Omicron and COVID boosters: everything you need to know

December 13, 2021 

The omicron variant of COVID is now spreading rapidly. Early reports suggest omicron causes less severe disease than other variants but it still poses a risk to the most vulnerable, with patients starting to arrive in hospitals.

Omicron also appears to have some ability to get around existing immunity, whether from vaccination or infection. However, it seems less able to do this when people are boosted with a third vaccine dose.

Because of this, booster programmes are being accelerated. Here’s which vaccines are being used and what effect boosters are likely to have.
Which vaccines are used as boosters?

Unless there are strong reasons not to use them (such as having had a severe allergic reaction or other side-effect previously), Pfizer or Moderna are the preferred options.

These are the mRNA vaccines, which appear to be more effective as a booster dose compared to other COVID vaccines, such as AstraZeneca. The recent Cov-Boost study, which investigated which vaccine type performed best when given as a third dose, found the mRNA vaccines gave the highest uplift in antibodies.

Following up the AstraZeneca vaccine with an mRNA dose enhances protection. 

Marc Bruxelle/Shutterstock

And if your first two vaccines don’t end up being the same as your booster, this is OK. Various studies (some awaiting review) have found that mixing doses is safe and leads to a strong immune response – even if you initially had the AstraZeneca vaccine.

How much protection will I get?

Even before the arrival of omicron, it was becoming clear that boosters were needed – data was showing vaccine protection declining after 90 days.

Indeed, a preprint (a piece of research still to be reviewed) suggests that 20 weeks after their second jab, people over 65 were only 37% protected against symptomatic COVID if they had been given the AstraZeneca vaccine. If they had been given Pfizer, this figure was 55% (though the corresponding estimates for protection against hospitalisation were 76% and 91% respectively).

There’s little hard data yet on omicron, but protection is likely to be lower still because of its mutations. Another preprint has tested antibodies in the blood of vaccinated people against the variant and found that they’re much less able to neutralise the virus.

Early real-world data produced by the UK’s Health Security Agency seems to confirm that protection is lower. It suggests that vaccine effectiveness against omicron more than 25 weeks after a second vaccine dose was negligible for AstraZeneca and only about 35% with Pfizer. But after a booster, effectiveness was around 75%.

This is against symptomatic disease. The risk of severe disease after an omicron infection is still not known, and neither is the effectiveness of a booster dose against severe disease.

Early reports are that omicron causes less severe disease – but these findings need to be properly confirmed. True Touch Lifestyle/Shutterstock

However, given that vaccines and boosters have shown greater effectiveness against severe disease than against infection with other variants, we should expect protection against severe illness to be much greater than 75%.

Also, while omicron is heavily mutated, it doesn’t have so many mutations in areas targeted by specific immune cells called cytotoxic T cells, which are thought to be important in reducing disease severity. This is another reason why it’s not unrealistic to expect much greater protection against severe disease. But it will be a while before this is confirmed.
Who is eligible in the UK?

Instead of aiming to vaccinate everyone by the end of January, the new target is to offer every adult in England a third dose by the end of the year. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also all speeding up their rollouts.

Everyone in the UK over 18 – and everyone over 16 who is at risk, which includes those working in health and social care – is eligible. You just need to have had your second dose three months ago or more.

However, some may have to wait depending on where they live. All over-18s in England can come forward for a booster, but in Scotland and Northern Ireland only over-30s are able to get one right now, though this is expected to change shortly. People in Wales need to wait to be called.

Note that these booster doses are different from the third doses being offered to people with weakened immune systems, who may not have responded fully to their first two doses. People in this group only need to wait eight weeks from their second dose to book a third – and they’ll be eligible for an additional booster three months after this.
How do I get one?

People in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland can book online for a booster. They can also go to a walk-in clinic. However, there may be queues – and there’s always the chance that stocks on the day may run out.

But with the recently announced new targets, it’s likely new vaccination centres will be opened – so check local news to see what’s available.
Once boosted, am I free to enjoy Christmas?

After you’ve had the booster, it takes a few days before the additional protection kicks in. A study in Israel found that protection starts to appear about seven days after the booster shot and then continues to increase for another week.

So after your booster, you shouldn’t assume you have any increased protection for at least another week to ten days. You can still enjoy Christmas, but continue to be cautious – especially if you are, or have contact with, a vulnerable person.

Author

Paul Hunter
Professor of Medicine, University of East Anglia
Disclosure statement
Paul Hunter consults for the World Health Organization (WHO). He receives funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research, the WHO and the European Regional Development Fund.
University of East Anglia provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

Bird flu UK 2021 outbreak ‘largest ever’ as dozens of cases recorded in chickens and wild birds across country


Half a million birds have been culled to stop the spread of avian flu, with UK chief vet ‘very concerned’ about scale of winter 2021 outbreak

By Henry Sandercock
Thursday, 9th December 2021, 2:25 pm



Half a million birds have had to be culled to prevent the spread of bird flu (image: Shutterstock)

Around half a million birds have had to be culled as the UK battles what has been called the “largest ever” outbreak of bird flu.

Dozens of highly pathogenic avian flu cases have been recorded across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland despite the introduction of UK-wide prevention measures in November.

It has ripped through poultry farms, wild bird populations of geese, ducks and swans, as well as a number of birds of prey.

While bird flu’s risk to humans remains low, there have been warnings the virus could jump across if people come into close contact with infected birds.

Concern over case numbers

The UK’s chief veterinary officer Christine Middlemiss said there are 40 infected poultry farm premises in the UK - 33 in England, three in Wales, two in Scotland and two in Northern Ireland.

These cases have been brought into the country by migratory birds which are flying south for the winter months from places like Russia and Eastern Europe.

Bird flu outbreaks in the UK are not uncommon and tend to occur between autumn and spring, although the fact that they are occurring so early on in the migratory season has taken experts by surprise.

Environment Secretary George Eustice described the 2021 bird flu outbreak as the “largest ever” in the UK (image: Getty Images)

Dr Middlemiss told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme there was a “phenomenal level” of bird flu and that it had “huge human, animal and trade implications”.

She said she was “very concerned” about bird flu, and that having 40 infected premises is “a really high number for the time of year”.

The vet said around 500,000 birds have had to be culled.

“I know that sounds a huge number, and of course for those keepers affected it’s really devastating.

“But in terms of food supply impact it’s actually relatively a very small number in terms of egg supply, meat, chicken and so on.”

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) figures, more than 1.1 billion chickens were killed for their meat in the UK in 2020.

Speaking in the House of Commons, Environment Secretary George Eustice said: “Each year the UK faces a seasonal risk in incursion of avian influenza associated with migratory wild birds.

“While we have that each year, I have to say this year we are now seeing the largest-ever outbreak in the UK.”

‘Bird lockdown’ needed until spring

An Avian Influenza Prevention Zone, which requires farmers and birdkeepers to follow strict biosecurity standards, was declared across the UK on 3 November.

This then became a nationwide housing order on 29 November - a measure that is essentially a lockdown for poultry and pets as they are stopped from going outside.

It means that when you pick up British free range eggs or chicken in the supermarket, the animal might not actually have been reared that way.

However, this shouldn’t apply to turkey products as most turkeys were killed and processed before the housing order was introduced.

Dr Middlemiss said “we are going to need to keep up these levels of heightened biosecurity” until the spring.

Defra has said the new housing measures will be kept under regular review.

Advice for people with chickens or bird feeders

People who keep chickens and want to feed wild birds need to make sure everything is kept “scrupulously clean” and “absolutely separate” to avoid infecting their own flocks, Dr Middlemiss advised.

The risk to human health from bird flu remains very low, according to public health advice, and there is a low food safety risk.

An RSPB spokesperson said: “Everyone should take care to maintain good hygiene when feeding garden birds, regularly cleaning feeders outside with mild disinfectant, removing old bird food, spacing out feeders as much as possible, and washing your hands.”

Bird flu UK 2021: Defra ‘bird lockdown’ explained amid outbreaks of avian flu across the UK

Can humans catch bird flu? Avian influenza symptoms in chickens, and what causes virus - as UK cases confirmed

Bird flu: What is the avian flu strain H10N3 found in China - and could it be a risk to humans?

INDIA
Bird Flu in Kerala: 12,000 ducks were culled in Kerala’s Alappuzha district, restrictions imposed in affected areas

By: FE Online |
December 11, 2021 2:38 PM

Use and sale of eggs, meat and manure of ducks, chickens, quails and domestic birds in the affected area has also been prohibited in the affected area.



Last year too, the district reported the influenza outbreak but was contained for being localized in nature. (PTI Image)

A total of 12,000 ducks were culled in ward number 10 of the Thakazhi gram panchayat in Kerala’s Alappuzha district after the state reported bird flu cases on Thursday. The culled birds were buried safely within a radius of one kilometre in the 10th ward of Thakazhi panchayat. The animal rearers will be compensated according to the government norms, animal husbandry minister J Cinchu Rani in the state capital said.

The ward number 10 of the Thakazhi gram panchayat and the area has been declared as a containment zone, strict restrictions on movement on people and vehicles has been imposed. Use and sale of eggs, meat and manure of ducks, chickens, quails and domestic birds in the affected area has also been prohibited in the affected area.

Alapuzha District Collector chaired an emergency meeting on Friday and decided to step up its measures to prevent the bird flu from spreading to other areas like Champakulam, Nedumudi, Muttar, Viyapuram, Karuvatta, Thrikkunnapuzha, Thakazhi, Purakkad, Ambalapuzha South, Ambalapuzha North, Edathva panchayats and Harippad Municipality areas where restrictions are applicable.

While the Rapid Response Teams will be deployed in the affected areas and distribute preventive medicines to the people, the Department of Animal Welfare will ensure the service of Rapid Response Teams and bury the birds.

The Assistant Forest Conservator on the other hand will monitor and examine whether the migrant birds in the affected areas were infected with the disease. The animal husbandry department has been asked to submit daily reports on bird flu prevention activities.

The state animal husbandry department confirmed bird flu (H5N1) influenza) on Thursday after reports of some samples sent to the National Institute of High-Security Animal Disease in Bhopal turned in. A total 140 samples were sent for test and 26 samples tested positive for bird flu.

Last year too, the district reported the influenza outbreak but was contained for being localized in nature. Bird Flu can spread to humans in rare conditions, and if it happens, it can trigger a person to person transmission, experts said.

UK

House of Fraser, Waterstones and Schuh among 208 firms named for breaching minimum wage rules

Nineteen employers operating in Scotland have been identified by the UK Government.


By Linda Howard

Money and Consumer Writer
9 DEC 2021

The Buchanan Street store in Glasgow could be at risk (Image: Getty Images)

House of Fraser, Schuh and Waterstones are among more than 200 employers across the country who broke minimum wage laws when paying staff, according to a new report from the UK Government.

The businesses were named as among the 208 firms, including 19 in Scotland, that failed to pay around £1.2 million to their workers, breaking national minimum wage laws, leaving about 12,000 workers out of pocket, the UK Government said.

Minister for Labour Markets Paul Scully, said: "We want workers to know that we're on their side and they must be treated fairly by their employers, which is why paying the legal minimum wage should be non-negotiable for businesses.”

He continued: "Today's 208 businesses, whatever their size, should know better than to short-change hard-working employees, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

"With Christmas fast approaching, it's more important than ever that cash is not withheld from the pockets of workers. So don't be a scrooge - pay your staff properly."

The most common problem among the named companies was that they deducted money from staff's wages to pay for expenses such as work uniforms.


About 37 per cent of businesses fell into this trap.

Meanwhile, 29 per cent did not pay for mandatory training, trial shifts or travel time, 16 per cent did not pay enough to apprentices, and 11 per cent did not increase what they paid staff when the minimum wage was hiked, or paid younger workers at the wrong rate.

House of Fraser failed to pay over £16,000 to 354 workers, Schuh failed to pay £807 to 39 staff and Waterstones failed to pay nearly £8,700 to 58 staff.

The current House of Fraser owner, Frasers Group, said that the claims come from before it bought House of Fraser in 2018.

It said: "In short, these breaches are historic and relate to the activities of the old House of Fraser company that is now in administration and is nothing at all to do with any activities of the new House of Fraser business that is owned by Frasers Group."

Low Pay Commission chair Bryan Sanderson said: "The minimum wage is a success story welcomed by employees and employers alike, but it only works if everyone without exception obeys the law.

"We hope this latest naming round can continue to raise awareness of the most common mistakes businesses make and help protect low-paid workers from unfair treatment."

Trades Union Congress general secretary Frances O'Grady said: "Every worker deserves fair pay for their work.

"There's no excuse for not paying the minimum wage. Firms who cheat staff out of their hard-earned money deserve to be named and shamed.

"We also need to see prosecutions and higher fines for the most serious offenders, especially those who deliberately flout the law. Minimum wage underpayment is still far too common in Britain."



The Uk Government said it is determined to make work pay, having recently announced a significant rise to the National Living Wage from April 2022.

This will lead to a pay rise for some of the lowest paid workers in the UK, with workers on the National Living Wage seeing a 6.6% increase to £9.50 an hour.

This is the biggest increase to the National Living Wage since its introduction, which the UK Government says will keep it on track to achieve its manifesto commitment for the National Living Wage to equal two-thirds of median earnings by 2024.

More details about the list can be found on the GOV.UK website here.

Blackburn business shamed for failing to pay minimum wage

By Sophie-May Clarke @smclarkey95

Chief Reporter


A BUSINESS in Blackburn with Darwen has been 'named and shamed' for failing to pay their lowest-paid staff minimum wage.

Over 200 employers have been named by the government for failing to pay their lowest paid staff the minimum wage.

The 208 employers were found to have failed to pay their workers £1.2 million in a clear breach of National Minimum Wage law, leaving around 12,000 workers out of pocket.

Among them is Shabani Ltd, which failed to pay £3,606.19 to three workers.

The company, which is registered as a take-away business, was based on Whalley New Road and was dissolved earlier this year.

Companies being named range from multinational businesses and large high street names to small and medium enterprises and sole traders, in a clear message that no employer is exempt from paying their workers the statutory minimum wage.

These businesses have since had to pay back what they owe to staff and also face significant financial penalties of up to 200 per cent of what was owed, which are paid to the government. The investigations by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs concluded between 2014 and 2019.


Minister for Labour Markets Paul Scully said: ""We want workers to know that we're on their side and they must be treated fairly by their employers, which is why paying the legal minimum wage should be non-negotiable for businesses.

"Today's 208 businesses, whatever their size, should know better than to short-change hard-working employees, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

"With Christmas fast approaching, it is more important than ever that cash is not withheld from the pockets of workers. So don't be a scrooge, pay your staff properly."
Who else has been shamed?

British pest control and hygiene firm Rentokil lines up ‘transformational’ $6.7bn deal to buy US rival Terminix

• The cash-and-stock deal values Terminix at a 47% premium to Monday close
• It is expected the deal will create the world leader in pest control and hygiene 
• Rentokil shares are now trading lower having initially rallied as much as 6% 

British pest control business Rentokil is set to buy US rival Terminix in a cash-and-stock deal worth $6.7billion (£5.1billion).

The deal, which values Terminix at $55 a share, is set to create the world leader in pest control, hygiene and wellbeing, and the leader in pest control in North America.

Analysts have praised the deal as ‘transformative’, but Rentokil Initial shares had moved 4.3 per cent lower by midmorning after initially rallying as much as 6 per cent when the market opened.

The deal is expected to significantly improve Rentokil's growth prospects amid US expansion opportunities 

The deal will see Rentokil issue 643.29 million new shares to Terminix shareholders and around $1.3billion in cash. Rentokil has set up a debt facility for up to $2.7billion with Barclays to finance the cash component of the deal and refinance Terminix's debt.

CEO Andy Ransom will maintain the helm of the enlarged group

It represents a 47 per cent premium to Terminix’s share price at Monday's close, giving the US firm’s shareholders ownership of 26 per cent of the enlarged group.

The enlarged group will serve about 4.9 million customers around the world from 790 locations and employ about 56,000 people.

Rentokil expects the deal to generate cost savings of at least $150million by the third year after completion and add to its earnings in the first year.

Rentokil's chairman Richard Solomons and chief executive Andy Ransom will hold those same roles in the combined group.

The boards of both companies backed the deal, which is expected to close in the second half of 2022.

Rentokil added that the enlarged business will have a ‘strong platform for growth’, particularly in North America, and an ‘attractive financial profile to support future growth, including through acquisitions and continued investment in innovation and technology’.

Solomon said: ‘Under Andy Ransom's leadership, our Combined Group will have a highly talented and experienced management team able to more effectively create value and enhance long-term growth.

‘We believe the combination is a compelling opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in the value creation of the Combined Group.’

 Ransom added: ‘The combination will deliver further investment and the sharing of best practices to enable our talented teams to better serve customers, protecting them from the growing threat of pests and meeting their future needs.

‘We will open our first innovation centre in the US and provide our industry-leading innovations and digital technologies to a far larger customer base. This is a win-win-win for colleagues, customers and shareholders.’

Despite this morning’s dip, Rentokil shares are up 16.7 per cent year-to-date to 604p.

Analysts at Peel Hunt hailed the deal as a ‘transformational acquisition’ and maintained their ‘hold’ rating at a target price of 595p.

British government ready to 'protect' BT as French telecoms tycoon Patrick Drahi ups his stake to 18% amid fresh fears of a full-blown takeover

• French telecoms tycoon Patrick Drahi has upped his stake in BT from 12% to 18%
• Government monitoring the situation and said it would not hesitate to act 
• BT shares have fallen by 6% to the bottom of the FTSE 100 following the news

By CAMILLA CANOCCHI FOR THISISMONEY.CO.UK

PUBLISHED: 06:34 EST, 14 December 2021 | UPDATED: 07:11 EST, 14 December 2021

The UK Government has pledged to protect BT after French telecoms tycoon Patrick Drahi upped his stake in the group to 18 per cent, prompting fresh fears of a full-blown takeover.

Drahi, BT's largest shareholder, said he had no intention to take the business private as he snapped up another 585million shares, having bought his first 12.1 per cent stake worth around £2billion in June.

The Government immediately responded to reports, saying it is monitoring the situation and would not hesitate to act to stop a takeover. 

Upping his stake: Patrick Drahi bought his first 12% stake worth around £2bn in June

'The government is committed to levelling up the country through digital infrastructure, and will not hesitate to act if required to protect our critical national telecoms infrastructure,' a spokesperson said.  

The UK Government will soon have the power to block any deal that involves a single investor owning more than 25 per cent of a company deemed to be of national significance under the National Security and Investment Bill. 

Ministers are concerned that any pressure on BT to cut costs could affect the ongoing broadband rollout. 

Drahi's latest purchase comes just as a lockup period in which he has not been able to buy more shares came to an end last Saturday. 

According to City rumours, a full-blown move to take over BT could be politically fraught, but is still a distinct possibility.

Another theory is that Drahi could quickly exert his influence through bagging more stock. 

Today, Drahi said: 'Over recent months we have engaged constructively with the board and management of BT and look forward to continuing that dialogue.

'We continue to hold them in high regard and remain fully supportive of their strategy, principally to play the pivotal role in delivering the expansion of access to a full fibre broadband network - an investment programme which is so important to both BT and to the UK.' 

The 58-year-old, who founded French telecoms group Altice and owns Sotheby's, has already met Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng. 

BT shares fell to the bottom of the FTSE 100 on the news, dropping 6 per cent to 164.26p, in the opposite direction to that usually seen when a company becomes a takeover target.

The stock is down almost 70 per cent since its 2015 highs. 

Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, believes the share slump may be down to 'some disappointment that a full bid doesn’t look to be forthcoming, at least in the short-term'.

Neil Wilson, an analyst at Markets.com, added: 'I can’t imagine the government would allow BT to be taken over and I think investors are paying close attention to the immediate and very defensive response from the government.' 

BT shares have lost almost 70 per cent of their value since their 2015 highs

Factbox-Patrick Drahi, the dealmaker

 building a stake in BT

PARIS (Reuters) - Here are five facts about Patrick Drahi, the cable magnate who announced on Tuesday he had raised his stake in BT to 18%, becoming the company's top shareholder and drawing a defensive response from the British government.

© Reuters/Philippe Wojazer FILE PHOTO:

 Patrick Drahi, Franco-Israeli businessman and founder of cable and mobile telecoms company Altice, attends a hearing at the French Senate in Paris, France

* Born in Morocco, Drahi, 58, moved to France at the age of 15 and studied at Polytechnique in Paris, one of France's most prestigious higher education institutions. He holds dual French and Israeli citizenship.


* In 2001 he created Altice, an Amsterdam-based holding company, and started buying up cable companies in France, Belgium and Portugal through a series of debt-fuelled deals, slowly gaining critical mass.

* By 2017, the company was carrying debt of 51 billion euros ($57.7 billion) — five times its core earnings. To ease investor concerns about the sustainability of the business, Drahi spun off the U.S. division, restructured debt and took the European arm private. But Altice's U.S. shares are trading at less than half the $30 price of the 2017 IPO.

* Among recent deals, Drahi snapped up art auction house Sotheby's in a deal worth $3.7 billion in 2019. In September this year, French satellite company Eutelsat rejected his 12.10 euros per share takeover offer.

* Drahi's newly created vehicle Altice UK bought a 12.1% stake in BT in June, before raising it to 18% on Tuesday. Altice UK is owned by Next Alt, Drahi's private holding, which also controls SFR, the second largest telecoms operator in France behind Orange.

($1 = 0.8842 euros)

(Reporting by Silvia Aloisi; Editing by Susan Fenton)

Bayer’s bid to end Roundup cancer suits leads Supreme Court to ask for Biden input

Greg Stohr
Bloomberg

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled interest in Bayer AG’s bid to stop thousands of claims that its top-selling Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, asking the Biden administration for advice on whether to hear the company’s appeal in potentially a multibillion-dollar case.

Bayer is challenging a $25 million award to Edwin Hardeman, a California man who says decades of exposure to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Bayer argues that federal approval of Roundup’s label meant Hardeman’s suit – and others like it – couldn’t go forward.

The litigation is a test case for what ultimately could be tens of thousands of claims. In July, Bayer said a Supreme Court ruling in its favor would “effectively and largely end” U.S. Roundup litigation, while at the same time setting aside $4.5 billion in case the court rejected the appeal. All told, Bayer has pledged more than $16 billion to fight and settle Roundup litigation.


Bayer shares jumped as much as 3.2% on the news and were trading at 46.86 euros ($53.18) as of 4:20 p.m. in Frankfurt trading. The stock has lost about half its value since it acquired Monsanto Co., the herbicide’s maker, in 2018.

The Supreme Court action prompted Bayer to say in a statement it won’t take part in any further settlement discussions with lawyers who represent a substantial number of plaintiffs. The company said it was “encouraged” by the request and “believes there are strong legal arguments to support Supreme Court review and reversal.”

The court directed its request to U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top courtroom lawyer. Under the court’s normal scheduling practices, the justices probably will say before their term ends in late June whether they will hear the case.

The Monsanto purchase closed just weeks before the first U.S. jury found that Roundup had caused cancer. The company has lost three of the five cases to go to trial, though it has won the two most recent verdicts.

Hardeman says he used Roundup from the 1980s to 2012 on his large plot of land in Sonoma County, about 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of San Francisco. He was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2015.

He sued under California law, claiming that Monsanto’s failure to warn of Roundup’s carcinogenic risk caused his illness. Jurors awarded him more than $80 million, later cut by the trial judge to $25 million. A federal appeals court upheld the award.
Pesticide Law

At the Supreme Court, Bayer argues that Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act shields the company from liability. FIFRA, as the law is known, says states may not impose packaging or labeling requirements that are “in addition to or different from” those under the federal law.

The Supreme Court interpreted that provision in 2005 to allow failure-to-warn suits under state law as long as the state requirements are “genuinely equivalent” to those under FIFRA.

In its appeal, Bayer contends the verdict and appeals court ruling held the company to a tougher standard than federal regulators have under FIFRA. Bayer says the Environmental Protection Agency in 2019 told manufacturers of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, that no request to add a cancer warning would be approved because it would be false and misleading. Bayer has steadfastly maintained Roundup doesn’t cause cancer.

Under the appeals court ruling, “a company can be severely punished for marketing a product without a cancer warning when the near-universal scientific and regulatory consensus is that the product does not cause cancer, and the responsible federal agency has forbidden such a warning,” Bayer argued.

Hardeman’s lawyers disputed that contention, saying the EPA’S 2019 letter doesn’t address the “unique risks” posed when glyphosate is combined with other ingredients. They said the EPA has approved warnings on glyphosate-based formulations like Roundup and has never reached any conclusion as to whether those formulations cause cancer.

Under the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling, “where, as here, a plaintiff proves that a herbicide is dangerous to human health, the manufacturer can be found in violation of both state and federal law,” Hardeman’s team argued.

Bayer also argued that the trial judge improperly allowed expert testimony that Roundup causes cancer. The company said the testimony was speculative.

Bayer announced in July it will pull the current version of the weedkiller off the U.S. consumer market in 2023.

The case is Monsanto v. Hardeman, 21-241.

“This Isn’t a Natural Disaster”: Climate Scientist Michael Mann on Deadly Tornadoes in 8 States

DECEMBER 13, 2021

GUESTS
Michael Mann
professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.

LINKS
Michael Mann on Twitter

At least 100 people are feared dead after 30 deadly tornadoes devastated towns in eight states, from Kentucky to Arkansas, in a supercell thunderstorm that raged more than 200 miles, leaving behind scenes some compared to a war zone. President Biden has declared a major federal disaster and called for an investigation into the role climate change played in the storms. We speak to climate scientist Michael Mann about the role of climate change in the storms and climate denialism among Republican leaders. “Make no mistake, we have been seeing an increase in these massive tornado outbreaks that can be attributed to the warming of the planet,” says Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

Recovery efforts are ongoing after an outbreak late Friday night and early Saturday morning of more than 30 deadly tornadoes that tore through towns in Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio and Indiana. The tornadoes were part of a supercell thunderstorm that raged for more than 200 miles and left behind scenes that some survivors compared to a war zone.


REED GEARY: It’s just — it’s horrible. It’s the definition of hell on Earth. I can’t — peoples lost everything, and it’s just — it’s terrible. It’s horrible.

AMY GOODMAN: At least a hundred people are feared dead, with the highest death toll in Kentucky, where at least 80 people were killed. This is Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear speaking on CNN.


GOV. ANDY BESHEAR: This is the deadliest tornado event we have ever had. I think it’s going to be the longest and deadliest tornado event in U.S. history. And we know that one of these tornadoes was on the ground over 227 miles — and, Jake, 200 were in Kentucky. I’ve got towns that are gone, that are just, I mean, gone. My dad’s hometown, half of it isn’t standing. It is hard to describe.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the most horrific scenes unfolded for more than a hundred workers who were on the night shift making candles for Mayfield Consumer Products in Mayfield, Kentucky, when a tornado hit their factory.


KYANNA PARSONS-PEREZ: We are trapped. Please, y’all, give us some help. We’re at the candle factory in Mayfield. Please. Please.

AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, the candle company said more than 90 workers have now been located, but eight are confirmed dead, eight more remain missing. Six more workers were killed when a tornado struck an Amazon facility in Edwardsville, Illinois, causing walls on both sides of the building to collapse inward and the roof to fall. Alexander Bird works at another Amazon facility across the street from the warehouse.


ALEXANDER BIRD: So, normally, we have standup before our shift starts. You know, anytime a natural disaster or any bad weather situation goes down, they just tell us, you know, “Take shelter over here.” There are signs that let us know, “Go here.” I had a co-worker that was sending me pictures when they were taking shelter in a bathroom, basically anywhere they could hide, because, you know, people had to think on their feet quick when that happens, because nobody expects it to happen. So, you know, you’ve got to think fast. Crazy.

AMY GOODMAN: This marks the third time in half a year Amazon workers were in the path of weather that was forecast to be potentially deadly, including the record heat wave in the Northwest and deadly flooding from Hurricane Ida in New York. The president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which is organizing Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama, said, quote, “Time and time again Amazon puts its bottom line above the lives of its employees. Requiring workers to work through such a major tornado warning event as this was inexcusable,” he said.

After the storms, nearly 90,000 homes and businesses were without power across parts of Kentucky and Tennessee as people searched for survivors in freezing temperatures with limited cellphone service. President Biden approved an emergency declaration for Kentucky Saturday. During his remarks, he addressed the possible impact climate change had on the storms.


PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The intensity of the weather across the board has some impact as a consequence of the warming of the planet and the climate change. The specific impact on these specific storms, I can’t say at this point. I’m going to be asking the EPA and others to take a look at that.

AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, FEMA chief Deanne Criswell also drew a link between the tornadoes and the climate crisis on CNN.


DEANNE CRISWELL: We do see tornadoes in December. That part is not unusual. But at this magnitude, I don’t think we’ve ever seen one this late in the year, but it’s also historic. Even the severity and the amount of time this tornado or these tornadoes spent on the ground is unprecedented. … This is going to be our new normal. And the effects that we’re seeing from climate change are the crisis of our generation.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Michael Mann, distinguished professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, his new book, The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet.

Michael Mann, welcome back to Democracy Now! Just can you explain what happened and its connections to climate change?

MICHAEL MANN: Yeah. Thanks, Amy. It’s good to be with you, but it’s really unfortunate to be talking about this tragedy. And, you know, we tend to call these things natural disasters, but this isn’t a natural disaster. This is a disaster that was exacerbated by human-caused climate change.

So, let’s look at the basic ingredients for what happened here. You have a very warm Gulf of Mexico right now. Those ocean temperatures are extremely warm. And we know the oceans have been warming because of carbon pollution, because of human-caused climate change. And that warm air and all of the moisture that evaporates off the ocean has been making its way well up into the United States. The southern half of the U.S. was seeing temperatures in the seventies and eighties in December. That’s very unusual. And that’s a combination of the fact that the planet is warming, the Gulf is warming. You’re going to have more of those extreme warm air outbreaks.

But it was aided by what’s known as La Niña. It’s the flipside of the El Niño event. The tropical Pacific is colder than normal right now. That influences the Northern Hemisphere jet stream. It pushes it up, and so that helps move all that warm air up into the central United States. But it also means that that warm air collided with the jet stream, because you need two ingredients here to generate these sorts of tornadoes. You need lots of warm, moist air, that makes the atmosphere more turbulent so you can produce large thunderstorms, and you need it to come into contact, for example, with the jet stream, which puts spin into the atmosphere. When you’ve got all of that moist energy and turbulence, you combine it with the rotation, the spin, you’ve got the ingredients for these massive tornado outbreaks.

And make no mistake, we have been seeing an increase in these massive tornado outbreaks that can be attributed to the warming of the planet. But what’s going to happen here, we’re going to continue to see that climate change is going to combine with natural factors, like the La Niña event that we’re experiencing, to produce ever more extreme examples of these sorts of phenomena.

AMY GOODMAN: This term “thunderstorm supercell,” Michael Mann, explain.

MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, it’s a very wide area of organized convection, we call it. There’s a lot of turbulence in the atmosphere that produces these thunderstorms. And they sort of form a very long line of thunderstorms that are located along the frontal boundaries, the boundaries between the cold air and the warm air that are associated with the jet stream. So you tend to get these supercell thunderstorms under conditions like what we have right now.

And once you get the rotation, once you’re able to combine that with some rotation in the atmosphere, again, you’re going to see the sorts of tornado outbreaks that we saw here: across six states, more than 30 tornadoes, and one tornado that, by some measure — this is the one that struck Mayfield, Kentucky — by some measures, was unprecedented. There were winds measured of more than 300 miles per hour. There was debris that was found 30,000 feet up in the atmosphere. And it traveled nearly 200 miles — again, something we’ve never seen before. The stronger that storm, the more energy in that storm, the more likely it is to survive. And this one survived for nearly 200 miles, doing ever more damage because of that.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you respond to Kentucky Congressmember James Comer? He is a climate change denier. He represents the area of Mayfield where the candle factory just collapsed. And he was questioned on CNN and said, “We’ve had tornadoes that have been the same length as this tornado, but we’ve never had one with the width of this tornado,” and was evasive when it came to “Do you now believe that this is climate change?” as opposed to the way climate deniers talk — you know, “This is a weather situation.”

MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, you know, and I believe he’s a Democratic governor, so —

AMY GOODMAN: Republican.

MICHAEL MANN: Oh, he is a Republican. I’m sorry. Well, unfortunately, this is very prevalent right now in the Republican Party. They are the party, if not of climate change denial, of climate change delay and dismissal. It’s hard to deny that climate change is happening: We’re seeing these devastating impacts play out in real time. And so, politicians, mostly Republicans, who see themselves as advocates not for the people they represent but for the big polluters, the fossil fuel interests, will do anything they can to dance around this question about the role of climate change. They can’t deny climate change is happening, but they resort to various other tactics in an effort to deflect attention. I talk about this quite a bit in The New Climate War. This is the new form of climate change denialism. And we see it here. And the irony, of course, is that it’s many of these red states that are seeing some of the worst consequences of climate change. And those states have governors and politicians who are denying the very source of the problem that their people are facing.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to why people believe what they do. And this is something you’ve been talking about. Earlier this month, you tweeted, quote, “Hey @Youtube. It’s good you’re taking down COVID denial videos. Now it’s time for you to remove climate denial videos. They pose an even greater threat to humanity in the long term.” Explain.

MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, climate change — you know, here we saw nearly a hundred people die from these unprecedented tornadoes. But if you look at the total impact of climate change around the world — wildfires, droughts, floods, heat waves, coastal inundation — climate change is already costing far more lives than COVID-19. It is deadlier. And so the denial of climate change is deadlier even than the denial of the basic science behind COVID-19.

But here’s the difference. There isn’t a huge, global lobby, the world’s most powerful industry, wealthiest and most powerful industry, the fossil fuel industry, that has a stake in the COVID-19 debate. So, it’s fairly easy for these Big Tech companies, these social media companies, to stop showing COVID denial, for suppressing COVID denial videos and posts. There isn’t a huge corporate interest that’s going to get in their way. With climate change, it’s a whole different story. We are talking about an effort by the world’s largest, most powerful industry, the fossil fuel industry, to prevent any meaningful action on climate, and to accomplish that in part by using social media to promote denialism and dismissal.

And here, the social media companies are being complicit. And, you know, why are they being complicit? Well, many of them are getting a lot of advertising money from the fossil fuel industry, so it’s inconvenient to their business model to challenge that industry. And I am afraid that that’s what we’re seeing here. And we have to take them to task, because they are doing great harm. They’re making profits by doing great harm to all of us.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you’ve talked about climate models underestimating the frequency of these extreme weather events and the changes to the jet stream. Can you talk about how this can be dealt with, and what do you predict next?

MICHAEL MANN: Yeah. So, you know, the climate models capture the basic mechanisms behind many of these weather extremes that we’re seeing. You warm up the planet, of course you’re going to get more frequent and more intense heat waves. You evaporate more moisture off the ocean, so you have the potential for larger flooding rainfall events, like we’ve seen recently here in the United States, like we’ve seen here in Pennsylvania earlier this fall. You warm up the ground in the summer, you dry it out, you get worst drought. You combine the drought with the heat, and you get the sort of record wildfires that we’ve seen out west, for example. So, those ingredients are all pretty basic. The climate models are able to capture them.

But there’s something else going on, as well. And we sort of alluded to this earlier in the conversation, the way that the jet stream is changing. And the jet stream appears to be, in the summer, slowing down and becoming more wobbly. You see more of those big sort of north-south-north meanders as the jet stream crosses the country. And where the jet stream shows those larger meanders, you’ve got deeper high- and low-pressure systems underneath. And those are associated with extreme weather events — big high pressure out west giving you the heat, the drought, the wildfires; a big low pressure back east, for example, giving us record rainfall in recent summers. And those jet stream patterns get stuck in place, so the same region is experiencing that tremendous heat and drought and wildfire day after day or is experiencing that record rainfall day after day. And we’re seeing a trend towards those sorts of conditions.

The climate models, it turns out, are unable to fully capture that mechanism. So the models, if anything, are underestimating the impact that climate change is having on these extreme weather events and the tendency that we will see for even more extreme weather events if we continue to burn fossil fuels. This really drives home the importance of bringing our carbon emissions down dramatically, as quickly as possible.

AMY GOODMAN: What would be the most effective way to deal with this now?

MICHAEL MANN: It would be for Joe Manchin to join with the other Democrats and pass, by a simple majority vote, the Build Back Better plan with the major climate provisions intact. That will allow Joe Biden to make good on the promises he’s made to the rest of the world to bring our emissions down by a factor of two within the next 10 years. And when the United States leads on this issue, we see that the world comes together. That’s what we need.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you see there being any change, as a person who has worked on this, a leading climate scientist in the world, for decades? I mean, you have the Glasgow U.N. climate summit, you know, almost universally declared a failure. What gives you hope at this point that things will change?

MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, I think sometimes we’re not nuanced enough about these developments. You know, Glasgow, the Glasgow climate summit, was neither a success nor a failure. It was somewhere in between. And if you look at the commitments that were made, the ratcheting up of existing commitments, and you total them up, we’re now on a path potentially to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius, below 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit or so. That’s about half of the warming we were facing back in 2016 going into the Paris accord. So we actually cut the projected warming in half. That’s not enough. Two degrees Celsius, 3.5 Fahrenheit, that’s too much. We need to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

That means that we have to see a further ratcheting up of those commitments, and we also need to see governments making good on those commitments. For example, it’s one thing to make a pledge to bring down your carbon emissions; it’s something else when you continue to approve new gas and oil pipelines and new coal mines. Those sorts of actions are not consistent with keeping warming below dangerous levels. And so we need to see a greater commitment. But we’re making some progress. Carbon emissions have peaked now. They’re not going up anymore. That’s a good sign. We’ve got to bring them down, though, and we’ve got to do so quickly.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Michael Mann, we’re about to interview Vanessa Nakate, who was the cover of Time magazine, a young Ugandan climate activist. As a scientist, can you talk about what’s happening in Africa and the responsibility of the United States, historically the largest fossil — greenhouse gas emitter, to what’s happening in the most vulnerable countries in the world?

MICHAEL MANN: Yeah, that’s right. And, you know, we’re also proud of what she’s doing. This is — you asked earlier about what gives me optimism. I’ll tell you what: It’s the young folks. It’s the youth climate movement. It’s 40,000 children marching through the streets of Glasgow to put pressure on policymakers.

And make no mistake, it is the developing world, it is Africa and other developing regions, that are seeing the worst consequences of climate change, and yet they contributed the least to the problem. Their carbon footprint is orders of magnitude larger than the carbon footprints that we have here in the industrial world. What that means is that there needs to be a commitment from the industrial world, from the industrial countries, to developing countries to help them develop clean energy infrastructure. We don’t want them to go through the fossil fuel stage of economic development. We can’t afford for that to happen. So we have to provide them with the financing and the resources to develop clean energy technology. And that means that the United States, the EU and other industrial countries need to ante up.

And that was one of the problems in Glasgow. Part of why India wasn’t very happy with the proceedings and threw a bit of a monkey wrench into the works at the very late stages of the negotiations was because they weren’t getting the commitment from the industrial world to provide the funding to the developing world so that they can both increase their resilience in the face of the damaging impacts they’re already facing and develop clean energy infrastructure.

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Mann, I want to thank you for being with us, distinguished professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. His new book, The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Russia Vetoes UN Resolution Linking Climate Change To Global Security

December 14, 2021
By RFE/RL

Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya (file photo)

Russia has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that sought to formally link climate change and global security.

The resolution, drafted by Niger and Ireland, called for "information on the security implications of climate change" to be addressed by the Security Council.

The measure also asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to make climate-related security risks "a central component" of conflict-prevention and peacekeeping strategies.

The text won support from 12 of the council's 15 members on December 13. India voted no and China abstained.

Veto-wielding Russia voted no to block the resolution.

"Only the [Security Council] can ensure the security impacts of climate change are integrated into the critical work of conflict prevention and mitigation, peacekeeping, and humanitarian response," the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on Twitter.

"Russia let the world down by vetoing a resolution backed by a majority of UN member states," she said.

The resolution was long overdue and only a "modest first step," Irish Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason said.

Her counterpart from Niger, Abdou Abarry, called opposition to the draft "short-sighted."

Following the vote, Niger and Ireland denounced the veto power given to permanent Security Council members the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, calling the rule created during the UN's post-World War II founding "an anachronism."

"This council will never live up to its mandate for international peace and security if it does not adapt. It must reflect the moment we are now living in, the threats to international peace and security which we now face," they said.

Opponents of the resolution said the UN already had bodies devoted to addressing climate change and it doesn’t belong on the agenda of the Security Council, where the issue could become politicized.

The Russian mission to the UN said in a statement that the resolution was aimed at "coercing" the council to examine conflicts and threats to international peace and security through a one-dimensional "climate lens."

"It was a generic proposal to establish this automatic link while neglecting all other aspects of situations in countries in conflict or countries lagging behind in their socioeconomic development," the statement added.

The resolution would have been used "to gain leverage in the council to impose a particular vision with regard to fulfillment of climate commitments and ultimately to initiate putting any country on the council's agenda under the climate pretext since climate-related issues are felt all over the world," it said.

With reporting by AP, Reuters, and TASS.

Russia blocks UN resolution on climate change fearing unwarranted western intervention

On Monday, India voted ‘no’ as well, while China abstained from voting


By Avantika Goswami
Published: Tuesday 14 December 2021

Russia vetoes the United Nations from resolving to define climate change as a threat to global peace and security. The resolution attempted to “securitise” climate action, an ominous term whose implications are unclear.

The draft resolution was first proposed by Germany in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2020.

It was co-sponsored this year by Ireland and Niger, was blocked by Russia December 13, 2021, when India voted ‘no’ as well and China abstained from voting.
The resolution would have defined climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It was the result of many years of debate to determine whether the UNSC should incorporate climate change as a security risk.

Action taken as part of the resolution can potentially range from sanctions on fossil-rich countries to UN military intervention in domestic conflicts perceived to have been caused by climate change.

It called for “incorporating information on the security implications of climate change" into the UNSC’s strategies for managing conflicts and into peacekeeping operations, and asked that climate-related security risks should be made a “central component” of conflict prevention efforts.

It also asked that the UN Secretary-General provide periodic reports on how risks from climate change can be addressed to prevent conflicts. It would be the first resolution devoted to social risks and conflicts arising from climate impacts and was supported by 113 UN member countries (of a total of 193), which includes 12 of the 15 UNSC members.

The UNSC is often described as the “UN’s most powerful body”. It can impose sanctions and deploy “peacekeeping missions” that can involve military and police forces intervening in conflict zones.

It has five permanent members, all of which are wealthy nations – China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia. They all have veto power.

Then, there are 10 elected members that serve two-year terms, with fixed numbers of seats allocated to countries from regions like the Asia-Pacific, Africa, among others. Unlike forums like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) where decisions are made on a collaborative basis, the UNSC can determine if the “use of force” in the form of armed intervention is necessary against a particular state or entity.

Russia opposed the resolution on the grounds that involving UNSC would politicise the issue of climate change and warrant unnecessary intervention by western countries in domestic issues.

A statement by the Russian Mission to the UN read: The penholders of the document were pushing it through without readiness to discuss the root causes of challenges that vulnerable countries face.

The Russian Mission added:

The proposed document was coercing the Council to take a one-dimensional approach to conflicts and threats to international peace and security, i.e., through the climate lens. It was a generic proposal to establish this automatic link while neglecting all other aspects of situations in countries in conflict or countries lagging behind in their socio-economic development.

The statement also called the resolution an attempt to “shift the blame towards the developing countries themselves and to gain leverage in the Council to impose a particular vision with regard to fulfilment of climate commitments”.

India’s vote against the resolution was justified on the grounds that UNFCCC is the appropriate forum to implement climate action, not UNSC. “We will always speak up for the interests of the developing world, including Africa and the Sahel region. And we will do so at the right place — the UNFCCC,” said TS Trimurti, India’s permanent representative to the UN.

India votes against western attempt to bring climate change at UNSC, evade climate finance responsibility

The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility.

Reported By:| Edited By: Sidhant Sibal |

Source: DNA webdesk |Updated: Dec 14, 2021, 



India on Monday voted against a largely western attempt to rush the climate change issue at the United Nations Security Council, questing the need for the resolution when the issue is already being dealt under the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resolution, which was eventually not adopted was jointly presented by Niger, the president of the body for this month, and Ireland and backed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

In the explanation, the Indian envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti said, "India is second to none when it comes to climate action and climate justice. But the UN Security Council is not the place to discuss either issue. In fact, the attempt to do so appears to be motivated by a desire to evade responsibility in the appropriate forum and divert the world’s attention from an unwillingness to deliver where it counts."

The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility, which has been dominating the climate debate especially at the recently concluded Glasgow climate summit. The Indian envoy highlighted, "Developed countries must provide climate finance of $1 trillion at the earliest. It is necessary that climate finance be tracked with the same diligence as climate mitigation. And the reality, Mr President, is that the developed countries have fallen well short of their promises. This is particularly important to recognise because today’s attempt to link climate with security really seeks to obfuscate lack of progress on critical issues under the UNFCCC process."

At the high table, out of 15 countries, 12 supported it, 2 voted against-- India, Russia and Chinese abstained from it. Russian veto led to the resolution not being adopted. Interestingly, this was the first usage of veto by any permanent member of the council this year. And despite 12 voting in support, all was not picture perfect. Three countries of the council did not co-sponsor it-- France which is a permanent 5 member of the UNSC, Kenya and Vietnam. Essentially three Asian members of the council had no enthusiasm for it--India voted against, China abstained and Vietnam did not co-sponsor.

Pointing to the "manner in which this issue has been brought before the Council", Envoy Tirumurti highlighted, "the honest answer is that there is no real requirement for this resolution, except for the purpose of bringing climate change under the ambit of the Security Council. And the reason for that is now decisions can then be taken without the involvement of most developing countries and without recognizing consensus. And all this can be done in the name of preserving international peace and security."

He pointed, "many of the UNSC members are the main contributors of climate change due to historical emissions. If the Security Council indeed takes over the responsibility on this issue, a few states will then have a free hand in deciding on all climate-related issues. This is clearly neither desirable nor acceptable."

US and China, both permanent members of the UNSC, are the top two emitters globally. UNFCC is a larger platform to discuss the climate issue and has 197 countries as parties to it as compared to 15 at the council.

Before the resolution was taken up, attempts were made to defuse the situation. Russia, India, China suggested a presidential statement on Sahel and climate change. The Sahel is referred to as a large region in northern Africa having a semi-arid climate, and Niger is part of that region. Brazil, which will become a non-permanent member of the UNSC from 1st January had also written a letter.

This is not the first time Russia, India, China and Brazil has taken a similar approach on the issue. A decade ago in 2011 when Germany had raised the issue at the council, BRICS had taken a similar position. All members of the grouping were members of the council that year. This year, despite attempts to find an amicable solution west, seem to be thrusting through, and the intent was seen as a take it or leave it approach.

India on Monday voted against a largely western attempt to rush the climate change issue at the United Nations Security Council, questing the need for the resolution when the issue is already being dealt under the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resolution, which was eventually not adopted was jointly presented by Niger, the president of the body for this month, and Ireland and backed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

In the explanation, the Indian envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti said, "India is second to none when it comes to climate action and climate justice. But the UN Security Council is not the place to discuss either issue. In fact, the attempt to do so appears to be motivated by a desire to evade responsibility in the appropriate forum and divert the world’s attention from an unwillingness to deliver where it counts."

The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility, which has been dominating the climate debate especially at the recently concluded Glasgow climate summit. The Indian envoy highlighted, "Developed countries must provide climate finance of $1 trillion at the earliest. It is necessary that climate finance be tracked with the same diligence as climate mitigation. And the reality, Mr President, is that the developed countries have fallen well short of their promises. This is particularly important to recognise because today’s attempt to link climate with security really seeks to obfuscate lack of progress on critical issues under the UNFCCC process."

At the high table, out of 15 countries, 12 supported it, 2 voted against-- India, Russia and Chinese abstained from it. Russian veto led to the resolution not being adopted. Interestingly, this was the first usage of veto by any permanent member of the council this year. And despite 12 voting in support, all was not picture perfect. Three countries of the council did not co-sponsor it-- France which is a permanent 5 member of the UNSC, Kenya and Vietnam. Essentially three Asian members of the council had no enthusiasm for it--India voted against, China abstained and Vietnam did not co-sponsor.

Pointing to the "manner in which this issue has been brought before the Council", Envoy Tirumurti highlighted, "the honest answer is that there is no real requirement for this resolution, except for the purpose of bringing climate change under the ambit of the Security Council. And the reason for that is now decisions can then be taken without the involvement of most developing countries and without recognizing consensus. And all this can be done in the name of preserving international peace and security."

He pointed, "many of the UNSC members are the main contributors of climate change due to historical emissions. If the Security Council indeed takes over the responsibility on this issue, a few states will then have a free hand in deciding on all climate-related issues. This is clearly neither desirable nor acceptable."

US and China, both permanent members of the UNSC, are the top two emitters globally. UNFCC is a larger platform to discuss the climate issue and has 197 countries as parties to it as compared to 15 at the council.

Before the resolution was taken up, attempts were made to defuse the situation. Russia, India, China suggested a presidential statement on Sahel and climate change. The Sahel is referred to as a large region in northern Africa having a semi-arid climate, and Niger is part of that region. Brazil, which will become a non-permanent member of the UNSC from 1st January had also written a letter.

This is not the first time Russia, India, China and Brazil has taken a similar approach on the issue. A decade ago in 2011 when Germany had raised the issue at the council, BRICS had taken a similar position. All members of the grouping were members of the council that year. This year, despite attempts to find an amicable solution west, seem to be thrusting through, and the intent was seen as a take it or leave it approach.