Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Why Brazil shouldn’t let Bolsonaro stand in the way of ratifying the nuclear ban treaty

By Bárbara Cruvinel Santiago | April 19, 2022
President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil signs a decree relaxing gun rules in May 2019.
 Credit: Marcos Corrêa/PR. CC by 2.0.

Brazil was the first country to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017, which is not surprising given Brazil’s record in disarmament advocacy. So far, dozens of countries have signed the TPNW, also known as the ban treaty, which entered into force in January 2021 after its 50th ratification by a state party. The treaty calls for the complete nuclear disarmament of these nations, as well as for their cooperation in a verification regime and on assistance to mitigate environmental impacts caused by nuclear explosions.

It is curious, however, that the treaty has yet to be ratified in Brasilia. The Brazilian government’s drastic shift to the far right after the 2018 election of President Jair Bolsonaro might be to blame. For instance, Bolsonaro’s base has ludicrously called for the construction of a “Brazilian Atomic Bomb” in a petition on the Senate’s website to bring this proposal to a vote. Such a proposal not only infringes on several international treaties that include Brazil, but also on Brazil’s own constitution, which prohibits the use of nuclear technology for non-peaceful purposes within its national boundaries.

Brazil has already given the world guarantees that it won’t build a nuclear weapon despite its developed nuclear research. However, it would be in the country’s best interest to ratify the ban treaty. Brazil could not only be a key partner to other treaty state parties, but also reap benefits of its own. However, the treaty ratification process faces stiff challenges in the National Congress of Brazil.

 
Then-President Michael Temer of Brazil signing the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in September 2017.
 Credit: Darren Ornitz/ICAN

How Brazil became a nuclear state with no nuclear weapons. Brazil’s nuclear history goes back to the 1950s, when it had an agreement with the United States to import nuclear research technology. Brazil became a military dictatorship in 1964. In the 1970s, the United States stopped providing enriched uranium to Brazil, but the Brazilian-West German Nuclear Agreement allowed Brazil to develop its own enrichment technology and build power plants. The agreement faced strong US opposition and internal resistance from Brazilian scientists. In a document published in 1975, the Brazilian Physical Society noted that the agreement had no input from the country’s scientific community and argued that a country with so much hydropower potential should not need nuclear power plants.

During the military dictatorship, the government allegedly had a secret nuclear program called the Solimões Project. However, no evidence for nuclear weapon construction was ever found and, after the country’s return to democracy in the 1980s, the government officially closed a 300-meter-deep test site supposedly excavated for nuclear testing. More important, Brazil also started its low-enriched uranium nuclear-powered submarine program during the dictatorship.

As the country returned to democracy, the 21st article of its new constitution explicitly stated that Brazil would never build nuclear weapons or use nuclear power for non-peaceful purposes and that nuclear activities of any kind would require congressional approval. Article 21 is still the only one of its kind in the world. However, the 1988 constitution was already Brazil’s eighth, and Congress still routinely makes amendments to the constitution.

In its return to democracy, Brazil further cemented its commitments by signing and ratifying most international nonproliferation and disarmament agreements—including the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1994, which turned Latin America into a nuclear-weapon-free zone, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1996. Those treaties currently prevent Brazil from becoming a nuclear weapon state.

What is nuclear Brazil? Brazil is one of three countries considered nuclear states (with no nuclear weapons) in Latin America. While it’s home to about five percent of the world’s uranium reserves, Brazil has only two nuclear power plants, which together meet less than three percent of the country’s energy needs. Instead, clean hydropower is at the core of Brazil’s energy matrix.

In 1987, Brazil had one of the worst nuclear radiation accidents in the world. A hospital in the central Brazilian city of Goiânia improperly disposed of radiotherapy equipment, which a group of waste collectors later found. The collectors took the hardware home to disassemble it and sell its components. One of the men found a blue substance that glowed in the dark and took it home to show it to friends and family. The substance was cesium 137, a radioactive isotope. Days later, several people showed up at local hospitals with symptoms of contamination.

Investigators worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and national groups on an emergency plan. The response group isolated people in several areas, demolished buildings, and disposed of 6,000 tons of radioactive waste. The emergency operation screened over 100,000 people, identifying 249 who were contaminated, four of whom died. Dozens of people were quarantined in hospital areas solely dedicated to the accident, so they could receive proper treatment and their bodily waste could be appropriately monitored and disposed of. Once the tracing and containment plan was in place, the local government established support groups to monitor and assist victims in the long term.

In 1991, Brazil joined Argentina to create the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC). It is still the only bilateral agency of its kind in the world, and it turned a once-adversarial relationship between neighboring countries into a cooperative one. With the IAEA, of which Brazil was a founding member in 1957, ABACC implemented a verification and inspection regime that guarantees that both Brazil and Argentina are using nuclear resources safely and solely for peaceful development.

From 2003 to 2014, the Workers’ Party federal administration saw industrialization as a path out of poverty. The party revamped nuclear research, leading to the creation of Amazul, a public company to oversee nuclear development in the Navy as well as the implementation of other industries based on nuclear technology. During its tenure, the Workers’ Party finally institutionalized the nuclear-powered submarine project, which began during the dictatorship but had faced funding shortfalls since Brazil’s return to democracy.

The Brazilian military says it needs a fast submarine for two reasons: Most of Brazil’s population lives near its vast coastline, the “Blue Amazon,” and that is also where most of the country’s potential oil reserves reside. Currently, the Aramar Experimental Center in Iperó is the only military facility that officially hosts a uranium enrichment plant in a non-nuclear weapon state. While this raises questions about a verification regime, the center follows safeguards dictated by Brazil’s constitution. Outside military facilities, Brazilian scholars pursue nuclear research in places such as the Nuclear and Energy Research Institute at the University of São Paulo.

Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro addresses the UN General
 Assembly in September 2021. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak

Nuclear diplomacy and the ban treaty. Brazil was one of the last major players to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, objecting on the principle of equality. The NPT created two categories of countries, with much stricter rules for non-nuclear weapon states, something unacceptable to Brazilian diplomats. Nevertheless, the country signed and ratified the NPT in 1996 and 1998, respectively, while refusing to sign the treaty’s Additional Protocol, an expanded set of requirements for verification.

Brazil argued that it has adhered to every clause of the NPT, while nuclear weapon states that signed the treaty have not complied with their part—they have not disarmed and are not subjected to the Additional Protocol. According to Brazil, ABACC and its collaboration with the IAEA serve as a guarantee that Brazil and Argentina are under a rigorous verification regime and will never become nuclear weapon states.

Brazil supported the resolution to start drafting a ban treaty in 2016, voted in favor of the treaty in 2017, and was the first country to sign it. According to the official report Brazilian diplomats submitted to the 2020 NPT review conference, Brazil continues to be of “the undimmed persuasion that any use of weapons of mass destruction is abhorrent.” Yet the ban treaty remains controversial among Bolsonaro’s base and allies.

Domestic challenges for ratification. Bolsonaro’s election in 2018 caused a major shift to the far right in the Brazilian government. He has turned a blind eye to crimes against the environment and perpetrated several verbal attacks on women, indigenous populations, and people of color. His mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic, including alleged corruption involving the purchase of vaccines, is currently under investigation pending a request for an impeachment vote. Moreover, some of his supporters have gone to the streets to demand the return of a military dictatorship known for torturing political opponents. Bolsonaro has been a vocal admirer of Colonel Carlos Brilhante Ustra, recognized by a civil court as a torturer during the dictatorship.

Bolsonaro has also been a vocal gun-ownership proponent. The word “disarmament” is verboten in his base’s vocabulary, regardless of context. As long as Bolsonaro’s allies remain in control of Congress, ratification of the ban treaty will face an uphill battle. While Brazil has no nuclear weapons to disarm, and nuclear disarmament and gun laws are far from being similar, advocates will need to frame the treaty in some form that is palatable to gun advocates and conservative middle-aged voters who remember the military dictatorship with nostalgia. Doing that would be difficult, however, and perhaps the only way to get the treaty ratified would be voting Bolsonaro and his allies out of office
.
Brazil President Jair Bolsonaro making his trademark handgun gesture as he arrives to sign a decree at the Palácio do Planalto in April 2019. 
Credit: Marcos Corrêa/PR. CC by 2.0.

How Brazil could benefit from the ban treaty. Brazil faces no immediate military or geopolitical threats, especially given its peaceful history for the last 150 years. More important, Brazil cannot build a nuclear weapon without violating its own constitution or the international mechanisms it has already ratified, so ratifying the ban treaty would not add any further restrictions. Rather, Brazil would only reap benefits from ratification.

Articles 6 and 7 of the treaty declare that state parties should assist each other with remediating the environmental and human impacts of nuclear testing. Brazil could take advantage of its expertise gained during the 1987 Goiânia accident to help other state parties and further cement its position as a leading voice among non-nuclear weapon states. These states vote on temporary members for the UN Security Council every two years, and it is no secret that Brazil has Security Council ambitions. Brazil has been a temporary member more than any other nation, but it’s hard to believe this would happen again under Bolsonaro unless he signals a change in his human-rights stances. Ratifying the ban treaty could help.

Brazil also has cutting-edge nuclear research in Navy facilities and other institutes where nuclear science thrives for peaceful uses. Brazil could establish international scientific collaborations to implement the treaty’s verification regime. It could exchange its expertise for support from other state parties in technical areas where Brazil has little experience.

The ABACC experience taught Brazil how to implement a bilateral system that makes verification of diverted materials stronger than other alternatives. Inspections in Argentina are made by Brazilian experts and vice versa, so the interested parties perform the verification directly. The inspectors are chosen by a poll of experts in each country who do not work for ABACC and whose specialties focus on the type of site that will be audited. The frequent verification between the two parties and the mutual knowledge acquired over time make it nearly impossible for either country to build a secret nuclear weapons program. Brazil could lead other ban-treaty states to adopt a similar system.

Additionally, ABACC paved the way for the creation of Mercosur, the trade bloc that integrates South America economically and politically. The ban treaty’s articles on collaboration among signatory states could lead to further integration and strengthening of nations in the Global South.

Bolsonaro’s government has tarnished Brazil’s image abroad on several fronts. However, Brazil has extensively benefited from its peaceful image in the past—allowing it to be exempt from embargoes, technological exchange restrictions, and portions of the IAEA’s verification regime despite its nuclear state status and refusal to sign the Additional Protocol. For instance, Brasilia announced in 2000 that it was moving centrifuges from the Navy to an enrichment facility in Resende, to benefit the country’s two nuclear power plants. Brazil declined the IAEA’s request for additional inspection, arguing for the need to protect intellectual property. ABACC’s long-standing relationship with the IAEA enabled alternative inspection arrangements that protected the centrifuges’ design. Situations like this exemplify why Brazil should strive to enhance its non-threatening image in the nuclear world by finally ratifying the ban treaty.

While signing the treaty would not fix Brazil’s image in its entirety—it would not address Bolsonaro’s infringement of human rights, for example—it would be a step in the right direction. Brazil played an important leading role in bringing the ban treaty into existence in 2017. It’s time for Brasilia to answer its own call and ratify the treaty.
Fire, chlorine leak at Dow facility in Louisiana triggers shelter-in-place order

The cause of the Monday night incident at Olin Corp.'s plant in Plaquemine was under investigation, the Iberville Sheriff's Office said.

By Chantal Da Silva and Reuters
April 19, 2022,

Officials in Louisiana have lifted a shelter-in-place order hours after issuing it following a chlorine leak at a plant in Plaquemine.

The Iberville Sheriff's Office confirmed to NBC News that the shelter-in-place order had been lifted just after 12 a.m. local time (1 a.m. ET) Tuesday.

The order had been issued shortly after a fire and chlorine spill was reported to authorities at Olin Corp.'s plant at a Dow Chemical facility at around 8:40 p.m. (9:40 p.m. ET) Monday, the sheriff's office told Reuters. Olin Corp. is a tenant at the Dow facility.

In a Facebook post after the incident, the sheriff's office warned "everyone south and east" of the Dow facility to "shelter in place," an order that requires residents to stay indoors and not leave their homes unless necessary.

The Dow North America plant in Plaquemine. Gerald Herbert / AP

Residents were also told to turn off their air conditioning units and keep their doors and windows closed.

“After continuously monitoring the air quality, we feel it is safe to return to normal activities," Clint Moore of the Iberville Sheriff’s Office told Reuters hours after the incident.

He said authorities were still "investigating the source" of the fire and the leak, however.

An Olin Corp. spokesperson confirmed to NBC News that the shelter-in-place had been lifted and said "there is no longer offsite potential exposure." No injuries were reported in connection with the incident, they added.

The spokesperson said a "thorough analysis" would be conducted to identify the cause of the fire and chlorine leak.
ICYMI

Unregulated Texas gas pipeline triggers a huge methane leak


AARON CLARK AND NAUREEN MALIK
Bloomberg News
APR 19, 2022

A natural gas pipeline in Texas leaked so much of the super-potent greenhouse gas methane in little more than an hour that by one estimate its climate impact was equivalent to the annual emissions from about 16,000 U.S. cars.

The leak came from a 16-inch pipe that’s a tiny part of a vast web of unregulated lines across the U.S., linking production fields and other sites to bigger transmission lines. Although new federal reporting requirements start next month for so-called gathering lines, the incident highlights the massive climate damage even minor parts of the network can inflict.

Energy Transfer LP, which operates the line where the leak occurred through its ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd. unit, said an investigation into the cause of the event last month is ongoing and all appropriate regulatory notifications were made. It called the pipe an “unregulated gathering line.’’

The timing of the release and its location appeared to match a plume of methane observed by a European Space Agency satellite that geoanalytics firm Kayrros SAS called the most severe in the U.S. in a year. Bloomberg investigations into methane observed by satellite near energy facilities show the invisible plumes often coincide with routine work and deliberate releases.

Methane is the primary component of natural gas and traps 84 times more heat than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere. Severely curbing or eliminating releases of the gas from fossil fuel operations is crucial to avoiding the worst of climate change. The International Energy Agency has said oil and gas operators should move beyond emissions intensity goals and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to methane releases.

ETC Texas Pipeline reported a “line break” that lasted from 8:08 a.m. to 9:17 a.m. local time March 17 on its Big Cowboy pipeline that is jointly owned with Kinder Morgan Inc., according to a filing to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The incident caused a release of 52,150 thousand standard cubic feet of natural gas.


The event likely released about 900 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group that has used aerial surveys to map releases of the fossil gas over oil and gas operations in the U.S. Permian basin. That amount of the greenhouse gas will trap about as much heat as 75,600 tons of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere.


The ETC Texas Pipeline filing to the TCEQ didn’t include an estimate for how much methane was released and the state agency said it doesn’t regulate releases of the gas. The Texas Railroad Commission said it has an ongoing investigation into the Big Cowboy incident without elaborating. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said that as of April 7 it hadn’t received a report about the release but that it’s communicating with the TCEQ.

One of the major insights from satellite observations of methane is the amount of total emissions for which super-emission events are responsible. Although these events can be infrequent and sometimes only last a few hours, oil and gas ultra-emitters account for as much as 12% of global methane emissions from the sector, according to a study published in Science in February by French and American scientists. The researchers used satellite observations to identify more than 1,800 major releases of the gas.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration said it hasn’t received reports of a release for any regulated facilities in the area and that the Texas Railroad Commission has oversight for the Big Cowboy line. Federal pipeline safety regulations and reporting requirements will apply to onshore gas gathering lines starting May 16.

Except for rare over-pressurization events that can pose significant safety risks, there are almost always ways to significantly minimize methane releases from pipelines, according to Bill Caram, executive director at the Pipeline Safety Trust. However, these techniques haven’t been required in the U.S. Since pipeline operators are reimbursed for any lost or unaccounted gas through their negotiated rates, they have no financial incentive to keep the gas in the pipe, he added.

“Ultimately, the consumer is paying for all of this climate-wrecking methane being released into the atmosphere,’’ Mr. Caram said in an email.

First Published April 19, 2022, 4:00am
Indigenous Women Will Appear on the Quarter as Part of U.S. Mint Program

Among the featured women are a Native ballerina from Oklahoma and an Indigenous storyteller from Hawaii.
April 14, 2022

Prima ballerina Maria Tallchief, shown here in the New York City Ballet's production of "Swan Lake" in 1953, is one of two Indigenous women who will be featured on a quarter as part of the 2023 edition of the American Women Quarters Program.
 (Associated Press file photo)

A U.S. Mint montage of the women who will be featured on the 2023 American Women Quarters Program.


A relative of one of a handful of Indigenous women who have appeared or will appear on the quarter coin said her inclusion is part of history that needs to be celebrated more.

Maria Tallchief is the latest Native American woman from Oklahoma who will appear on the quarter as part of the U.S. Mint’s 2023 American Women Quarters Program. Tallchief was a member of the Osage Nation. She passed away in 2013 and was known as America’s first prima ballerina.

Russ Tallchief is the nephew of Maria Tallchief.

“When I attend the ‘Nutcracker’ every year, I mention to dancers and audience members that Maria was the very first Sugar Plum Fairy, and I am amazed at how many people don’t know that,” he said in a statement to the Daily Yonder. “She was America’s first prima ballerina, not just the first Native prima ballerina, the first of any American dancer. That is a history we need to celebrate more.”

He added that having her appear on the quarter will be a reminder for those who know about her and an education for those who don’t know about how a young Osage woman from Fairfax, Oklahoma, made history on the world stage.

“Honoring Maria on the quarter will create more awareness and appreciation for her contributions to ballet, which still remain unequaled in dance today,” he said in the statement.

Maria is not the first Native American woman from Oklahoma to appear on the quarter. Wilma Mankiller, the first woman principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, the largest tribal nation in the United States, was part of the 2022 cohort. She appeared on the quarter as the third woman in the American Women Quarters Program.

The 2022-issued coin featuring Wilma Mankiller, principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. The special series of quarters features a traditional Washington quarter on the front with a new design on the reverse. (U.S. Mint)

Another Indigenous woman who will appear on the quarter in 2023 is Edith Kanakaʻole, an Indigenous Hawaiian composer, chanter, dancer, teacher and entertainer. According to the U.S. Mint’s telling, her moʻolelo, or stories, served to rescue aspects of Hawaiian history, customs, and traditions that were disappearing due to the cultural bigotry of the time.

The American Women Quarters Program features coins with designs showcasing contributions of prominent American women. That covers a wide spectrum of fields, including suffrage, civil rights, abolition, government, humanities, science, space and the arts. The women honored come from a variety of backgrounds and as required by public law, must be deceased. The Mint is issuing five coins with different reverse designs annually over the four-year period from 2022 through 2025.

“The range of accomplishments and experiences of these extraordinary women speak to the contributions women have always made in the history of our country,” said Mint Deputy Director Ventris C. Gibson in a press statement. “I am proud that the Mint continues to connect America through coins by honoring these pioneering women and their groundbreaking contributions to our society.”
USA
Does the ‘Future of Work’ Open a New Growth Horizon for Small Towns?

Remote work has been lifted up as a new opportunity for rural areas, but some old-fashioned obstacles remain. In small-town Missouri, creativity and collaboration are key for community leaders looking to overcome them.
April 19, 2022
A main street in Mexico, Missouri, where the local Chamber of Commerce resides in a repurposed bank building next to legacy local businesses and long running storefronts (Photo by Erik Richardson).

The Daily Yonder's coverage of rural economic issues, including workforce development and the future of work in rural America, is supported in part by Microsoft.

The economic history of many small towns, beyond agriculture, is closely tied to manufacturing and production businesses. A good example of this is Mexico, Missouri, a small town of about 11,500 people located two hours northwest of St. Louis. Here, ties to manufacturing include a number of companies past and present, who design and manufacture everything from commercial refrigeration units to golf carts and light metal products for the automotive and transportation industries.

The paradigm case in Mexico was the A.P. Green refractory. Green was a world-leader in the production of firebrick used in boiler systems and in kilns for the steel industry. As it scaled down and closed, from 1998 to 2003, the town lost more than a thousand jobs — not just production-line positions, but engineering and executive management positions, as well.

To offset the impact crater that closures like this cause, a common strategy is to work at bringing other, similar businesses to the area, and Mexico has had mixed success in that regard. When it comes to the fortunes of rural places, it now takes more than one big business or one big solution to help a community thrive.

With the changing shape of remote and hybrid workplaces, and the continuing spread of high-speed internet access in rural areas, new options are opening up for bringing small-scale jobs and companies to towns all over the map. More specifically, with $65 billion for improvements to rural high-speed internet access in President Biden’s infrastructure plan, the potential for a renaissance and reinvention of small towns looms large.

Leveraging that potential in a way that creates sustainable growth, will take a multi-dimensional approach.




The remnants of the A.P. Green company in Mexico, Missouri include, clockwise from top right: a vacated executive office building; the former firebrick refractory site; and the A.P. Green Estate, which once hosted Winston Churchill during a visit to Westminster College in Fulton, where he gave his famous “Iron Curtain” speech (Photos by Erik Richardson).

Work from Anywhere?

Research by McKinsey Global Institute found that as much as 25 percent of the workforce in advanced economies like the U.S. could work from home between three and five days a week. That would be more than four times the level of remote work than baselines before the pandemic.

Even more workers would take the opportunity if they could. Not only is there feasibility for growing the remote sector, but there is high demand as well. According to Global Workplace Analytics, about 37% of remote employees would take a 10% pay cut to continue working from home. This trend will grow even further as new technology in development makes current options seem like baby steps.

Back in Mexico, the local Chamber of Commerce, led by Executive Director Dana Keller, is considering a number of proactive strategies to tap into this new opportunity.

One possibility is using a newly renovated office building, just off the square, to create a co-working space. This could be used for smaller operations looking to possibly relocate to Mexico, while saving on the costs of developing its own offices, or it could be used to house new businesses in the start-up phase—much like incubator and accelerator facilities in larger urban areas. This option would help serve sectors of the market that still require some on-site equipment and resources or space for team meetings and thus are not yet able to operate one hundred percent work-from-home.

In any case, shared office spaces, where remote employees can gather to work, have become more widely available in different cities and will accommodate a growing percentage of remote workers in coming years.
The county courthouse in Mexico, Missouri and the surrounding square, where locals are planning a co-working space for small businesses and remote workers 
(Photo by Erik Richardson).

No Home Office Without a Home

As much as technology and pandemic-era trends are accelerating people’s ability to work remotely, there are still some old-fashioned obstacles in place. One of the biggest of these is the shortage of affordable housing for people and families looking to relocate.

Marissa Lightsey, a realtor and brokerage owner, explained that it is still common to have a house list on the market for a day or less before it gets an offer. While there might seem like a number of houses available at a given time on the listing sites, many of those either need significant repair or they are priced out of the range of many working families. “A fair percent of the time there are people already lined up looking for a house, so I can connect them with a newly-available house even before it is listed,” Lightsey says of Mexico.

In theory, a high-demand market would draw developers to step in and put up new houses to push the supply curve toward a new balance point. Unfortunately, small-town markets are not able to offer the same profit margin on development that even mid-sized cities can—also illustrated in the above comparison.

One of the forward-thinking decisions Mexico has put in place to help solve that is a housing committee — a small-town think tank of sorts — made up of key business and community leaders. Among the options they have begun testing out is a program providing grants to close that profit gap for builders. The program has shown some early success, but it has not yet begun to scale up.
A new housing development in Mexico, Missouri, flanked by fields and farmland just beyond 
(Photo by Erik Richardson).

On the flip side of the residential housing market, another key driver is the condition of the commercial real-estate market. Among the initiatives that have helped Mexico attract new business is a matching grant program for renovating and updating facades — particularly around the historic town square — as well as effective efforts to clear away old, unusable structures. Those are understandably helpful, but it is also the case that this factor will have less impact in attracting businesses and workers based from home, as that new sector is not constrained by the limits in available commercial space or buildable commercial-zoned property.

More Than a Mailing Address

Based on her experience working with more than a thousand startups over the years, in different roles, Chris Shipley, author of the book “The Adaptation Advantage: Let Go, Learn Fast, and Thrive in the Future of Work,” explained that small towns are attractive to startup businesses for a lot of reasons. Only some of them have to do with measurable economic variables, like affordability or available housing.

One Case for Rural Relocation

There are many possible benefits of living in a smaller community, like shorter commute times, easier access to natural landscapes, and lower rates of crime. There’s also lower cost of living. In the case of Mexico, looking at one cost-of-living comparison to the nearest city over 100,000, Columbia, shows the following:



For comparison, another source shows the cost of living index for Mexico at 74.5, with a median home price at $98.8K, and Columbia’s index at 86.5, with a median home price of $218K — an even larger difference in cost in both categories.

Even with the smaller housing differential, potential savings over the course of a typical 30-year home loan exceed tens of thousands of dollars.

“The founders are also looking at whether there is a sense of community and what kind of place it would be to raise their kids,” Shipley explained.

This came through when talking with current business owners in Mexico as well. “Really, the thing that seems to come up again and again when I’m talking with different people about relocating to our small town, is the sense of warmth and being part of a community,” said Lightsey, the realtor. “For all the positive things people like about big cities, a downside is the feeling of being just another face in the crowd, so to speak.”

Shipley echoed and extended that thought. While technology solutions like broadband access are critical to tapping into the potential for a renaissance in rural areas, “That’s just the start,” she says. “These communities have a dual challenge of talent attraction and talent retention.” She explains:

This isn’t just a physical infrastructure challenge; it’s a social infrastructure challenge, too. So programs to create a vibrant small town have to address both things. You can’t just plug a community into bandwidth and be done with it. You really need to look at what a community needs, whether people feel like their voices are being heard, what will lead to sustainable growth in the workforce, and so on.

And that’s the challenge with most consultants: they look for what can be done to make a community viable for outsiders. They look at how to get more (usually tech) founders to come and live in these towns and assume that whatever those things are will be good for the people of the town, too. That’s a recipe for disaster and projects that generally wilt over time.
Here to Stay

In unpacking the things Mexico has done, or is doing, to strengthen and sustain business growth as the future of work evolves, Chamber director Keller says that Mexico is the first town in the state to have a workforce specialist on its staff. This person goes to local companies, especially larger ones, to listen and collaborate with employee, striving to boost workforce satisfaction and retention.

The first year of the program was funded by a grant, and with the benefits realized, companies themselves will cover appropriate percentages of the specialist’s salary in subsequent years. The success of the program, for Keller, is helping people who come to work in Mexico really “feel like the company sees them as people and is working to help them reach their goals,” she says.

“Showing them they matter, helping them get involved beyond the workplace, raising a family and growing roots—those are the things that change it from a ‘city’ to a ‘community.’”

Markers of the current economic moment include a new marijuana dispensary and a fleet of Amazon delivery trucks 
(Photo by Erik Richardson).

There are also a number of initiatives going full steam that tackle both attraction and retention challenges—and which are aiming to shape the image of a vibrant, growing city instead of an aging, if charming, relic of the past. That includes a recent $3.9 million upgrade of the city pool and aquatic center, city-funded programs for removal of abandoned houses to provide green lots for development, and the recent launch of a smartphone app that gives visitors a quick and thorough picture of area businesses across various categories and shows the variety of community events happening throughout the year.

In many ways, the emerging opportunities small towns have to bring in more remote workers, more co-working spaces, and more small businesses — either relocating ones or new start-ups — should align nicely with their innate competitive advantages, such as a greater sense of belonging and the chance to feel like more than one worker on a production line or one face in a crowd. At the same time, strategic planning and thoughtful economic development will nonetheless be needed to tap into the technology and broader forces that are driving the “future of work.” As Shipley is quick to recount, “Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum.”
OSHA and USDA Should Have Done More to Protect Meatpacking Workers, Report Says

An Office of Inspector General report concluded the two agencies could have done more to protect meatpackers from contracting Covid-19. The industry was among the hardest-hit sectors in the early months of the pandemic.

by Sky Chadde / Investigate Midwest
April 19, 2022
Top image: Washington, D.C. – Frances Perkins Building. (Photo provided by U.S. Department of Labor)

This story was originally published by The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has food safety inspectors in every large meatpacking plant in the country. Just like the industry’s workers, the government’s inspectors entered the high-risk work spaces almost every day during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Sonny Perdue, USDA’s leader during the pandemic’s critical first year, made clear he saw no role for the agency in protecting workers. That mostly fell to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Despite Perdue’s proclamations, however, the two agencies should have collaborated to ensure workers were safe from Covid-19 by leveraging USDA’s employees in plants to provide better oversight of the industry, the DOL’s Office of Inspector General concluded in a new report released recently.

OSHA has been roundly criticized for failing to protect meatpacking workers from the coronavirus. In the pandemic’s first year, the agency doled out small fines to only a handful of plants, and it failed to inspect every plant where cases were publicly reported.

OSHA defended its approach in responses to the inspector general’s office. The head of OSHA under former President Donald Trump, Loren Sweatt, has told Investigate Midwest the agency was dedicated to protecting workers.

The agency entered the pandemic with its fewest number of inspectors in its history. At the same time, the number of workplaces it has to oversee has increased.
This graphic, included in the OIG’s report, shows the number of establishments OSHA is responsible for overseeing and the number of OSHA inspectors.

Still, according to the inspector general’s report, OSHA should have identified what federal agencies oversaw high-risk industries — including meatpacking — and provided training to on-the-ground employees in how to assist with worker safety.

“Without delivering the necessary outreach and training, OSHA could not leverage the observations of external federal agencies’ enforcement or oversight personnel active on job sites regarding potential safety and health hazards,” the report reads.

Fostering collaboration with the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service was “particularly important” given the risk at meatpacking plants, the report said. More than 400 meatpacking workers have died from Covid-19, according to Investigate Midwest tracking.

OSHA and FSIS had some history that made collaborating challenging, according to the report.

Before the pandemic, when FSIS inspectors would make a referral about potential worker safety violations to OSHA, OSHA would investigate FSIS, not the plant, according to the report. Because of this, FSIS inspectors were hesitant to refer possible violations.

OSHA said it “informally collaborated” with FSIS during the pandemic. Starting “early in 2020,” OSHA held weekly meetings with FSIS and other agencies where it “often” discussed the safety of meatpacking workers, the agency said in its response to the report.

OSHA “judged this effort to be far more fruitful than attempting to reach individual FSIS inspectors,” it said.

Sweatt didn’t reach out to FSIS’s head, Mindy Brashears, until mid-April 2020, weeks after the first reported Covid-19 case in a U.S. meatpacking plant and months after news of the contagious disease broke, according to emails obtained by Public Citizen.

“Is FSIS doing guidance for meat packers in the world of Covid-19?” Sweatt asked Brashears on April 11, 2020. “If so, is there anything OSHA can do to be of assistance?”

Brashears then emailed back, saying she’d like to see any guidance documents OSHA had.

“It’s shocking how much OSHA deferred to USDA” on worker safety during the pandemic, Adam Pulver, the attorney at Public Citizen who obtained the records, has said about the emails.

During the pandemic’s first year, Covid-19 deaths had been reported at 65 plants. OSHA didn’t inspect 26 of them, according to an investigation by USA TODAY and Investigate Midwest.

The trend has continued, according to OSHA’s responses to the report. Investigate Midwest has tracked nearly 500 plants with reported Covid-19 cases. Between March 2020 and March 2022, OSHA conducted 157 inspections related to Covid-19 in the meatpacking industry.

How robots could help solve the US recycling problem

The need for automation in recycling is obvious, one robotics company CEO said.

This is the first episode of ABC News Digital's four-part series "Green New Future," which highlights innovators and environmental solutions.

Recycling on a large scale has always proved to be a challenging endeavor, especially as the production of plastic surged exponentially after the 1970s.

But new technology made to streamline the process may help the U.S. make strides in eliminating the amount of plastic that ends up in landfills.

Nearly 300 million tons of waste is produced in the U.S. every year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Only a fourth of that solid trash is recycled.

The need for automation in recycling centers is "obvious," Matanya Horowitz, founder and CEO of AMP Robotics, told ABC News, especially since positions to sort through the trash do not pay well and can be dangerous.

Items such as bowling balls, skis, fabric and dirty diapers often make their way to the sorting center, Joshua Taylor, the manager of the Denver recycling plant, told ABC News.

Workers are on their feet in front of a conveyor belt all day, and turnover is high, Taylor added.

"At AMP Robotics, we're using robotics and artificial intelligence to solve some of the primary challenges of the recycling business," Horowitz said.

When Horowitz first proposed the idea, the feedback he received from people in the robotics field was not encouraging, he said.

"Most people in robotics that I knew thought it was a terrible idea," Horowitz said, adding that they were "skeptical of the problems."

But Horowitz persisted, convinced that the idea could work despite what the experts said.

He and his design team used a "unique" approach involving the use of artificial intelligence to teach the systems to identify a plethora of different materials, whether they're bottles or cans and whether they are misshapen or have food particles on them, eliminating limitations of previous sorting machines.

"What I saw in recycling, the whole industry was being held back by these core challenges," Horowitz said. "And if you could develop a vision system that could identify material, even though it's been smashed and folded and dirty, you could deal with those core challenges, and you would unlock a whole lot for the industry."

At the Waste Management plant in Denver, an average of 32 tons of waste is processed every hour, Taylor said, describing the recycling center as "a tough place to work."

"So, you can imagine, every hour we're doing about one and a half tractor trailer full of recyclable materials through the plant," he said.

Recycling centers can install the robots in facilities "with almost no change to their existing operations," Horowitz said.

The recycling industry is not achieving its full potential, said Susan Collins, the executive director of the Container Recycling Institute, a nonprofit that provides information, consultation, technical assistance and tools for recycling.

About 44% of greenhouse gases in the U.S. come from products and packaging, meaning that making recycling more efficient "represents the largest portion of what we can do" to reduce emissions, she said.

"People don't look to the lowly glass bottle or aluminum cans and think, 'Oh, that's an opportunity for me to save energy and save greenhouse gases,'" Collins said. "But it is, and it's huge."

OPINION

Censorship is as old as the pharaohs — and as new as today


History's lessons on book burning are lessons we haven't learned


Illustrated | iStock

JASON FIELDS
THE WEEK 
APRIL 19, 2022

"There was always a minority afraid of something, and a great majority afraid of the dark, afraid of the future, afraid of the present, afraid of themselves and shadows of themselves," Ray Bradbury wrote of the reasons behind censorship in his story Usher II, part of The Martian Chronicles.

While Bradbury more famously took on censorship in his book Fahrenheit 451, in some ways this quote best summarizes the human need to blot out information we don't like. The fear he described is once again visible in Florida right now.

And how far back does this fear go? As far as civilization itself.

In ancient Egypt, pharaohs who didn't like their predecessors would literally deface their monuments — taking the faces off their statues and reworking the stone into their own likeness. They also removed cartouches (pre-classical nameplates) from buildings or other objects, chipping away with hammer and chisel. Cartouches were considered so important because they were thought to contain a part of the owner's soul.

The first Roman emperor, Augustus, concerned about the legitimacy of his rule, tried to snuff out information he didn't like, including records of senatorial proceedings. He even exiled poets, such as Ovid, who wrote works he didn't like.

And the desire to limit access to information is not a Western thing. It's a global thing, with the East's history just as long as the West's.

Perhaps every religion, at one point or another, has tried to ensure its way to the truth would be the only one people could know. Nonreligious ideologies have done this too: The Nazis' book burnings of 1933 are rightly famous for their horror, and they previewed other horrors to come. Author Helen Keller's works championing social justice and equality for the disabled were among those burned, and the Nazis would later try to systematically kill the disabled to remove "useless eaters" from their "more perfect" Germany.

What the Nazis did wasn't original, nor did anyone seemingly learn from it. Americans have famously burned lots of different books, or at least worked to make sure they never darken the door of any library in the Union. My favorite, in several senses, is Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain. I wrote my senior thesis on it in college, unoriginally positing the Mississippi River as a metaphor for a journey into growing darkness. Huckleberry Finn has been in trouble since its publication, just like the titular boy himself.

Some people didn't like the friendship between a poor white boy and the Black slave, Jim. Others said the language (it's written almost entirely in dialect) makes Southerners sound stupid. And then there's Huck's troubling (if historically accurate) use of the N-word throughout.

It's a disturbing book. It's meant to be a disturbing book — to disturb the status quo — that's why Twain wrote it. So you're disturbed? Good. I've heard it said that Jesus disturbed a lot of people, too.

Books belong on shelves, not pyres, and I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that doesn't belong somewhere in a library. Don't want to read it? Don't check it out. And I'll stick by that till the end for adults — maybe even most high school students. But kids in elementary school and middle school classrooms? That's where my resolve starts to crumble.

Thinking of the children is the most compelling excuse for censorship. It can lead down a slippery slope right to the devil, too. People are always concerned about their children's education. They move across town for the better school. They lie, cheat, and steal to get their kids in where they want them to go. And who wants their children to be taught something they believe is factually incorrect or, worse, immoral?

The sad thing for a free speech near-absolutist like myself is that children genuinely are impressionable. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to learn anything, and they need to be able to learn everything to grow up and function in society. And not only are children more absorbent than a roll of Bounty paper towel, but they don't get to choose what they are taught. Adults can choose for them and must choose carefully. Right now, many people are concerned about critical race theory, and it's leading to serious issues around the country, including which math textbooks get into Florida classrooms.

This is something it is critical to get right. It is also something we never will get right, not least because what seems "right" at one time will most certainly be wrong at another. Huck Finn makes that obvious enough.

The problem is who will be the arbitrator of what gets into our schools. Who do we trust to get this right? Elected officials who blow with the wind? School board members with axes to grind? Parents who have no particular expertise to decide how children should be taught — but undeniable interest in what their children are learning?

Here is where I should turn to a panel of perfect experts, philosopher kings of education. Unfortunately, as even Plato knew, these are but ideals we must strive for, not realities we live with. So, we'll continue to do our best with this mixed muddle and hope that what we decide is not simply the sum of our fears.