Mexico Bans Solar Geoengineering After Startup Stunt

Lauren Leffer
Thu, January 19, 2023 

Stock photo of weather balloon floating above land

Luke Iseman released a photo of him supposedly launching a sulfur-filled weather balloon in Mexico, but the founder and his company didn’t respond to Gizmodo’s contact requests. So, here’s a stock substitute.

Mexico is cracking down on experiments in solar geoengineering. The controversial proposed climate solution, in which aerosol particles are released into the upper atmosphere to reflect the Sun’s heat, will no longer be allowed to take place in the country, the Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) announced last week.

Both large-scale and in-development projects involving solar engineering are to be halted, via coordination between the Mexican environment ministry and the country’s National Council of Science and Technology, the news statement noted. The goal of the new policy is to “protect communities and environments.”

The nationwide ban comes on the heels of climate tech startup Make Sunsets’ claims that it released weather balloons filled with sulfur dioxide particles from an unspecified location in the Mexican state of Baja California Sur—without any sort of permission, dialogue, or approval from any Mexican regulatory agency or authority. The startup’s co-founder, Luke Iseman (formerly of Y Combinator and numerous other startups that seem to have floundered or been abandoned), said in a December interview with MIT Technology Review that he’d conducted two test balloon launches there in April 2022.

But Iseman has contradicted his own claims since then. In a follow-up report from The Wall Street Journal, published Thursday, Iseman changed his story to “a single weather balloon.” And in a Wednesday blogpost from Make Sunsets, the company floated the possibility that it never actually released any sulfur balloons at all. “Make Sunsets will share all information about its activities in Mexico to date (if any) with... responsible agencies,” the startup wrote. “Make sunsets will cease its operations in Mexico (if there were any),” the post continues.

Gizmodo reached out to Make Sunsets for more information but did not receive a response.

Regardless of whether or not Iseman and Make Sunsets actually did what they claimed, the alleged stunt drew widespread criticism and concern from scientists and policy experts alike. Though solar geoengineering is a simple enough concept, safe implementation of the theoretical climate change remedy is a complex issue.

Blocking out sunlight via sulfur particles could trigger rapid and significant global shifts in precipitation that could leave some parts of the planet flooded and others arid, according to past research. If not managed properly, solar geoengineering could lead to even more erratic and rapid changes in temperature than we’re currently experiencing under climate change. And the use of sulfur, specifically, would likely damage Earth’s crucial ozone layer.

Then, there’s the geopolitical implications of a country or rogue actor deciding to go ahead and change the stratosphere’s composition without international buy-in.

For all of these reasons and more, it’s probably not in Mexico’s favor to allow this sort of unregulated geoengineering experimentation on its soil. The ministry’s press statement cites a United Nations moratorium on geoengineering that Mexico and nearly 200 other countries (though not the U.S.) agreed to in 2010—as well as the risk of dangerous climactic consequences. “There are enough studies that show that there would be negative and unequal impacts associated with the release of these aerosols,” wrote the environment ministry.

All that said, Iseman’s experiment (if it happened) probably wasn’t enough to impact much of anything. From a scientific perspective, it wasn’t even much of an experiment. The Make Sunsets founder previously told MIT Tech Review that he doesn’t know if the balloons released made it high enough in the atmosphere to distribute their sulfur in the correct place. And Harvard geoengineering researcher David Keith said that such a small amount of particles would likely have no effect on the climate.

Iseman is reportedly disappointed by Mexico’s decision. “I expected and hoped for dialogue,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “I’m surprised by the speed and scope of the response,” he added. Prior to the ban, Make Sunsets indicated it planned to fly three more balloons from Southern Baja this month. Now, that presumably won’t happen. But the perpetual founder isn’t giving up. “One of my dreams is that we could, in some distant future, grow Make Sunsets legally and responsibility,” he said to the WSJ.

And maybe Iseman would have better luck back in the U.S., which hasn’t co-signed any pesky UN agreements to not block out the Sun. In 2022, the Biden Administration announced it’s developing a five-year plan for geoengineering research. If the ~$750,000 in venture capital money that Make Sunsets raised isn’t enough, perhaps in the near future, the company could apply for some federal funding.

 Gizmodo

Why a Startup's Controversial Experiments to Cool the Earth Are on Pause

Alejandro de la Garza

TIME
Thu, January 19, 2023 

Sunset with beautiful cloud formations at San Francisco

Sunset with beautiful cloud formations at San Francisco Island in the Sea of Cortez in Baja California, Mexico. Credit - Wolfgang Kaehler/LightRocket—Getty Images

Make Sunsets, a company behind a recent controversial effort to cool the earth by releasing particles of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere to reflect incoming heat, is canceling its upcoming experiments in Mexico, following a rebuke from the Mexican government.

“We have decided not to do launches in Mexico until we come up with a way to collaborate with the Mexican government,” Luke Iseman, the company’s founder, tells TIME in reaction to Mexico announcing on Jan. 13 plans to ban geoengineering. “We want to be working hard with government partners to buy us time for others to solve the shared challenges that we have to prevent catastrophic warming.”

The two-person company made news in the climate world last month when the MIT Technology Review reported that they had launched weather balloons containing helium and SO2 in the Mexican state of Baja California last spring—the first recorded attempt to alter the stratosphere in the name of climate action.

The intent was that the balloons would burst when they reached the upper atmosphere and release the SO2, which would theoretically reflect solar radiation back into space. Such methods, known as stratospheric solar geoengineering, are one of the most controversial areas of study in the climate world, due to the possibility of large-scale SO2 releases affecting global weather and agriculture in unpredictable ways. Many environmental activists are also opposed to the possibility, arguing that geoengineering constitutes a moral hazard, since polluters could conceivably argue that it gives them license to continue emitting planet-warming greenhouse gasses.

Following news of the Make Sunsets launch, the Mexican government issued a press release saying that it would “prohibit and, where appropriate, stop experimentation practices with solar geoengineering,” citing a lack of international agreements and a 2010 UN moratorium on the practice. The announcement also noted that the startup had not consulted authorities before it carried out the experiments.

“It was surprising that people feel like we’re trying to sneak around some law when that is not the intent,” Iseman says. “There doesn’t appear to be some permit that I should have filed for and did not.”

Experts say that Make Sunsets’ SO2 release was small enough not to constitute an environmental danger, but many have criticized the company for attempting to profit off largely untested science. Make Sunsets sells $10 “Cooling Credits” on its website in exchange for releasing a gram of SO2 into the stratosphere, which it claims will correspond to eliminating the warming effect on one ton of carbon dioxide emissions for one year.

One of the concerns about geoengineering is the possibility that individual countries or even lone actors might take up the practice of their own accord, attempting to alter the climate without global buy-in or robust scientific support, a possibility that Make Sunsets might seem to illustrate.

Iseman, for his part, argues that there is no time to wait to pursue last-ditch climate efforts. He is hopeful that he can find another country more supportive of his work. “If someone, somewhere in the world wants to launch a balloon with us, I hope they reach out,” he says. “And if they are a government, I will bend over backward to be on the next plane to visit them.”

Mexico cracks down on solar geoengineering, forcing startup to pause operations


Ralf Geithe

Catherine Clifford
Thu, January 19, 2023 

The tiny startup Make Sunsets, which had been experimenting with releasing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight in order to cool the earth, said Wednesday it would cease operations for the time being and review its approach after the Mexican government cracked down on solar geoengineering.

The idea of releasing aerosols into the atmosphere to cool the earth has been around since the 1960′s, but it had largely been relegated to science fiction until recently, as the urgency of climate change has become more apparent. The White House is currently coordinating a five-year research plan to study the idea, which is colloquially known as “solar geoengineering,” and the quadrennial U.N.-backed Montreal Protocol assessment report for the first time included an entire chapter it.

Luke Iseman, a serial inventor and the former director of hardware at Y Combinator, believed all of that research was not happening fast enough. So he started tinkering with releasing sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere with balloons, raised venture capital to fund the startup, and brought on co-founder Andrew Song to manage sales.

Make Sunsets was planning to launch three latex weather balloons that would release anywhere between 10 and 500 grams of sulfur dioxide in January. But many industry watchers criticized its plans for being hasty and lacking sophistication.

Last Friday, the government of Mexico issued a statement that it plans to “prohibit and, where appropriate, stop experimentation practices with solar geoengineering in the country.”

The statement said, “The opposition to these climatic manipulations is based on the fact that there are currently no international agreements that address or supervise solar geoengineering activities, which represent an economically advantageous way out for a minority and risky for the supposed remediation of climate change.”

The lack of an international governance structure surrounding global geoengineering was a big concern for industry watchers in regard to what Make Sunsets was doing.

In a mea culpa blog post published on Wednesday, the startup acknowledged it had barged forward.

“We appreciate the Mexican government’s concern for protecting communities and the natural environment and support their call for scientific expertise and oversight of climate intervention activities. We also appreciate their concern for national and local engagement and regret that we had failed to take this into consideration sooner,” Make Sunsets said.

Brayton Williams, a co-founder of San Mateo-headquartered venture capital firm BoostVC, who previously told CNBC the firm invested $500,000 in Make Sunsets, told CNBC the startup was “definitely not shutting down.”

“When you work with super early stage startups you get very accustomed to roadblocks and naysayers. Not sure we have seen a success yet that didn’t have to overcome massive hurdles early in the process,” Williams told CNBC. “Onwards!”

Kelly Wanser, the executive director of SilverLining, an organization promoting research and governance of climate interventions, supports the move by the Mexican government.

“The Mexican government is right to halt irresponsible activity and emphasize the importance of scientific examination and science-based governance for solar climate intervention,” Wanser said in a statement shared by a press officer. “Irresponsible activities and unfounded claims are an example of why society needs publicly supported research, scientific assessment, and the expansion of governance mechanisms like the Montreal Protocol, to help ensure a safe climate.”

Both Wanser and Make Sunsets both indicated their support for thorough and detailed study of sunlight reflection technologies.

That’s because sunlight reflection technology would be one of the fastest and cheapest options for bringing down the temperature of the globe, and there’s already evidence it works: The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines released thousands of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, temporarily lowering average global temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

But it’s not known whether the damage caused by sunlight reflection technology — possibly including damage to the ozone layer, increased respiratory illness, and acid rain — could be worse than the future effects of global warming.

“We agree that there are no alternative technologies that replace the need to reduce emissions to remediate climate change. We also see that the negative and unequal impacts of climate change are growing, and we hope to encourage the world to consider whether technological interventions have the potential to help,” Make Sunsets wrote in its blog post.

Wanser echoed that sentiment. “Increasing the reflection of sunlight from the atmosphere is one of the only means that scientists have identified to significantly reduce global warming within the next few decades. Understanding its risks and benefits through research is critical for the world’s most climate-vulnerable people,” she said in a statement.

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Netflix’s German-language All Quiet on the Western Front is a haunting revelation


Ed Power

TELEGRAPH
Thu, January 19, 2023

All Quiet on the Western Front

The First World War is reimagined as a symphony of mud, teen angst and terrible beauty in All Quiet on the Western Front, Edward Berger’s stunning German-language retelling of Erich Maria Remarque’s anti-war novel. As with Lewis Milestone’s 1930 Hollywood adaptation, it faithfully communicates Remarque’s message about the futility of the conflict. To this Berger adds production values that have the blood-in-ears rush of a hyper-stylised video game. Violence may be hell, but Berger bathes it in a pulsating shimmer. Oh, what a lovely-looking war he has conjured.

There’s always that extra zing when a war movie takes up the German perspective. That’s particularly true of the First World War, long distilled in the popular imagination into a mash-up of Wilfred Owen, Blackadder Goes Forth and Paul McCartney’s Pipes of Peace video. Such clichés are absent from Berger’s take. All Quiet on the Western Front instead feels like a Teutonic soulmate of Sam Mendes’s 1917, which likewise re-cast the ghastliness of the trenches as a haunting Neverland.

The film, which has a staggering 14 Bafta nominations, tells the story of 17-year-old German recruit Paul Bäumer (a charismatically mopey Felix Kammerer), across the span of the war. He is introduced as a naïve adolescent who lies about his age to sign up with his equally patriotic pals. But as soon as he reaches the frontline, he has the sense of entering a dystopian otherworld. That sci-fi factor reaches its inevitable conclusion when a phalanx of monstrously boxy French tanks rumble into view, sprung free from an HG Wells nightmare.

The dreaminess leaves little room for a conventional plot (another parallel with 1917). Berger and cinematographer James Friend have instead stitched together a series of vignettes that by turns convey the banality and the terrifying white-heat of the killing fields. The effect is visceral. A grey haze descends whenever the machine guns strike up and Paul and his friends – portrayed with cheery charm by Aaron Hilmer, Adrian Grünewald and Albrecht Schuch – become snarled in smoke and mummified in muck. These vividly-drawn characters are suddenly rendered indistinguishable: a commentary, surely, on how war reduces young men to indistinguishable killing machines or targets.

The tumult in the trenches is juxtaposed with the more orthodox account of German politician Matthias Erzberger (Daniel Brühl) and his desperate efforts to bring the conflict to a close to prevent further needless deaths. He is opposed not just by the warmongering French but the Berlin military establishment. As personified by General Friedrich (Devid Striesow), they believe German honour must be safeguarded by continuing to toss teenagers into the meat grinder.

What stays with you is the eeriness. Two figures face off in a forest glade, framed by icy light. French soldiers in dehumanising gas-masks wield flamethrowers. Paul staggers from a tunnel wearing a funeral shroud of white ash. There are moments, admittedly, when All Quiet on the Western Front makes you feel as though you’re sitting through the most profound PlayStation cut-scene ever made. But the beauty is unrelenting and finally claustrophobic. Berger’s evocation of war and its horrors ultimately connects not at an intellectual level but where it truly matters: in the gut.

15 cert, 147 min. On Netflix now

Why the ‘Jewish treachery’ of All Quiet on the Western Front drove Joseph Goebbels mad

Tom Fordy
Thu, January 19, 2023 

In this article:

'It's not about politics': All Quiet on the Western Front showed the grim reality of life in the trenches - Reiner Bajo

In December 1930, Joseph Goebbels led an attack against the landmark anti-war film, All Quiet on the Western Front, based on the controversial, hugely successful novel published in 1928 by Erich Maria Remarque, a First World War veteran.

Last year a German-language retelling of the book was made by Edward Berger for Netflix, earning rave reviews and armfuls of nominations at the 2023 Baftas, as well as becoming the favourite to win Best International Feature Film at the Oscars in March. It is the first film adaptation by a German director. “If your [American] great-grandfather fought in the war, he came back and was celebrated and embraced,” has said Berger. “It’s just a different legacy in Germany. It’s only shame and guilt – that informs every creative decision I make.”

The original 1930 American-made film, directed by the Russian-born Lewis Milestone, depicted the bleak, traumatising reality for Germans in the trenches. In the story, a group of school chums enlist – all hyped up on the glory of war – and perish one-by-one. The film was critically acclaimed in the United States, Britain, and France; by the time it reached Germany, All Quiet on the Western Front had won Academy Awards for Outstanding Production and Best Director.

The National Socialists had warned against showing the film in Germany, though a lowkey industry preview in Berlin went smoothly enough. German critics, particularly those on the Right, disliked the film – not for any lack of artistic merit but for its portrayal of German soldiers and war disillusionment. The Nazi newspaper, Der Angriff, called the film a “Jewish lie”, while the liberal newspaper Vossische Zeitung claimed that the screening had provoked a “profound effect on the audience”.

The following night, on December 5 1930, the film premiered in Berlin’s swanky Mozart Hall. Goebbels and his brownshirts bought up a third of the tickets. Ten minutes into the presentation, Goebbels arose from his seat and headed to the exit, signalling the brownshirts to begin a chaotic disruption. They bellowed over the film – “Jews out! Germany awake! Hitler is at the gates!” – and unleashed stink bombs and white mice into the auditorium. Goebbels later boasted in his diary about the pandemonium: “After only 10 minutes the cinema is like a madhouse”. There was rioting outside the theatre and several more days of Goebbels-led trouble. The German government swiftly banned All Quiet on the Western Front.

“They banned it because there was a culture war going on,” says Alexander Watson, Professor of History at Goldsmiths University. “They didn’t ban it because it’s inaccurate. The Nazis made enough disruption that the government gave in – ‘Let’s ban it because it’s a danger to public order.’” Indeed, it was a victory for the rising Nazis. Joseph Goebbels – the party’s soon-to-be chief propagandist – understood the power of film.

Ninety-three years on, All Quiet on the Western Front remains a profoundly stirring piece of cinema – old-timey hokeyness punctuated with the bombshell-like moments of hellish violence and deep, soul-troubling sadness.

Netflix’s new adaptation realises the story on a scale way beyond the means and technology of the 1930 version. It plays like an opponent to Sam Mendes’ 1917 – told from across the battle lines – and gets deep into the filth, guts, and industrialisation of mass death. But few scenes equal a climactic moment from the 1930 film, as Lew Ayres’ hero, Paul Bäumer, carries his last surviving pal to safety – unaware that his friend is already dead. The scene was apparently inspired by a real-life incident in which Remarque had carried a wounded comrade back from the battlefield.

Remarque was called up in 1916, aged 18, and was sent towards the Western Front the following year. He never made it as far as the frontline. Wounded by grenade splinters in the Battle of Flanders, he spent most of the remaining war in hospital. All Quiet on the Western Front – Im Westen nichts Neues in the original German – was partly autobiographical but also based on second-hand accounts from fellow soldiers, some whom he’d met in the infirmary.

Im Westen nichts Neues was first serialised in Vossische Zeitung, a liberal Berlin newspaper, at the end of 1928. It was cleverly marketed – presented as an authentic account of life in the German trenches. The serialisation tripled the circulation of the newspaper, which was reported to sell out each edition. The book followed in January 1929.

Coming at a complex time for post-WWI Germany – when the country was facing reparations, a wave of militarism, and its own sense of loss – the story struck. By the end of the year, Im Westen nichts Neues had sold over a million copies and was translated into more than 20 languages.

Witness to history: Erich Maria Remarque, circa 1950

 - Albert Harlingue/Roger Viollet

“There are so many war novels – you cannot count them!” says Holger Afflerbach, Professor of Modern European History at Leeds University. “Why this one? The overwhelming success shows that it was an appropriate and maybe true story about how the war was experienced by the normal soldier. It’s not about generals, it’s not about strategy, it’s about ordinary men.

“There’s a common theme in many of the soldiers’ recollections. Millions of people had to go through awful experiences – maybe they came as volunteers and discovered the realities of the war at the frontline. They were angry. This anger stayed with them for years after the war – that they had to go through it and that others had let it happen. They felt betrayed.”

The book was controversial. In Germany, the Right accused Remarque of betraying the country; his book dismantled the image of mighty German heroism. Other countries, including Italy, banned it.

Alexander Watson, whose book Ring of Steel is about Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI, explains other reasons for its controversy. “Remarque was largely welcomed in Britain and France,” says Watson. “The impact in Germany – particularly the film – was far more complicated. Remarque presents the war as something that’s fundamentally pointless. We can say, ‘This is terrible and shouldn’t have happened’ if we’ve won. For the Germans it was much more difficult to accept because they had 2 million dead. How do you justify all those deaths to bereaved families – to say those deaths meant something – if a book comes out and says it was entirely pointless?”

The film rights were snapped up by Carl Laemmle, a German-born Jew and the founder of Universal Pictures. His son, the Hollywood wunderkind Carl Laemmle Jr, took the reins as producer. The film – a sombre, harrowing, un-heroic treatment on why war is most definitely hell – was risky for Universal. It also had the potential to transform the relatively minor studio into a major player.

Several writers worked on the screenplay, and newspapers from the time reported that Milestone had resisted calls to shoehorn a love story into the carnage. The film remained mostly faithful to the book. Remarque, when selling the rights, requested that the story wasn’t significantly altered. He wanted to maintain its anti-war message.

Outgunned and exhausted: German infantry resting during a lull in battle - Bettmann

Like Remarque, director Lewis Milestone had served – but in a very different capacity. He learned his craft in the Photographic Division of the United States Signal Corps. Based in Washington, he made training films and edited combat footage. As recalled in Andrew Kelly’s book, All Quiet on the Western Front: The Story of a Film, Milestone employed German veterans as behind-the-scenes advisors and technicians: one German veteran, Otto Biber, taught the actors how to goosestep. Also enlisted was landmark cinematographer Arthur Edeson (who also shot Frankenstein and Casablanca). Edeson’s work would prove vital for All Quiet’s first-of-their kind battles scenes.

Lew Ayres – who became a popular Hollywood star through a series of Dr Kildare films – took the lead role of Paul Bäumer, who loses all of friends after joining the 2nd Company. Ayres later caused some controversy for declaring himself as a conscientious objector during the Second World War – though he did enlist as a medic and served in the Pacific. Playing Bäumer’s closest comrade, the grizzled mentor Katz, was the likable, potato-ish Louis Wolheim. He died suddenly the following year, aged just 50.

All Quiet on the Western Front began production on November 11 1929 – the anniversary of the WWI armistice – a symbolic, publicity-friendly gesture. The film begins amped up on war enthusiasm – soldiers parading through adorning crowds, boys itching to fight. Bäumer and his friends are talked into volunteering by their school teacher, Kantorek (played with menace by Arnold Lucy). Echoing the words in Remarque’s novel, Kantorek tells his pupils that they are “the life of the Fatherland… the iron men of Germany… the gay heroes who will repulse the enemy when you are called upon to do so.” The scene is maddening – all maniacal laughter and spoiling for bloodshed. One pupil imagines putting on the Imperial uniform to show his parents at home – his mother is horrified, his father is proud as punch.

Kantorek personifies what Holger Afflerbach describes as “treacherous patriotism”. All Quiet on the Western Front is perhaps not as unpolitical as Remarque had claimed. “It is very clearly a reckoning with old-style patriotism,” says Afflerbach. “It’s this 19th century European patriotism that was taught in grammar schools. The teacher is probably the most negative figure in the entire story.”

'Treacherous patriotism': an early scene from Netflix's All Quiet on the Western Front - ReinerBajo

These early scenes play into the long-held view of Germans greeting the war enthusiastically. “When war broke out in 1914, German newspapers were talking about war enthusiasm,” says Alexander Watson. “There were pictures of big crowds gathering, singing patriotic songs, shouting things like, ‘Down with Russia!’

“But a lot of research has been done since that shows a vast majority of Germans were very scared – most people didn’t want war. There were some crowds before war broke out, but those patriotic crowds were disproportionately students – and they were often gathering before Germany looked like it was entering the war. They were gathering to support Austria. It’s difficult to say whether they wanted war themselves.

“But once war breaks out, people go. Russia mobilises first so it looks like Germany is under threat of invasion. People in Germany said, ‘We don’t want to go but we’ve got to defend the country.’ It’s not that people were war enthused – it looked like it was ultimately necessary that they went.”

After enlisting, Bäumer and his pals are like children – all excited by their new army bunk beds – but are soon face-down in the mud, or going underpants-on-the-head crazy under the constant artillery bombardments.

The film is occasionally daft by modern standards – a company of German Imperial soldiers with Yankee Doodle accents, which may have rankled some German viewers. But even now, the trench warfare and battle scenes are a thundering, hellacious experience: screeching bombs, earth-rattling explosions, scores of men cut down by machinegun fire, and severed hands left clutching to barbed wire – a precursor to The Longest Day, Paths of Glory, and Saving Private Ryan.

There’s also hand-to-hand combat; bayonets that come spearing towards the camera. “All [other battles] shown previously are tame by comparison,” wrote a Los Angeles critic after the film’s premiere. Ninety-five years since the advent of talkies, it's now hard to imagine how terrifying and real the battles must have sounded to audiences at the time.

In one scene, Bäumer bayonets a French soldier and has to face watching him die. The new film replays the scene more gruesomely – a grim depiction of a violent death and trauma – but the original scene remains equally affecting. “Forgive me, comrade,” pleads Bäumer. “If we threw away these uniforms, we could be brothers.”

Bone-shaking accuracy: a battle scene from 1930's All Quiet on the Western Front

- John Kobal Foundation/Getty Images

The film was ahead of its time in striving for historical accuracy. The no-man’s land scenes were filmed at Irvine Ranch, south of Hollywood, where they used real dynamite blasts to create shell craters, and filled them with dirty water. When a rainstorm hit the production, Lewis Milestone sent his actors out into the torrid conditions for added realism.

As detailed in Andrew Kelly’s book, a sanitary inspector temporarily shut down the production for its all-too-real conditions. The inspector was accompanied by a nurse who had spent time at a field hospital in Dijon. “It brings back to mind all the terrible anguish of that struggle,” the nurse said.

Universal spent a reported $27,500 on real uniforms, rifles, gas masks, and field equipment from the war. The production was so epic that it went way over budget, rocketing from a planned $900,000 to $1.4 million. Publicity at the time claimed that twenty tons of gunpowder and ten tons of dynamite were used, while Universal also reported that 2,000 extras had been recruited – veterans from the American Legion and various nationalities. One veteran had shell-shock from his experiences and had to be sent home.

“Except for not using real bullets, we might as well have been in the war,” said cinematographer Arthur Edeson. “There were some close calls with explosions.” Indeed, newspapers reported in January 1930 that Lewis Milestone was almost killed in one explosion. He was hospitalised by a flying two-by-four. A German trench helmet had saved his life.

Like Remarque’s book, the film is often most powerful away from the battlefield. In one scene, the soldiers query why or how the war began, which has become a trope of WWI stories (Baldrick asks Blackadder the same before they go over the top). “Somebody must have wanted it?” ask the German soldiers about the war. “Maybe it was the English? It must be doing somebody some good. Maybe the Kaiser wanted a war?” Nobody seems to know.

“By 1917 soldiers were asking, ‘Why is this war lasting so long?’” says Alexander Watson. “There was a worry that the German government and army wanted the war to continue because they wanted to expand Germany and profit from it.”

For Holger Afflerbach, not dwelling on politics may explain the story's success. “It was not about politics,” Afflerbach says. “It was about the experience – they go through the gruesome experience and try to keep alive. It’s also the peer group experience. It's not the Kaiser that keeps them going. If they don’t stick together and look out for each other, they will die.”

Awful realism: a scene from Lewis Milestone's All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) - ullstein bild/ullstein bild

At times, the film is as much about hunger as death, with the 2nd Company scrambling for something – anything – to eat. It's certainly accurate: the British cut off Germany from international trade via a naval blockade. Around 750,000 Germans died of malnutrition or related diseases.

In another poignant sequence, Bäumer returns home briefly, where he’s surrounded by fusty old men who – having been nowhere near a trench – insist that the war needs to continue. “You must give the Frenchies a good licking,” says one. Bäumer returns to his school and warns Kantorek and the pupils about the less-than-triumphant realities of war. “It’s easier to say go out and die than it is to do it,” he says. Bäumer is called a coward, echoing the criticisms hurled at Remarque.

The scenes describe a discord between the frontline and folks back home. “Most people knew in 1914 that it was going to be terrible, but they didn’t know how terrible, or how long it was going to last,” says Watson. “Soldiers at the front did get very angry at the staff and generals, and there was some division between the soldiers at the front and home. In letters I’ve read you do see criticism of war-enthused people at home – who don’t know what on earth is going on – while soldiers are bearing the brunt.

“At the same time, you wouldn’t know from Remarque that German soldiers were heavily dependent on support from the home front – 28 billion letters and parcels were passed back and forth. By the second half of the war, the home front was very scarce on food but German families were still sending the soldiers whatever they could get.”

Lewis Milestone agonised over how to end the film. It was settled when a cinematographer friend, Karl Freud, said it should be “as simple as a butterfly”. In the final scene, Bäumer – his friends now all dead – spies a butterfly on the edge of no-man's land. He reaches to touch it but his hand goes limp – killed by a sniper days before the Armistice.

All Quiet on the Western Front was hailed as a masterpiece. “Universal Pictures deserves the thanks of mankind for their courage in making the picture,” wrote one American critic in June 1930.

As detailed by historian Jerold Simmons, the filmmakers had liaised with the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America to navigate any material that may cause problems with domestic censors. Overseas, different countries requested different edits – all according to their own national sensitivities. The traditionally censorious Brits requested just one small edit. But Universal was most concerned with Germany, the second biggest market in Europe. The film was first shown to the German Embassy, which suggested small changes. The German censor board then approved the film with a few additional cuts.

For the Nazis – who made considerable gains in the 1930 election – All Quiet on the Western Front presented a political opportunity. The government was weak and nationalists, Nazi or otherwise, agreed that the German army should be perceived as strong. The Right wanted to maintain the myth that Germany had not lost the war on the battlefield, but because of liberal and Jewish treachery. The film had provoked a violent reaction in the post-WWI culture war.

Joseph Goebbels – who hadn’t actually fought in WWI – slated the film as a “Jewish version of a German soldier’s life”. His thuggish demonstrations raged on and the film was banned. The censor board denied that the Nazis has forced its hand. All Quiet on the Western Front was banned elsewhere, too, including Austria (where there was also nationalist uproar) Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and, oddly, New Zealand

Universal fought to re-release the film in Germany and, with some modest cuts, it was shown again in September 1931. There were no protests this time. The outrage was largely forgotten. “The film had lost its symbolic power” wrote Jerold Simmons.

Master manipulator: Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, understood the power of film - Albert Harlingue/Roger Viollet via Getty Images

The Nazis banned the film again and burned Remarque’s book when they took power in 1933. Remarque himself – who wrote further war novels, including The Road Back – fled Germany. In 1943, the Nazis beheaded his sister. All Quiet on the Western Front was not shown again in Germany until 1952, and was not seen uncut until the 1980s – though, as Alexander Watson explains, likely due to lack of interest, rather than the film’s symbolic power.

Just as the not-entirely-accurate idea of “lions led by donkeys” dictates the memory of WWI in Britain, All Quiet on the Western Front is crucial in the cultural memory of WWI – a story that has shaped the popular narrative of the war from the German perspective.

“There’s some truth in all of what Remarque says,” explains Alexander Watson. “War enthusiasm, disillusionment and anger, old men being belligerent when they’re not the ones making the sacrifices. There’s some truth to the idea that for Germany it was ultimately a pointless war. They lost it. It was incredibly destructive.

“But people got offended in Germany because it’s not ‘whole’ truth. Remarque’s interpretation was disillusionment and pointlessness – it’s only about the horror and pointlessness. That’s not how Germans wanted to see it at the time – particularly Germans who lost family members. A lot of people thought it was a necessary war of defence in spite of those horrors. The problem with Germany embracing pacifism is you can’t justify those 2 million dead. How on earth do you justify a war that is lost?”

All Quiet on the Western Front is on Netflix now; the Baftas take place on 19 February

IN THE ERA OF BIRD FLU H1N5
Egg Smuggling Is on the Rise at the US Border as Prices Soar

Jelisa Castrodale
Fri, January 20, 2023 

U.S. Customs and Border Protections says it's experienced a 108% increase in the number of eggs and poultry products seized at U.S. ports of entry.

Nikada / Getty Images

The cost of eggs has steadily increased over the last year, to the point where all of us have probably stared at the price and thought, “that can’t be right.” But it’s true: The average cost for a dozen eggs hit $4.25 in December — and in some states, 12 eggs are selling for over $7.

But in Juarez, Mexico, shoppers can pick up a mega-carton of 30 eggs for the incredible-by-comparison price of $3.40. That kind of bargain seems to have prompted some U.S. citizens to travel across the border to buy eggs in Mexico, despite the fact that it’s against federal law to bring uncooked eggs or poultry products across the border.

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), between October 1 and December 31, 2022, it saw a 108% increase in the number of eggs and poultry products seized at U.S. ports of entry.

“My advice is, don’t bring them over,” CBP Supervisory Agriculture Specialist Charles Payne told the online publication Border Report. “If you fail to declare them or try to smuggle them, you face civil penalties.”

Those penalties aren’t cheap, either. The fines for bringing undeclared raw eggs into the U.S. start at $300 and could increase to as much as $10,000. Before you get any ideas, no, you can’t just declare your egg haul to CBP officers and then drive home to make a less-expensive omelet. Even declared raw eggs will be seized and incinerated, but declaring that you’re transporting eggs will save you from any financial penalties.

“The advantage of declaring it is, we will pick it up with no penalty issued,” Payne said. “If you fail to declare it or if you attempt to smuggle it, there’s going to be a penalty.”

On Wednesday, Jennifer De La O, the Director of Field Operations at the CBP’s office in San Diego, tweeted that those ports of entry have also seen an uptick in egg smugglers.


“The San Diego Field Office has recently noticed an increase in the number of eggs intercepted at our ports of entry,” she wrote. “As a reminder, uncooked eggs are prohibited entry from Mexico into the U.S. Failure to declare agriculture items can result in penalties of up to $10,000.”

Specialist Payne did confirm to NBC San Diego that “personal meals” containing cooked eggs or cooked poultry would be allowed to cross the border. Sounds like you might want to get that omelet to go.

Customs officials are seizing eggs at the U.S.-Mexico border

Khristopher J. Brooks
Fri, January 20, 2023 

U.S. customs officials are cracking down on egg smugglers.

With egg prices soaring in the U.S. over the last year, more Americans are crossing into Mexico to buy the food item and trying to sneak cartons of raw eggs along some areas of the southern border, including California and Texas.

"We are seeing an increase in people attempting to cross eggs from Juarez to El Paso because they are significantly less expensive in Mexico than the U.S.," U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Roger Maier told CBS MoneyWatch. "This is also occurring with added frequency at other Southwest border locations."

Egg prices have soared 60% in a year. Here's why.

Jennifer De La O, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection field operations director in San Diego, said in a tweet this week that her office "has recently noticed an increase in the number of eggs intercepted at our ports." Failure to declare agricultural items while entering the U.S. can carry fines of up to $10,000, she added.

Federal law prohibits travelers from bringing certain agriculture products — including eggs, as well as live chickens and turkeys — into the U.S. "because they may carry plant pests and foreign animal diseases," according to customs rules. Eggs from Mexico have been banned from entering the U.S. since 2012, according to the USDA. Cooked eggs are allowable under USDA guidelines.

A 30-count carton of eggs confiscated in January at a El Paso, Texas, border checkpoint. / Credit: U.S. Customs and Border Protection

The number of incidents in which raw eggs were confiscated at U.S. borders jumped more than 100% during the final three months of 2022 compared to the same period a year ago, according to Border Report, an online news site focused on immigration issues. The price for a 30-count carton of eggs in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, is $3.40, according to Border Report.

Egg prices in the U.S. have surged to an average of $4.25 a dozen, up from roughly $1.79 a year ago, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The cost of processed eggs — used in liquid or powdered form in manufactured products including salad dressing, cake mix and chips — has also risen.

Those price increases are being driven by growing consumer demand along with a decrease in domestic egg supplies caused by an avian flu epidemic that has devastated U.S. poultry flocks.

Nearly 58 million birds have been infected with the disease, while more than 43 million egg-laying hens have been slaughtered, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, making it the deadliest avian flu outbreak in American history. USDA officials are investigating what caused the outbreak.

People entering the U.S. must declare eggs at the border, Charles Payne, supervisory agriculture specialist at U.S. Customs in El Paso, Texas, told Border Report. A customs officer will still confiscate the eggs and have them destroyed, but will waive the penalty for the offender.

"We don't want to issue the penalties, but occasionally we have to," Payner told Border Report. "So if you declare what you've got, there won't be an issue."

The State that Wants to Ban Electric Vehicles

William Dahl
Fri, January 20, 2023 


A group of lawmakers in Wyoming has introduced a bill to ban sales of electric vehicles in the state by 2035, claiming the move will boost the state’s oil and gas industry while ensuring its ability to trade with other states.

Wyoming’s proposed phaseout of electric vehicles (EVs) would be timed for 2035 — the same year that California has pledged to phase out gas-powered cars. The proposal is mostly being viewed as a tongue-in-cheek response to progressive overreach in California.

Even if Wyoming manages to stamp out the EV revolution within its borders, it would be little consolation to the anti-EV lawmakers. California has a population over 52 times greater than Wyoming’s, and in late 2022, the Golden State surpassed Germany as the world’s fourth-largest economy.

If California were a country, only three nations would have a higher gross domestic product. They are, in order, the remaining 49 U.S. states, China and Japan. France, Italy, Brazil and the United Kingdom all have smaller economies than the $3.63 trillion in economic activity California achieved in 2022.

This dynamic is consequential to the clean energy transition because, in many ways, as California goes, so goes the nation. For example, the Trump administration sued California over its clean energy standards in 2018 because it knew that the biggest car manufacturers — from Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) and General Motors Co. (NYSE: GM) to Toyota Motor Corp. (NYSE: TM) — would manufacture vehicles to comply with California’s energy regulations over the looser ones of the Trump White House rather than forgo such a massive market.

Of course, President Joe Biden’s rise to the White House made that legal conflict moot. Today, the White House and California’s state government are working in tandem to hasten the transition to electric vehicles — including the federal initiative to spend $7.5 billion building America’s first-ever national network of EV charging stations.

But even this historic network of chargers pales in comparison to the $369 billion the federal government is spending to boost solar, wind, thermal and new battery technologies. This $369 billion package is not just the largest single sum the U.S. government has ever spent to boost clean energy, it’s the largest by far. Among numerous clean energy carveouts, it allows taxpayers to claim a 30% deduction on solar installation costs on their homes or businesses through 2032.

That’s great news for YouSolar, a startup company that’s helping customers transition to the electric grid. It’s doing so with the help of a nano-grid technology that delivers clean, reliable power with next to no involvement from the traditional energy grid. And given what you’ve just read on California’s vow to transition to clean energy, you won’t be surprised to learn that the company is already seeing more demand in Northern California than it can keep up with.

This article originally appeared on Benzinga.com

Wyoming Lawmaker Admits EV Ban Proposal Was Just a Stupid Stunt

Andy Kalmowitz
Fri, January 20, 2023 

A Tesla car recharges its battery at a Supercharger on March 10, 2022 in San Bruno, California.

It’s a shock for absolutely no one, that the Wyoming Republican State Senator who sponsored a bill that would phase out electric vehicle sales in the state by 2035 said he never intended it to pass, and it was really just a stunt. According to Automotive News, State Senator Jim Anderson added that he doesn’t begrudge anyone for buying EVs.

 What a guy.

Basically, the bill only existed as a dumb middle finger to other states that were moving in the opposite direction, i.e. phasing out internal combustion-powered vehicles. It specifically takes aim at new rules from the California Air Resources Board which aims to push zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

Anderson says this is all being done in an effort to preserve customer choice. “It’s not good to dictate to the citizens what kind of vehicles they’re gonna buy, because of all the problems with [electric vehicles],” Anderson told Automotive News. He went on to say that the bill is meant to “make a statement.”

“If we pass it or don’t pass it, it doesn’t matter,” he said. So yeah, it was all just a big stunt to drum up outrage.

Part of the bill says that as EVs become the norm it will have “deleterious impacts” on Wyoming since the oil and gas industry has “long been one of Wyoming’s proud and valued industries.”

Anderson said that despite the fact the bill encourages industries and citizens to limit sales and purchase of new electric vehicles, folks in Wyoming can still buy any type of vehicle they want.

The bill also contains a number of inaccuracies including the idea that battery materials are not “easily recyclable or disposable.” It adds that Wyoming’s landfills are incapable of handling “all the batteries that are hazardous material.”

A spokesperson for the Zero Emissison Transportation Association told AutoNews that the idea of EV batteries not being recyclable is “clearly not the case.” They added that most battery components are “infinitely reusable” as long as critical minerals maintain their purity.

The bill is functionally dead in committee, but if by some weird miracle it does make its way though and passes, it won’t really have much of an impact on vehicle sales. The outlet reports that car buyers in Wyoming only purchased 228 electric vehicles in the first 11 months of last year. Somehow that wasn’t the lowest total, though, as only 213 BEVs were purchased by North Dakota residents last year.

So, what have we learned here? Well, other than the fact some lawmakers will waste everyone’s time with pointless, dead-end, self-serving bills, nothing really. But, I suppose we already knew that.

More from Jalopnik

The used electric car market is 

starting to take off as prices slowly drop

Alexa St. John

Thu, January 19, 2023 

The average cost of a new EV hit $61,448 in December, but consumers are seeing new EV prices start to creep down — and that's making used EV prices drop.R.J. Johnston/Toronto Star

• A lot of car-buyers can't afford a new electric vehicle, but are curious about used ones.

• Today's pricey electric vehicles will one day enter the used vehicle market.

• That could play a role in the used EV market — and tax credits might not help yet.

The average cost of a new EV hit $61,448 in December, according to Kelley Blue Book — well over the $49,507 paid, on average, for a new internal-combustion engine vehicle. That's a problem for the automakers in the ever-urgent race for greater EV adoption.

Prices are coming down, but it will take time and isn't a guarantee. Much of that depends on forces outside of automakers' control, like dynamics within the battery supply chain.

A lot of would-be EV buyers are becoming more interested in the used market as a way to drive a cleaner car without such a hefty price tag.

Surveys from firm Recurrent found that just over 50% of EV shoppers in 2021 were instead interested in purchasing a used EV; a year later, that number was closer to 80%.

At first glance, today's product pipeline might not paint a good picture for the future of the used EV market. About 77% of all EV sales in the fourth-quarter commanded luxury prices, according to consultancy Anderson Economic Group. The F-150 Lightning, for instance, starts at almost $56,000. The GMC Hummer pickup will cost you about $100,000. The Cadillac Lyriq starts at nearly $63,000. Rivian's R1T has a starting cost of $73,000.

Lessons learned from the used gas-car market

If you look at the internal-combustion engine world, luxury vehicles account for about 17% of the market share, Kristin Dziczek, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago policy advisor, said at the firm's recent auto insights symposium in Detroit.

Prioritizing these and more profitable vehicles over market share has consequences for the future used market.

"If what we've produced in the last couple of years has been a rich mix, when that goes into the used market, that keeps used prices elevated as well," Dziczek said.

The question is how the EV market will react to similar dynamics.

Electric car prices creeping downward

Consumers are seeing new EV prices start to creep down; December's number was down from the month before, in part driven by anticipation of stipulations in the Inflation Reduction Act making GM and Tesla eligible for crucial federal EV tax credits again.

Overall declines for used vehicle prices also generally apply to used EVs. The average price of a used EV, about $32,750 in December, is down about 14.4% since a peak of $38,500 last July, according to Recurrent's index of popular used EV models.

As new EV prices drop, so might their used counterparts.

"Effectively, when you bring down the new alternative, what you would imagine is that used prices for Model 3s and Bolts would come down quickly as well," said Recurrent's CEO Scott Case. "The huge Tesla price drops in new Tesla pricing that just happened last week out of the blue pretty much have a direct dollar-for-dollar impact on used Tesla prices."

What's more, "Any impact on automakers deciding to prioritize high-end EVs would not be felt for a while in the used market," Case said.

Used EVs remain more expensive than used gas-cars, and many might not yet qualify for the used EV tax credit based on its price cap.Mark Matousek / Business Insider

Don't count on the used EV tax credit, yet

Still, used EVs remain more expensive than used gas-cars (the average listing price for the latter was $27,143 in December, per Cox Automotive). The used EV tax credit introduced in last summer's Inflation Reduction Act could be an answer in the near-term.

Taxpayers are eligible for an up to $4,000 credit or 30% of the vehicle price, so long as the vehicle is at least two years old, under $25,000, and sold by a licensed dealership, according to the Zero Emission Transportation Association. (The taxpayer also has to meet income caps).

But a majority of used EVs don't yet comply with those criteria.

"It's looking like less than a million of these vehicles will be eligible for this tax credit this year on account of being over $25,000 when you buy them," David Gohlke, energy and environmental analyst at Argonne National Laboratory, said at the Fed symposium.

Dealers are starting to feel incentivized to drop used EVs priced close to the cap to just below it.

OPPORTUNIST
Kyrsten Sinema was pivotal in Senate’s failure to pass voting-rights legislation in 2022. She’s sanguine about it at Davos.

Last Updated: Jan. 20, 2023
By Associated Press

The Arizona moderate has since left the Democratic Party and declared herself the chamber’s third independent, all three of whom caucus with the Democrats.


Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, backed by then-Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, speaks at a news conference in November after the Senate passed the Marriage Equality Act. 

ANNA MONEYMAKER/GETTY IMAGES

U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema says democracy is still alive despite her refusal to eliminate the filibuster so Democrats could pass legislation securing voting rights ahead of the 2022 election.

Sinema says Congress didn’t pass the voting-rights bill, and “then we had a free and fair election.” She spoke Tuesday in a panel session with a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers and governors at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

Sinema is a moderate senator from Arizona who has positioned herself as a bipartisan dealmaker. Her support for a Senate rule requiring support from 60% of lawmakers to pass most legislation was a major source of tension in her strained relationship with Democrats, who worry that allies of former U.S. President Donald Trump will interfere with elections or limit through a variety of means access to the ballot among voters likely to lean Democratic.

Sinema left the Democratic Party late last year, registering as an independent as she nears the end of her first term. She hasn’t said whether she will run for re-election in 2024.

From the archives (March 2021): Voting rights intensify as partisan battleground, with Democrats pushing H.R. 1 and Republicans altering election procedures at state level

The Arizonan added that “the push by one political party to eliminate an important guardrail and an institution in our country may have been premature and overreaching, in order to get the short-term victories they wanted.”

NOW PLAYING: Proceeding With Caution

She and Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia and another holdout on the proposed elimination of the filibuster rule, shared a high-five.

Sinema said the era of divided government is an opportunity for the country to reckon with extreme partisanship.

Lawmakers from both parties said they’re confident the United States will keep supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russia despite a group of right-wing lawmakers who want to cut off aid.

Rep. María Elvira Salazar, a Republican from Florida, said “we’re going to liberate Europe, quote unquote, in 2023 just like we did in 1945. We understand that that is our duty.”

 

 

 

  

Democrat Ruben Gallego to run for Senate against Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona

Eric Garcia
Fri, January 20, 2023

(Getty Images)

Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego will announce his decision to run against Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona next week, CBS News reported.

Mr Gallego, a Marine veteran who served in the Iraq War, will challenge Ms Sinema after she announced her exit from the Democratic Party to become an independent last month. Ms Sinema still caucuses with Democrats.

Despite her prolific capability to pass legislation on guns, same-sex marriage and infrastructure, Ms Sinema angered many Democrats because of her caginess about support Build Back Better, Democrats’ social spending legislation that died in 2021.

In addition, she and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia continue to support the filibuster, which many Democrats see as a tool for obstruction.

This week, Ms Sinema spoke at the World Economic Forum at Davos and reaffirmed her support for the filibuster with Mr Manchin.

Mr Gallego criticised Ms Sinema’s appearance at the forum, noting how she has not held a town hall for many years, though he said he hadn’t decided whether to run.

“Kyrsten Sinema hasn’t held a town hall in Arizona for years. Instead, she flies to Switzerland for a town hall with the rich and powerful,” he tweeted. “Not a Joke!”

Mr Gallego served in the US Marine Corps and fought in the Iraq War. He also served in the Arizona state legislature before he ran for Congress and won in 2014.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M HUBRIS

Elizabeth Holmes still shows 'no remorse to her victims' and continues to live on an estate costing $13,000 a month, prosecutors say


Kate Duffy
Fri, January 20, 2023

Elizabeth Holmes lives on an expensive estate while appealing her conviction, prosecutors said in a court filing.CNBC/Getty Images

Elizabeth Holmes lives on an expensive estate, prosecutors said in a court filing.


They said her estate costs $13,000 a month in upkeep, according to cash statements from Holmes.


The Theranos founder still shows "no remorse to her victims," prosecutors said.

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes still shows "no remorse to victims" and is living on an estate costing $13,000 a month during her appeal, US prosecutors said.

In a court document filed on Thursday, government lawyers said Holmes had lived on the estate for more than a year. They said the estate costs more than $13,000 to maintain each month, according to cash flow statements Holmes has given to the US probation office, per the document, reviewed by Insider.

After being found guilty of four fraud-related charges, Holmes in November was sentenced to 11.25 years in prison. She appealed her conviction in early December, according to court filings.

Holmes "continues to show no remorse to her victims," the prosecutors said in the document.

Under the justice system, criminal defendants should begin serving their custodial sentence, the prosecutors said in the document. But Holmes wants to relax her travel restrictions due to "vague references" to her partner Billy Evans's work schedule, they added in the document.

Holmes has listed Evans's salary as $0, but has also said that he paid the bills every month, the prosecutors said in the document.

"There are not two systems of justice — one for the wealthy and one for the poor — there is one criminal justice system in this country," they wrote in the document.

The prosecutors said it was time for Holmes to "answer for her crimes committed nearly a decade ago" and "begin serving the term of imprisonment imposed by this Court," per the document.

Holmes, who was depicted in the Hulu drama "The Dropout," which starred Amanda Seyfried, dropped out of Stanford at 19 to start her blood-testing startup Theranos and grew its value to $9 billion. She's expected to report to prison on April 27, 2023.

Elizabeth Holmes attempted to ‘flee’ US after conviction for Theranos fraud, prosecutors allege



Jared Gans
Fri, January 20, 2023 at 5:04 PM MST·2 min read

Theranos founder and former CEO Elizabeth Holmes tried to “flee” the United States a few weeks after her conviction for fraud last year, prosecutors said in a court filing Thursday.

Holmes was found guilty of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud last January for misleading investors about the effectiveness of her startup company’s blood-testing technology. She was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison in November.

Holmes has since appealed her conviction and filed a motion to be released from detention at an estate while her appeal plays out. But prosecutors said in a filing opposing her motion that Holmes has not shown “clear and convincing evidence” that she is not a flight risk, in large part because she allegedly planned a flight to Mexico after being convicted.

Prosecutors said in the filing that Holmes’s legal defense has argued that she has a “flawless” pretrial record but does not mention her “attempt to flee.” They said the government learned on Jan. 23, 2022, that Holmes booked a one-way flight to Mexico scheduled for Jan. 26, but a return flight was not scheduled.

The government then mentioned the trip to Holmes’s defense attorney, and the flight was canceled after that, prosecutors said.

They said they expect Holmes will argue in reply to their filing that she did not actually leave the country, but it is difficult to know what would have happened without government intervention. They said the incentive for Holmes to flee the country has never been higher, and she has the resources to do so.

Theranos received widespread publicity and large investments from numerous prominent figures as a result of Holmes’s claims that her technology could test for a wide array of conditions with a simple blood test only requiring one drop of blood.

But prosecutors said she did not inform investors of defects with the technology.

Holmes is due to surrender herself to custody on April 27.

An attorney for Holmes did not immediately return a request from The Hill for comment.


Elizabeth Holmes bought one-way ticket to Mexico, prosecutors say

TAYLOR DUNN
Fri, January 20, 2023 

A new court filing by the U.S. government opposing Elizabeth Holmes’ motion for release pending appeal shows that Holmes bought a one-way ticket to Mexico set to leave weeks after her fraud conviction.

Holmes, founder of the shuttered blood testing company Theranos, was convicted on Jan. 3, 2022, on four counts of wire fraud for defrauding investors out of millions of dollars. She was acquitted on four other charges and a mistrial was declared in three other charges.

Holmes was sentenced last November to over 11 years in prison and has appealed that decision. In response to her motion for release, prosecutors said in their filing Thursday that she purchased an airline ticket to Mexico scheduled to leave shortly after being convicted last January with no scheduled return.

 Former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, Nov. 18, 2022, in San Jose, Calif.

 (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

MORE: Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes sentenced to just over 11 years in prison

Prosecutors said in their filing that "the government became aware on January 23, 2022" that Holmes had booked a flight to Mexico to depart on January 26, 2022, without a scheduled return trip which was only cancelled after the government raised the unauthorized flight with the defense.

Holmes' partner Billy Evans had flown out on Jan. 26, 2022, and didn't return for six weeks.

MORE: Lawyers give closing arguments in Elizabeth Holmes trial, say she chose 'fraud over business failure'

"The government anticipates Defendant will note in reply that she did not in fact leave the country as scheduled – but it is difficult to know with certainty what Defendant would have done had the government not intervened," the filing states.

The government adds that Holmes failed to meet the burden of proving she was not a flight risk.

The government emailed Holmes' legal team upon becoming aware of the potential trip to which they replied on the same day that "The hope was that the verdict would be different and Ms. Holmes would be able to make this trip to attend the wedding of close friends in Mexico."

The email, obtained by ABC News, continues that "Given the verdict, she does not plan to take the trip — and therefore did not provide notice, seek permission, or request access to her passport (which the government has) for the trip. But she also had not yet cancelled the trip, amidst everything that has been going on. We will have her do so promptly and will provide you confirmation…"

Holmes' surrender date, April 23, is almost six-months from when the judge delivered her sentence because she had informed the court that she became pregnant with her second child between the guilty verdict and the time of her sentencing hearing. The government argues Holmes already has had a "generous" amount of time before having to report to prison and therefore the court should not grant her motion for release pending her appeal which is a process that could last years.

The government also notes that while facing these serious felony charges awaiting her sentencing, Holmes has lived on an estate "with reportedly more than $13,000 in monthly expenses for upkeep" and alleges that Holmes "continues to show no remorse to her victims."

"There are not two systems of justice—one for the wealthy and one for the poor—there is one criminal justice system in this country. And under that system, the time has come for Elizabeth Holmes to answer for her crimes committed nearly a decade ago, as found by a jury made up of a fair cross section of individuals from this community, and to begin serving the term of imprisonment imposed by this Court as sufficient but not greater than necessary to account for those crimes," the filing states.

Elizabeth Holmes bought one-way ticket to Mexico, prosecutors say originally appeared on abcnews.go.com