The link between climate change and tornadoes is unclear. Here’s what we know so far

Dec 14, 2021 
By —John Yang
By —Claire Mufson

In the aftermath of last Friday’s deadly tornado outbreak, federal emergency officials say they are bracing for more severe and more frequent weather disasters, raising questions about whether there’s a link between climate change and tornadoes. While scientists are confident that climate change is increasing natural disasters, causality is trickier in the case of tornadoes. John Yang reports.

Full Transcript

Judy Woodruff:

In the aftermath of last Friday's deadly tornado outbreak, federal emergency officials say they are bracing for more severe and more frequent weather disasters.

As John Yang reports, that is raising questions about whether there's a link between climate change and tornadoes.


John Yang:

Judy, while scientists are confident that climate change is driving an increase in some natural disasters, in the case of tornadoes, they say it's a bit trickier.

Victor Gensini is an associate professor of geographic and atmospheric sciences at Northern Illinois University.

Mr. Gensini, thanks so much for being with us.

So many superlatives being used to describe this tornado outbreak on Friday night. Help us put us — put this into perspective. How major of an event was this?


Victor Gensini, Northern Illinois University:

It's very likely to be historic.

The National Weather Service right now is still surveying the longest tornado that started just north of Little Rock, crossed into the Bootheel of Missouri, into Northwest Tennessee, and finally into Kentucky, where it did its most prolific damage.

We think the tornado right now has a path length somewhere near 250 miles. That would put it at first place, if you will, the most historic tornado path length in history, only to surpass the infamous Tri-State Tornado of March 18, 1925. That tornado had a path length of 219 miles.


John Yang:

And to put that in perspective, I mean, the — a tornado track is generally — I mean, a long one could be 50 miles.

And tornadoes generally lose their energy pretty quickly.


Victor Gensini:

Most tornadoes are under five miles. It's pretty hard to get a tornado 50 miles, let alone talking about one that was on the ground for 200 miles.

So, yes, as I was watching this tornado unfold on Friday evening, I got a pit on my stomach watching radar. I knew exactly what was happening at the surface. And it was just a matter of time until we saw some of those devastating pictures on Saturday morning.


John Yang:

Help us understand, what do we know and, maybe more important, what do we not know about the link between climate change and tornadoes?


Victor Gensini:

Right now, the link is still muddy.

There have been studies that have shown a mean increase in overall severe weather in the future, but also an increase in the variability. I think the best analogy right now is honestly Major League Baseball during the steroids era. We couldn't say for certain if a home run was due to steroids, but when you look at the batting averages and the number of home runs over the season, it becomes pretty clear that steroids was having, right, an impact during the season.

I think the same thing can be said here about tornadoes. We're just not sure right now if something like Friday evening was the direct result of climate change.


John Yang:

Why is that? Why don't we know yet?


Victor Gensini:

It's mostly due to the small scale. Tornadoes are actually on a very small scale relative to things like hurricanes or wildfires or drought.

And that link, when you start to go down really small to the storm scale vs. the large climate scale system, makes these types of questions very, very hard to unpack from a scientific perspective.


John Yang:

When you talk about sort of looking backward to try to figure it out, what have we seen? What changes have we seen in tornadoes in recent years?


Victor Gensini:

Great question.

Really, the only thing that we can hang our hat on right now is a pretty significant downward trend in the Great Plains of the United States. So, you think of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, your colloquial Tornado Alley, they have actually seen a decrease in the number of significant tornadoes that are over the last 40 years.

And there's been a significant increase in places in the mid-South, like Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, some of these areas that are — have been hit hard recently.

And I think that's a really important thing, because we have a lot more assets, a lot more people as you get east of the Mississippi River, due to the increased population density.


John Yang:

Any idea what that tells us or what that suggests, why that might be, that shift?


Victor Gensini:

We think it's due — partly due to climate change and partly due to natural variability.

To what extent? What percentage of that shift is being caused by climate change? These are all questions that are really good, and that research groups like us at NIU are still trying to unpack.


John Yang:

And what are the implications for the future, from your research and what you're learning from your research?


Victor Gensini:

Well, I think there's two things.

I think we want to understand what the future holds for these extreme events, like those of Friday evening. And on the flip side, we also want to understand the changing footprint of society. Both of those go hand in hand in understanding the future of tornado disasters like what we witnessed last week.

And I'll tell you, looking ahead, even here tomorrow, it looks like another significant severe weather event possible across the Siouxland area. It only takes one event, right, to make your day, one tornado event to make your day a very bad day. And I think there's going to be a lot of questions about what happened to that Amazon warehouse and what happened to that candle factory on Friday evening.


John Yang:

Victor Gensini of Northern Illinois University, thank you very much.


Victor Gensini:

Thanks, John.

COP26: Syria is a warning of climate disaster that region cannot ignore

Haian Dukhan, Gianluca Serra
13 December 2021 

There is a real risk that the current global crisis could evolve into dangerous regional wars over dwindling resources

A dam in Syria’s Idlib province is affected by drought on 9 November 2021 (AFP)


The COP 26 summit in Glasgow that ended last month has seen world leaders attempt (quite unsuccessfully, again) to discuss and agree on measures to combat the climate threat and ensure our children’s future.

This dire situation reminds us of the time, not so long ago, when the Syrian government was being urged by international aid organisations to address a mounting ecological crisis. The government’s lack of response fuelled extreme poverty, which ultimately triggered the domestic social unrest that led to the Syrian war.

We personally witnessed instances of heavy over-exploitation of the steppe, both through over-grazing of livestock and the intensification of agriculture

Rural areas were most affected by the ecological crisis, which might explain why the rebellion grew stronger initially in these derelict and forgotten parts of the country. Based on our long-term experience working with both international organisations and the government in Syria, we know what is at stake if world leaders fail to act on the global climate crisis.

Between 2000 and 2010, we worked with government and non-government agencies and institutions on issues related to the conservation of biodiversity and local development. In the historic city of Palmyra, in the centre of Syria’s semi-arid steppe (“al-Badia” in Arabic), we witnessed the final stages of an ecological crisis that had been looming for at least three decades.

Throughout history, al-Badia had supported the livelihoods of nomadic and indigenous Bedouin herders, along with the sedentary agricultural population. Across millennia, al-Badia proved to be resilient to droughts, enabling the development of several extraordinary ancient civilisations.

Yet, during the 2000s, we reached a tipping point. We personally witnessed instances of heavy over-exploitation of the steppe, both through over-grazing of livestock and the intensification of agriculture. The Syrian government viewed the maximisation of agricultural yields to be of the utmost importance, despite warnings that the fragile ecosystem would not be able to cope in the long term.
Reduced crop yields

During the 2000s, the country began suffering prolonged droughts, exacerbated by advancing climate change, ultimately forcing the Syrian government to resort to requesting urgent international food aid for the first time in its history.

We personally witnessed massive queues of people waiting for basic food items, and spoke with herders of sheep and camels who had lost significant portions of their herds because they could not supply sufficient food and drink. Sandstorms increased in frequency, with massive negative impacts on the agricultural sector and reduced crop yields.

COP26: Middle East faces huge challenge as region seeks to wean itself off oil and gas  Read More »

As such, the environmental crisis gradually and inexorably started affecting the quality of life of a critical mass of rural Syrian people. In his book Revolt in Syria: Eyewitness to the Uprising, journalist Stephen Starr described a visit to Palmyra in 2009, during which he noticed that children in al-Badia were visibly malnourished, sitting in rags on street pavements, while young men with no jobs or entertainment would drive motorbikes aimlessly around town for hours.

In Palmyra, which joined the 2011 protest movement shortly after the initial uprising in Daraa, young university students and impoverished farmers demonstrated alongside destitute Bedouin herders. But rather than trying to calm protesters or meet some of their demands through reforms in the development sector, the Syrian government led a harsh crackdown.

What we witnessed in Palmyra was a microcosm of similar dynamics unfolding across Syria’s rural areas. The ecosystem of al-Badia, which had been sustainable for millennia, had been over-used in just a few decades and reached a tipping point. Its resilience withered in the face of the massive tide of climate change.
Warnings ignored

The recommendations and warnings of science were ignored by the Syrian government for decades. Piles of documents developed during workshops and conferences ended up in drawers, covered in dust.

Is the Syrian story not applicable and extendable on a larger scale?

During our work in the country, we experienced the government’s determination to deny any responsibility for the disaster, alongside a complete lack of awareness in forecasting the consequences. Officials would typically justify losses as being simply due to extreme droughts and climate change, even when we provided evidence to the contrary.

Today, on a global scale, we are confronted by a deepening ecological and climate crisis affecting the entire planet - and blatant inaction from most world governments, who, much like the Syrian government, appear to be in a state of denial.

Is the Syrian story not applicable and extendable on a larger scale? How much longer will we have to wait before the current global crisis morphs into dangerous regional wars over dwindling resources?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Haian Dukhan
Haian Dukhan is a Syrian British Academic. He is a Research Fellow at the Central European University and the author of "State and Tribes in Syria: Informal Alliances and Conflict Patterns".

Gianluca Serra
Gianluca Serra is an ecologist and conservation biologist.

US report reveals lack of transparency in counterterrorism operations

Washington has often failed to describe its counterterrorism operations around the world, finds Costs of War project

US President Joe Biden has openly signalled that it is "time to end the forever wars"

 (AFP/File photo)

MEE staff in
Washington
Published date: 14 December 2021

The United States has often failed to accurately describe its counterterrorism operations around the world, according to a new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, in many cases relying on the wide-ranging 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to formally justify its actions.

The report, published on Tuesday and using data from the Congressional Research Service, found that out of the 85 countries where the US undertook what it labelled as “counterterrorism” operations, it cited the 2001 AUMF for 22 of those countries.

However, even within those countries, there were an "unknown" number of US operations, revealing a lack of transparency over how the AUMF was used.

"Executive branch reporting to Congress in reference to the 2001 AUMF fails to specify the number of operations conducted in each of the 22 countries involved," the report said.

"In many locations of US military activities, the executive branch has inadequately described the full scope of US actions."

In one example referenced by the report, the US administration of former President Barack Obama reported in 2013 that its forces captured a member of al-Qaeda, but "made no reference to a continued US airstrike campaign, even though the US conducted three strikes against militants in Libya that same year

The AUMF was passed just a week after 11 September 2001, and gave Bush the authority to wage war and use "appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" were involved in the attacks.

The open-ended and broad nature of the AUMF has allowed successive presidents to wage war against a number of groups, including al-Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, and the Islamic State (IS).

The 2001 AUMF was also used by the Obama administration to kill former al-Qaeda propagandist and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011. It has been applied in countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

The report found that the US often used vague language to describe the locations of its counterterrorism operations, and when citing the 2001 AUMF, it referenced regions, not countries, where it was operating.

It reported there was evidence that the US conducted air strikes in Mali and Tunisia, but Washington did not report them to Congress or reference the military authorisation.

“There are several cases of combat and airstrikes since 2001 that various presidents have not reported to Congress," Stephanie Savell, co-director of the Costs of War Project and author of the analysis, said in a press release.

In some cases, the US only cited the AUMF after it was revealed that its personnel were killed, such as the case in 2017 in Niger when four American service members were killed in an ambush as they attempted to carry out a raid on a militant compound.
Efforts to repeal 2001 AUMF

US President Joe Biden has openly signalled that it is "time to end the forever wars", and his administration has made several moves this year in support of this.

The US has withdrawn its troops from Afghanistan, announced that it would withdraw troops from Iraq, and has stated its goal of closing the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay by the end of the president's term in office.

The president has also backed congressional efforts to repeal the 2002 AUMF for the Iraq war, which the administration said "has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed".

Still, while the Biden administration has said it supports narrowing war authorisations, it has not been explicit about the 2001 AUMF and how it should be re-written.

Over the past two decades, there have been multiple congressional efforts to repeal the AUMF, but not one of them has proven to be successful.

In August, the House Committee on Appropriations passed an amendment introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee that would sunset the 2001 AUMF after a further eight months. But it is unclear whether this amendment will move forward. Similar pieces of legislation in recent years have been discarded in negotiations with the Senate.

Avoiding the Worst in Ukraine and Taiwan

Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Dec 15, 2021

JEFFREY D. SACHS

PROJECT SYNDICATE

No global structure of peace can be stable and secure unless all parties recognize others' legitimate security interests. If the brewing crises over Ukraine and Taiwan are to be resolved peacefully, the major powers will need to pause and consider the strategic perspectives of the other side.

NEW YORK – Two dangerous flashpoints, in Europe and Asia, could bring the United States, Russia, and China into open conflict. The crises over Ukraine and Taiwan can be resolved, but all parties must respect the others’ legitimate security interests. Acknowledging those interests objectively will provide the basis for a lasting de-escalation of tensions.

Consider Ukraine. Although it undoubtedly has the right to sovereignty and safety from a Russian invasion, it does not have the right to undermine Russia’s security in the process.

The current Ukraine crisis is the result of overreach by both Russia and the US. Russia’s overreach lies in its 2014 annexation of Crimea and occupation of Ukraine’s industrial heartland in Donetsk and Luhansk; and in its ongoing efforts to keep Ukraine dependent on it for energy, industrial inputs, and markets. Ukraine has a legitimate interest in integrating more closely with the European Union economy, and it has signed an association agreement with the EU for that purpose. The Kremlin, however, fears that EU membership could be a stepping stone for Ukraine to join NATO.

The US, too, has been overreaching. In 2008, US President George W. Bush’s administration called for Ukraine to be invited to join NATO, an addition that would establish the Alliance’s presence on Russia’s long border with that country. This provocative proposal divided US allies, but NATO nonetheless confirmed that Ukraine could eventually be welcomed as a member, noting that Russia has no veto over who joins. When Russia violently annexed Crimea in 2014, one of its objectives was to ensure that NATO could never gain access to Russia’s Black Sea naval base and fleet.

Judging by the public transcripts of discussions between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin this month, NATO enlargement to Ukraine remains on the table. Although France and Germany might well maintain their longstanding threat to veto any such bid for membership, Ukrainian and NATO officials have both reiterated that the choice to join lies with Ukraine. Moreover, a high-ranking Estonian parliamentarian has warned that walking back Ukraine’s right to join NATO would be tantamount to Britain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938.

Yet American leaders who argue that Ukraine has the right to choose its own military alliance should reflect on their country’s own long history of categorical opposition to outside meddling in the Western hemisphere. This position was first expressed in the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, and it was on full display in the violent US reaction to Fidel Castro’s turn toward the Soviet Union after the 1959 Cuban Revolution.


Back then, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared that “Cuba has been handed over to the Soviet Union as an instrument with which to undermine our position in Latin America and the world.” He ordered the CIA to devise plans for an invasion. The result was the Bay of Pigs fiasco (under President John F. Kennedy), which lit the fuse for the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Countries cannot simply choose their military alliances, because such choices often have security implications for their neighbors. Following World War II, Austria and Finland both secured their independence and future prosperity by not joining NATO, as that would have provoked Soviet ire. Ukraine today should show the same prudence.

The issues in Taiwan are similar. Taiwan has the right to peace and democracy in accord with the concept of the “One China” policy, which has been the bedrock of China’s relations with the US since the days of Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong. The US is right to warn China against any unilateral military action toward Taiwan, as that would threaten global security and the world economy. Yet, just as Ukraine does not have the right to join NATO, Taiwan does not have the right to secede from China.

In recent years, however, some Taiwanese politicians have flirted with declaring independence, and some US politicians have taken liberties with the “One China” principle. Then President-elect Donald Trump started the US’ backsliding in December 2016, when he said, “I fully understand the ‘One China’ policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘One China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

Then, President Joe Biden provocatively included Taiwan in his Summit for Democracy this month, following US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent advocacy for Taiwan’s “robust participation” in the United Nations system. Such US actions have greatly aggravated tensions with China.

Again, those US security analysts who argue that Taiwan is within its rights to declare independence should reflect on America’s own history. The US fought a civil war over the legitimacy of secession, and the secessionists lost. The US government would not tolerate Chinese support for a secessionist movement in, say, California (nor would European countries such as Spain, which has faced the real thing in Basque Country and Catalonia).

The risks of military escalation over Taiwan are compounded by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s recent announcement that the alliance’s future rationale will include countering China. An alliance created to defend Western Europe from invasion by a now-defunct European power should not be repurposed as a US-led military alliance against an Asian power.

The Ukraine and Taiwan crises can be resolved peacefully and straightforwardly. NATO should take Ukraine’s membership off the table, and Russia should forswear any invasion. Ukraine should be free to orient its trade policies however it sees fit, provided that it abides by World Trade Organization principles.

Similarly, the US should make clear once again that it steadfastly opposes Taiwan’s secession and does not aim to “contain” China, especially by reorienting NATO. For its part, China should renounce unilateral military action against Taiwan and reaffirm the two-system principle, which many Taiwanese believe to be under imminent threat following the crackdown in Hong Kong.

No global structure of peace can be stable and secure unless all parties recognize others’ legitimate security interests. The best way for the major powers to begin to achieve that is to choose the path of mutual understanding and de-escalation over Ukraine and Taiwan.

JEFFREY D. SACHS
Writing for PS since 1995
348 Commentaries
Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.

COMMENTARY
Fine-tuning the doomsday machines:

Understanding the nuclear-missile dispute
America's ICBMs — nuclear missiles in underground silos — are not a "deterrent."

They're a holocaust in waiting

By NORMAN SOLOMON
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 15, 2021 5:30AM (EST)

Minuteman Missile (US Government Military Air Force)

Nuclear weapons are at the pinnacle of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism." If you'd rather not think about them, that's understandable. But such a coping strategy has limited value. And those who are making vast profits from preparations for global annihilation are further empowered by our avoidance.

At the level of national policy, nuclear derangement is so normalized that few give it a second thought. Yet normal does not mean sane. As an epigraph to his brilliant book "The Doomsday Machine," Daniel Ellsberg provides a chillingly apt quote from Friedrich Nietzsche: "Madness in individuals is something rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule."

Now, some policy technocrats for the U.S. nuclear arsenal and some advocates for arms control are locked in a heated dispute over the future of ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles. It's an argument between the "national security" establishment — hell-bent on "modernizing" ICBMs — and various nuclear-policy critics, who prefer to keep the current ICBMs in place. Both sides are refusing to acknowledge the profound need to get rid of them entirely.

RELATED: Norman Solomon on what the media won't say: "The American people live in a warfare state"

Elimination of ICBMs would substantially reduce the chances of a worldwide nuclear holocaust. ICBMs are uniquely vulnerable to effective attack, and thus have no deterrent value. Instead of being a "deterrent," ICBMs are actually land-based sitting ducks, and for that reason are set up for "launch on warning."

As a result, whether a report of incoming missiles is accurate or a false alarm, the commander in chief would have to quickly decide whether to "use or lose" the ICBMs. "If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them; once they are launched, they cannot be recalled," former Defense Secretary William Perry wrote. "The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision."

Experts like Perry are clear as they advocate for scrapping ICBMs. But the ICBM force is a sacred cash cow. And news reports currently feature arguments over exactly how to keep feeding it.

Last week, the Guardian reported that the Pentagon has ordered an external study of options for ICBMs. Trouble is, the two options under consideration — extending the life of the currently deployed Minuteman III missiles or replacing them with a new missile system — do nothing to reduce the escalating dangers of nuclear war, whereas eliminating the nation's ICBMs would greatly reduce those dangers.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

But an enormous ICBM lobbying apparatus remains in high gear, with huge corporate profits at stake. Northrop Grumman has landed a $13.3 billion contract to proceed with developing a new ICBM system, misleadingly named the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. It's all in sync with automatic political devotion to ICBMs in Congress and the executive branch.

The sea-based and air-based portions of the "nuclear triad" (submarines and bombers) are invulnerable to successful attack — unlike ICBMs, which are completely vulnerable. The subs and bombers, able to destroy any and all targeted countries many times over, provide vastly more "deterrent" than anyone could ever reasonably want.
Advertisement:

In sharp contrast, ICBMs are the opposite of a deterrent. In effect, they're prime targets for a nuclear first strike because of their vulnerability, and for the same reason would have no "deterrent" capacity to retaliate. ICBMs have only one foreseeable function — to serve as a "sponge" to absorb the start of a nuclear war.

Armed and on hair-trigger alert, the country's 400 ICBMs are deeply entrenched — not only within underground silos scattered across five states, but also in the mindsets of the U.S. political establishment. If the goal is to get big campaign contributions from military contractors, fuel the humongous profits of the military-industrial complex, and stay in sync with the outlooks that dominate corporate media, those mindsets are logical. If the goal is to prevent nuclear war, the mindsets are unhinged.

As Ellsberg and I wrote in an article for The Nation this fall, "Getting trapped in an argument about the cheapest way to keep ICBMs operational in their silos is ultimately no-win. The history of nuclear weapons in this country tells us that people will spare no expense if they believe that spending the money will really make them and their loved ones safer — we must show them that ICBMs actually do the opposite." Even if Russia and China didn't reciprocate at all, the result of U.S. closure of all its ICBMs would be to greatly reduce the chances of nuclear war.

On Capitol Hill, such realities are hazy and beside the point compared to straight-ahead tunnel vision and momentum of conventional wisdom. For members of Congress, routinely voting to appropriate billions of dollars for nuclear weaponry seems natural. Challenging rote assumptions about ICBMs will be essential to disrupt the march toward nuclear apocalypse.

More from Norman Solomon on military spending and corporate power:

Can we stop calling our humongous military spending the "defense" budget?

The big climate crisis we aren't talking about: Is nuclear winter coming?

New York Times message to progressives, in translation: Give up on challenging corporate power

NORMAN SOLOMON
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State."

Why So Many Men Are Dominance-based Masculinity Deniers?

What we do not actively oppose, we sustain.

December 15, 2021 by Mark Greene Leave a Comment

1. Whether the victim is male, female, or non-binary, sexual assault is about asserting power.
2. 
   
3. Not coincidentally, asserting power is foundational to how our dominance-based culture of masculinity operates.
4. 
   
5. Millions of men refuse to acknowledge the resulting dominance-based power structures, which we collectively allow to continue.
6. 
   
7. Because to do so would mean taking responsibility for the epidemic of sexual assault and rape which results.
8. 
   
9. Along with the predatory capitalism, healthcare profiteering, environmental destruction for profit, authoritarianism, religious violence and endless war which also result.

Trudeau won't rule out federal intervention in challenge to Quebec secularism law

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Monday he was not ruling out federal intervention in a legal challenge to Quebec's secularism law, after an elementary school teacher was recently reassigned because she wears a Muslim head scarf.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

"I am in profound disagreement with Bill 21," Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa. "I don't think that in a free and open society, someone should lose their job because of their religion, and it's no longer a theoretical issue."

Trudeau said he believes the teacher, Fatemeh Anvari, lost her job because of her religion and that many Quebecers are concerned about the issue.

Bill 21 bans public sector workers who are considered in positions of authority, such as teachers, judges and police officers, from wearing religious symbols on the job.

“A province has passed a law and the citizens of that province are in the process of defending their rights in court and that's exactly how it should function, but as I’ve said very frequently, we haven’t ruled out, as the federal government, intervening at some point in time,” Trudeau said.

In response to Trudeau's comments, Quebec Premier François Legault on Monday said he didn't understand how the federal government could intervene in a challenge to a bill that is supported by the majority of Quebecers.

THE MAJORITY OF QUEBECERS WERE AGAINST JEWISH REFUGEES PRE WW2

“Bill 21 was voted democratically, was supported by the majority of Quebecers," he told reporters in Montreal. "I don’t see how the federal government can intervene in so touchy a subject for our nation."

Legault said the law is not problematic in a free and open society "because people are free to wear, or not, a religious sign."

“First, we’re only talking about people that are in an authority position," he said. "Second, these people, if they don’t wear a religious sign, either a Catholic one, a Jewish one, whatever the religious sign, if they don’t wear the sign when they work in an authority position, they can still work and they can wear their religious sign on the street, at home, everywhere else."

Legault said it's important for government employees to appear to be neutral, adding that a teacher would not be allowed to wear a shirt advocating their support for the Liberal party.

It was reported last week that a Grade 3 teacher at Chelsea Elementary School, just north of Gatineau, Que., had been reassigned to duties outside the classroom because of her hijab.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 13, 2021.

———

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Facebook and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

The Canadian Press

Canada willing to 'align' EV incentives with U.S. to avert tax-credit crisis: Trudeau

WASHINGTON — Canada would be willing to "align" its own electric-vehicle incentives with those south of the border if the United States were to ensure Canadian-built cars and trucks would be eligible for President Joe Biden's proposed tax-credit scheme, says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The two countries have been building cars together for more than 50 years, Trudeau noted Monday. That alliance is coming under increasing threat from Biden's controversial proposal to encourage the sale and manufacture of "plug-in electric drive" vehicles that are assembled in the U.S. with union labour.

"We are working very hard with the United States on getting them to understand that this proposed EV rebate for American-built cars only is not good, obviously, for Canada, but also not good for the United States," Trudeau told a news conference.

"There are a number of solutions we've put forward. One of them would be to align our incentives in Canada and in the United States, to make sure that there is no slippage or no unfair advantages on one side or the other. We are happy to do that."

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Trade Minister Mary Ng warned Congress last week of retaliatory tariffs and other punitive measures if the tax-credit proposal becomes law. In a letter released Friday, Freeland and Ng proposed making Canadian-assembled vehicles and batteries eligible under the U.S. plan, which would be worth up to US$12,500 in tax credits to a would-be car buyer.

Trudeau's comments, however, suggest Canada could offer a comparable package that would apply to vehicles assembled in either country.

The letter Friday was addressed to key members of the U.S. Senate, which is expected in the coming weeks to vote on the Biden administration's $1.75-trillion climate and social-spending package, which includes the new EV tax credits.

It doesn't appear, however, that Canada's lobbying efforts have changed any minds at the White House.

"The president advocated for these tax credits because he wants to make it more affordable for the American people to purchase electric vehicles, and because he feels it's … a huge opportunity for American automakers," press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday when asked about the letter.

Biden and Trudeau discussed the proposal at length when the two met last month in the Oval Office, she acknowledged, before suggesting little has changed since then.

"We have a good working relationship with the Canadians. We had a good conversation about it, but I don't have any additional policy I would expect or changes to that," Psaki said.

The federal government is already planning to retool its existing rebate program, which currently only applies to new zero-emission vehicles with a maximum base price of between $45,000 and $55,000. The Liberals promised during the election campaign to spend $1.5 billion over the next four years on expanding the program in an effort to get more electric vehicles on the road.

The U.S. proposal amounts to a 34 per cent tariff on electric vehicles assembled in Canada and violates the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, Freeland and Ng wrote — not to mention the affront it represents in a country that's been a U.S. partner in building cars and trucks for half a century.

"We want to be clear that if there is no satisfactory resolution to this matter, Canada will defend its national interests, as we did when we were faced with unjustified tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum," the letter reads.

It promised a forthcoming list of U.S. products Canada is prepared to target with tariffs, both within the auto sector and beyond.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants a vote on the legislation, which was already approved by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, before Christmas. Few see the timeline as realistic, especially after new economic data Friday pegged the inflation rate at 6.8 per cent.

Biden was scheduled to speak by phone later Monday with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat who has misgivings about the bill, including the tax-credit proposal. The White House sees Manchin's vote as a must-have in a Senate evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans.

Psaki advised against viewing the discussion as a negotiation, but rather "a conversation between two people who have been in public life for some time and have had good-faith discussions directly. This is just a continuation of that."

Vehicles built in Canada comprise about 50 per cent U.S. content, said the letter, with more than $22-billion worth of American auto parts being imported by Canadian manufacturers every year.

"To be clear, we do not wish to go down a path of confrontation," it reads. "That has not been the history of the relationship between our two countries — nor should it be the future."

The letter also threatens to hit the pause button on certain concessions Canada has already made to U.S. dairy producers under USMCA, arguing that the EV tax credits would comprise "a significant change in the balance of concessions" agreed to under the deal.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 13, 2021.

James McCarten, The Canadian Press

Indigenous Peoples and Forest Communities Are Central To Tackling the Climate Crisis – But They Need Finance

Also, at this stage, the fund will operate as a robust and safe option for mitigation and adaptation to climate change through the promotion of equal partnerships.

December 14, 2021 by International Institute for Environment and Development Leave a Comment


Forests, and the communities who protect and manage them, are critical in tackling climate change and nature loss. From COP26, guest blogger Gustavo Sánchez explains why they can no longer be ignored in the distribution of climate finance and describes a new fund that gets money directly to local forest level.

Forests are powerful emission sinks and crucial in mitigating the impacts of climate change. And they must be protected: deforestation can be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet, still, despite abundant research showing the immense potential of forests for mitigation, the climate finance distributed is woefully inadequate: less than 3% goes towards conserving forests and restoring ecosystems.

Research also shows, time and again, that Indigenous Peoples and forest communities, with their local knowledge and expertise in working with forest ecosystems and natural processes, play a fundamental role in conserving forests.

Yet, in many countries, Indigenous Peoples’ and forest communities’ rights to land and resources are still not recognised. And when they are, these people, like the forests they care for and protect, are overlooked in the distribution of climate finance (PDF) – which prioritises centralised monitoring systems over on-the-ground conservation actions.

Without finance to strengthen local organisations, improve resilience of local systems for forest management and build technical expertise embedded in communities, there can be no sustained emissions reductions.

New fund channels finance to the forests

The Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests (Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos y Bosques or AMPB) is an alliance of Indigenous Peoples and community forestry organisations representing the major forests of the Mexico and Central America region.

Since its creation, AMPB has been advocating for territorial rights, ancestral knowledge and free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and forest communities.

But despite focused and sustained efforts to secure rights to land and resources, it has become clear to us that forest communities need direct access to reliable finance to support their own initiatives, as well as be able to manage these initiatives themselves.

This is where the Mesoamerican Territorial Fund (FTM) comes in. The fund offers a fresh, new approach to the distribution of climate finance, ensuring funds flow directly – without the influence of third parties or intermediaries – to Indigenous Peoples and forest communities.

In this fund, communities will present projects according to their own needs and experience, with the appropriate allocation of funds.

The fund empowers these communities to create and manage their own projects. With their intimate understanding of forests and nature, they know what’s best for their people and land – Levi Sucre, Costarrican Indigenous leader

Fund roll-out

Recognising all the work Indigenous and forest communities are doing to tackle climate change with little to no support from climate finance, the AMPB has been investing in local capacities and incubating its local fund for several years now. In 2021 the AMPB began the pilot phase of the FTM, shaped around the key principle of getting finance directly to local people.

The fund is rights-based – seeking to support projects and activities that recognise and implement the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC), and respect their cultures and traditions.

It also recognises that a highly participatory approach is fundamental to success, where open dialogue and negotiation with all key actors invested in the sustainable and equitable management of our territories, including governments, markets and international development agencies.

Performance-based financing is another of the fund’s key characteristics. This puts communities in the driving seat – they create their own projects, set their own project deliverables and specify what inputs they’ll need to deliver their targets.

The FTM documented experiences, successes and lessons learnt from the 12 projects rolled out under the pilot. These form a solid foundation for supporting future projects of Indigenous and forest communities of Mesoamerica.

By 2022 the FTM will be a fully established legal entity with an established governance structure, operating regulations and system for communication and accountability. Also, at this stage, the fund will operate as a robust and safe option for mitigation and adaptation to climate change through the promotion of equal partnerships.

And by 2025, we plan for the FTM to be fully consolidated, demonstrating the capacities of governance, political advocacy, and realisation of rights, through the implementation of climate finance projects that support the most vulnerable communities while helping achieve sustainable development.

Recognition, rights, and climate finance access – join us at COP26

At a COP26 side event on Tuesday, 9 November (3-4.15pm) we, alongside partners IIED, Ford Foundation, PRISMA foundation, Mainyoito Pastoralist Alliance, Rights and Resources Institute and Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN) will explore how to elevate recognition of knowledge of IPLC, discuss measures for getting the rights and knowledge of IPLCs respected, and find ways forward given the stark reality that not enough climate finance is reaching local communities.

As part of the event, we’ll share the evolution of the FTM to date, including success stories of climate finance being channelled directly to Indigenous and forest communities of Mesoamerica and how this is building resilience of these forest guardians.

We’ll discuss key principles on which the fund is based, inviting perspectives and experiences from a diverse panel – including voices from IPLC, rights-based research organisations and other local actors championing action and mechanisms for getting climate finance into local hands.

With thanks to Andrew Davis, Natalia Díaz, Manuel Marti and Levi Sucre for their contributions to this blog.

AN EXPLANATION NOT AN EXCUSE

Former NFL player who killed six had CTE brain disease: officials

Agence France-Presse
December 14, 2021

Phillip Adams of the San Francisco 49ers (Photo by NFL)

Former NFL player Phillip Adams was suffering from the degenerative brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) when he shot dead six people before killing himself in April, officials said on Tuesday.

A post-mortem examination of Adams' brain carried out by neuropathologists at Boston University found that the 32-year-old showed signs of "unusually severe" damage to his brain.

Ann McKee, the director of Boston University CTE Center which conducted the examination, compared the findings to the case of Aaron Hernandez, the former New England Patriots star who was convicted of murder in 2015 before taking his own life in prison two years later.

"Phillip Adams had an extraordinary amount of CTE pathology in the frontal lobe, the area of the brain behind the forehead," McKee said.

CTE, which cannot be tested for in living individuals, is a degenerative brain disease caused by repetitive head trauma.

It has been linked to an array of behavioral symptoms including aggression, impulsivity, explosivity, depression, anxiety, paranoia, and suicidal tendencies, as well as progressive cognitive symptoms such as memory loss.

The discovery of CTE -- which McKee said had been found in 315 former NFL players -- led to the league's concussion crisis, culminating in a $1 billion settlement to players in 2016.

York County Coroner Sabrina Gast told a news conference on Tuesday that Adams' family said the former cornerback had suffered "several concussions" during his playing career, which spanned six seasons between 2010 and 2015, and included spells with the San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders and Atlanta Falcons.

Adams, who began playing gridiron in school, complained of "excruciating pain" from his injuries, as well as memory issues and difficulty sleeping, Gast said.

"Adams' 20-year career in football put him at a high risk for CTE," McKee told reporters on Tuesday.

Complex puzzle

Adams shot dead Robert Lesslie, 70; his wife Barbara Lesslie, 69; two of their grandchildren, aged nine and five, and two men working on an air conditioning system at the Lesslie home in Rock Hill, South Carolina on April 7.

Adams was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound at a nearby home shortly after the slayings.

Gast said the CTE findings revealed Tuesday did not "in totality" provide an explanation to what had triggered Adams' rampage.

"But it does give us a small piece of a more complex puzzle that is still under investigation," Gast said.

A toxicology analysis of Adams found he had prescription amphetamines in his system, as well as the over-the-counter herbal extract kratom, which in lower doses works as a stimulant.

McKee meanwhile said it was not possible to say that CTE alone had triggered Adams' killing spree.

"It's difficult to say that it alone resulted in these behaviors because usually it's a complicated issue with many other factors," she said.

"But certainly we have seen this behavior and it is in fact not what I would consider unusual in this disease."

A statement on behalf of the Adams family read at Tuesday's news conference welcomed the CTE findings.

"We are pleased to have a better understanding of the mental turmoil that Phillip was dealing with during the last moments of his life," the statement said.

"We cannot say that we are surprised by these results. However it is shocking to hear how severe his condition was.

"We hope to bring awareness to this condition so players young and old can understand the risks ... Phillip is not the first to battle with this disease and he will not be the last."

© 2021 AFP