliban likely compiled its list by paying close attention to the people international groups were trying to evacuate.

“After the fall of Kabul, there was a lot of information sharing,” Powell said. The result was that many of those who were on evacuation lists who didn’t make it out of the country found themselves in vulnerable positions.

The Taliban likely completed its “kill list” through data leaks and “entrapment”, Powell added. He said people have received “mystery” emails from people pretending to be connected to Rainbow Railroad “asking for their information and passport”.

“That’s how we know the information has been leaked,” Powell said.
One LGBT+ person had their passport burned by the Taliban

Rainbow Railroad, an organisation dedicated to evacuating LGBT+ people from dangerous territories, has already received 700 requests from queer people who are hoping to flee Afghanistan. They have identified at least 200 additional people who need to flee.

Tragically, one of the people Rainbow Railroad was working to bring to safety had their home raided by the Taliban. Members of the extremist group discovered through the raid that the person was LGBT+, leading to a vicious beating. They also burned the person’s passport, meaning they cannot get out of the country.

Some LGBT+ people have even been turned in to the Taliban by their family members, Powell said.

“I think everyone’s trying to navigate that environment, and so if they (the Taliban) have identified LGBTQ+ people as a target, there’s an incentive to turn them in,” he said.

Rainbow Railroad and other LGBT+ groups are still working on getting as many queer people out of the country as they can.

Last week, the group won praise when it brought 29 LGBT+ Afghans to safety in the UK through a government initiative.

However, there are many more LGBT+ people stuck in Afghanistan who are still trying to get out. One gay man named Sohil told PinkNews that he was burned by a Taliban member when he went to a government office in a bid to get a passport.

“We don’t know if we will be alive tomorrow or not,” he said. “I think the whole world doesn’t think about that. I think our own LGBT+ community doesn’t think about that.

“In two months, no one contacted me… I had a hope that our LGBT+ community will help us but day by day, I am losing my hope,” he said.

One gay man told the i in August that his boyfriend was killed by the Taliban after they were discovered in a restaurant together.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Boy Soldiers, Boy Brides