German climate group take responsibility for Berlin Formula E protest

Story by Stefan Mackley • Yesterday 10:18 a.m.

The Tempelhof Airport Street Circuit in Germany was holding a double-header this weekend, which marked the halfway point in the championship’s 16-race calendar.

As drivers performed burnouts before taking their positions on the grid, headed by both Abt machines after a shock qualifying performance, several protestors entered the track from the far side of the circuit.

The start procedure was delayed as security swiftly moved onto the track and removed the protestors, who were then detained by police.

After a delay of a few minutes the start procedure went ahead as normal, with Envision Racing’s Nick Cassidy winning the race, his first of the season, as the Kiwi cut championship leader Pascal Wehrlein’s advantage at the top of the standings down to just four points.

German group Letzte Generation (Last Generation) claimed responsibility for the disruption, with the organisation holding a series of demonstrations around the German capital city over the course of the weekend.

The group are calling on the German government to take action against climate change and took to Twitter about their actions: “We are at the @eFORMELde racetrack to sound the alarm.

“It's time to slow down. Because we're on the highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”


Protestors climbing onto the track
Photo by: Andreas Beil

Formula E also released a statement following the incident: “The race was temporarily delayed while local authorities responded to a protest action unrelated to the event. Security services quickly and safely contained the disruption. The event was able to proceed as planned.”

This is the second high-profile single-seater race to be disrupted by protestors in the last 12 months, with Just Stop Oil members storming the Silverstone circuit at the 2022 British Grand Prix.

Several members of the group accessed the track along the Wellington Straight on the opening lap of the race, which was red-flagged following Zhou Guanyu’s first-corner accident which sent his Alfa Romeo Formula 1 car over the barrier.

U$A

TikTok ban poll uncovers age, party divisions

Story by Olafimihan Oshin • 4/24/2023

Nearly half of Americans support a potential ban on TikTok, but there are clear divisions between age groups and political affiliation.


TikTok ban poll uncovers age, party divisions© Provided by The Hill

That was the finding of a new Wall Street Journal poll published on Monday, as momentum is building in Congress to ban the Chinese-owned social media platform due to security concerns.

The poll found that 46 percent of respondents said they support a nationwide ban on the social media platform, while 35 percent of those surveyed said they’d oppose the measure.


TikTok ban poll uncovers age, party divisions© Provided by The Hill

Along party lines, 62 percent of registered Republican respondents supported the ban, compared to just 33 percent of registered Democrats.

Related video: TikTok Troubles – Who Supports The Ban? (Stringr)

Duration 1:00  View on Watch

By age group, 59 percent of respondents who are 65 years of age or older said they support a nationwide ban on the social media platform, while 37 percent of respondents who are between the ages of 18-34 years were on board with a ban.

Among racial groups, about half of white respondents backed a TikTok ban, compared to 42 percent of Hispanic respondents and 35 percent of Black respondents.

The poll comes as multiple state governments and Congress in recent months have implemented TikTok on government devices, citing national security concerns due its Chinese owner ByteDance, and potential links to China’s communist party.

Calls for a national ban on the platform have picked up steam in recent months, after the then-Trump administration’s failed attempt to bar the social media platform in 2020.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew was grilled before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last month, with lawmakers expressing concerns ranging from national security threats, data privacy, the spread of misinformation, and the safety for minors.

The Biden administration recently demanded ByteDance sell its stake in the company or prepare to be banned in the U.S.

The Wall Street Journal poll was conducted from April 11 to 17 with a total of 1,500 respondents participating in the survey. The poll’s margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.

The Hill.

U$ Supreme Court Allows State-Law Climate Suits Against Oil Companies

Story by Jess Bravin, Erin Mulvaney • WSJ -Today


WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals by oil companies seeking protection from potential liability under state laws for harms caused by climate change, a decision that at least for now allows a number of cases to move forward under state laws the industry sees as less favorable than federal environmental statutes.

Oil companies, among them Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Shell PLC, are facing lawsuits alleging varied environmental harms from greenhouse-gas emissions filed under state laws by Rhode Island and several local governments, including the city of Baltimore; Boulder and San Miguel counties, Colo.; Honolulu and Maui counties, Hawaii; and Marin, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties, Calif.

The Supreme Court denied the industry petitions in a summary order that as is typical contained no comment. Justice Samuel Alito didn’t take part in the cases, likely because he owns shares in companies involved in the suits. In one case, Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Boulder County, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that he preferred to hear the appeal.

“This was the right decision, and it is time to prepare for trial,” said Sara Gross, an attorney with the Baltimore City Law Department. “Since we filed this case nearly five years ago, the climate crisis has worsened, the costs to Baltimore taxpayers are skyrocketing, and the defendants have pocketed trillions of dollars in profits while trying to dodge accountability for their deception.”

The Baltimore suit, filed in 2018 in Maryland state court, alleges that more than 20 energy companies promoted fossil fuels while concealing information about the harmful changes in climate they cause, including rising sea levels and extreme weather. Other cases brought by state and local officials make similar allegations.

Theodore Boutrous, who represents Chevron in several of the disputes, said he was confident that the pending climate lawsuits would ultimately be dismissed.

“Climate change is an issue of national and global magnitude that requires a coordinated federal policy response, not a disjointed patchwork of lawsuits in state courts across multiple states,” he said. “These wasteful lawsuits in state courts will do nothing to advance global climate solutions, nothing to reduce emissions, and nothing to address climate-related impacts.”

Related video: Guyana's Climate Change Fight Starts With Oil (QuickTake)

We know the value of the forest.  Duration 3:05  View on Watch

Dailymotion

International Court of Justice gets closer to ruling on states' climate policies

1:10

New anti-gouging bill aims to increase oil refinery accountability

2:58

 UN votes to ask world court to rule on countries' climate duties

3:55

An Exxon spokesman said the company would fight the suits, adding: “Today’s decision has no impact on our focus to invest billions of dollars to leading the way in a thoughtful energy transition that takes the world to net zero carbon emissions.”

“We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change,” a Shell spokeswoman said.

Since 2017, at least two-dozen lawsuits have been filed by states and local governments against oil companies. Lower courts largely have rejected industry motions to dismiss the cases or move them into federal courts the defendants believe may provide a legal advantage.

In 2021, the Supreme Court handed industry a procedural win when it ordered a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to reconsider its decision to leave Baltimore’s suit in state court. The appeals court in 2022 reaffirmed that ruling, which Monday’s Supreme Court order leaves in place.

The state-level litigation represents a major threat to the oil industry. It has been likened to state litigation filed against tobacco companies in the 1990s for the harms of smoking, and to recent cases against major players in the pharmaceutical industry accusing them of fueling the opioid epidemic. Companies in both sectors have had to pay multibillion-dollar settlements.

The climate-liability suits were filed under state laws after similar efforts under federal laws proved unsuccessful. They have been stalled while companies jockeyed in courts to have the cases handled instead in federal courts, where precedent is favorable to their arguments. The Justice Department advised the Supreme Court not to take up the cases earlier this year.

Around the world, activists have filed suits in national and international courts seeking to spur action against climate change, contending that their governments aren’t acting with enough urgency to address the environmental crisis.

The Supreme Court took no position Monday on a further, similar petition in which the companies asked it to reverse a Third Circuit opinion allowing lawsuits filed by Hoboken, N.J., and Delaware to move forward in state courts. The justices are scheduled to consider whether to take up that petition in May.

Also Monday, the justices agreed to hear a pair of cases over whether the First Amendment prohibits local officials from blocking individuals who posted critical comments from their social-media accounts. In 2019, a federal appeals court held that then-President Donald Trump couldn’t block individuals from his Twitter account, but the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal as moot after his term ended in 2021.

The cases accepted Monday over Facebook and Twitter accounts involve less exalted officeholders, including two school board members from Poway, Calif., and the city manager in Port Huron, Mich. Arguments will take place in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

Write to Jess Bravin at Jess.Bravin@wsj.com and Erin Mulvaney at erin.mulvaney@wsj.com

Trudeau says Canada is 'very serious' about reviving nuclear power

Story by Special to National Post • Today

Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.© Provided by National Post

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada is “very serious” about reviving nuclear energy production to lower the country’s reliance on fossil fuels.

The prime minister made the comments in response to a question about Canada’s LNG exports to Germany during a discussion with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and university students in Ottawa on Monday. Trudeau last year said he wasn’t persuaded to advance liquid natural gas exports to Germany , which has been searching for alternative energy sources as it moves away from Russian imports after the Kremlin ordered the invasion of Ukraine.

Trudeau said while Canada has increased its natural gas exports to the global market, the country is prioritizing reducing dependency on oil and gas in the coming decades.

“Even though in the short term there is a need for support of more fossil fuels into the global economy, what the world is looking at is not just getting off Russian oil and gas, it’s reducing our dependency on oil and gas overall and decarbonizing our energy mix as much as possible,” Trudeau said Monday.

Is nuclear energy green or not? Federal government sending conflicting messages, critics say

'Affordable, safe' nuclear power is key to reaching Canada's climate goals: federal minister

Trudeau said there will be a need for oil and gas far into the future, but rather than burning it for energy it will be used in other processes like making plastics.

The prime minister suggested increased attention to nuclear energy would be key in the shift, adding Canada has been investing in small modular reactors. Germany, on the other hand, shut down its remaining nuclear power plants earlier this month.

Chris Keefer, president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy, applauded the decision, saying it signals a growing enthusiasm in Ottawa towards nuclear energy.

“While we still need to be smart about how we use energy … we’re talking about doubling or tripling our grid,” he said. “Nuclear is a real optimal way to do that.”

Roughly 15 per cent of Canada’s electricity comes from nuclear power, according to the World Nuclear Association. A January Angus Reid Institute poll found 57 per cent of Canadians would like to see further development of nuclear power generation.

As Canada shifts away from fossil fuels and spends billions to attract green-tech investments, Trudeau said there will be an increase in the amount of nuclear energy production required in the country.

“As we look at what the baseload energy requirements are gonna be needed by Canada over the coming decades, especially as we continue to draw in global giants like Volkswagen who choose Canada partially because we have a clean energy mix to offer to power, we’re gonna need a lot more energy,” he said. “We’re gonna have to be doing much more nuclear.”

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland made an appearance at the Pickering Nuclear station east of Toronto last week and said nuclear could benefit in the energy transition away from carbon-based fuels.

The Pickering station was originally set to close as early as 2025, but Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government has extended its life for at least a year, while it looks at the feasibility of a longer extension.

Keefer said the government still has more to do to meet its large energy requirements, especially with investments like the Volkswagen battery plant deal on the way. He hopes to see investments in large reactors like the CANDU reactor, which has been successful in Ontario.

Still, Trudeau said Canada will have the capacity to generate energy for the world through wind, solar, geothermal and hydro energies in addition to nuclear energy, as other countries move toward net-zero emissions.

“Canada can and will be that solution,” Trudeau said.

Opinion: No, nuclear power isn’t the ‘big bazooka’ climate fix you might think

Germany’s exit from nuclear power on April 15 doesn’t single it out as a quirky anomaly or black sheep in a world otherwise enthusiastically embracing nuclear energy.


CNN Germany closes the last of its nuclear plants, but opinions divided over future of energy policies   Duration 5:30  View on Watch



Paul Hockenos - Hayyan Al-Yousouf

Rather, it situates Germany firmly within the global mainstream: ever more countries are abandoning or scaling back their nuclear power programs, including the US.

Since a highpoint in the early 2000s, the number of operational nuclear reactors worldwide has fallen – from 438 to 411, according to this year’s World Nuclear Industry Status Report. (And that was before Germany’s move this week).

Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has now slid to its lowest point in four decades. While at the same time, renewable energy generation – clean tech like solar, wind, bioenergy and geothermal – has expanded by more than 30-fold.

Despite bipartisan backing, the US, the globe’s nuclear energy stronghold, has 12 fewer reactors operational than a decade ago – and none at all under construction.

In fact, when matched up against renewables as a source of energy that doesn’t emit carbon, nuclear power falls egregiously short.

It is so expensive and grievously slow to roll out that its steady decline is no wonder – even if there’s currently the illusion of nuclear’s comeback as a solution for the climate crisis.

Nuclear power may look like an attractive, big bazooka fix to rising emissions. But it is a red herring and the so-called renaissance is nothing but a soap bubble. Nuclear power actually obstructs the transition to a carbon-neutral world. It robs the urgent rollout of clean tech funds, obscures planning clarity and throws a spanner in energy systems driven increasingly by renewables.

In terms of price, nuclear power is itself a striking anomaly in the world of technology, as cost has risen over the course of time rather than sunk.

Since 2011, the price of a kilowatt of nuclear generated electricity has soared by 40%.

Meanwhile solar energy, which the International Energy Agency calls “the cheapest electricity in history,” has plummeted by 90% – and is still falling as its technical efficacy steadily improves.

The cost of a megawatt-hour generated by utility-scale solar or wind is around $38; the same from a nuclear plant runs around $167. Why invest four dollars in a unit of energy when get you the same for one?

The high price tag on nuclear kilowatts is a result of the exorbitant construction bill and insurance costs. The tab is so high that countries simply can’t attract investors no matter how sweet they make the deal.

The two reactors that will go online this year in the US state of Georgia racked up costs of more than $30 billon. But the Hinkley C plant in the UK takes the dubious prize of the priciest: currently $32 billion.

As for rollout time – critically important as the planet is racing against the clock to stop global warming – nuclear also occupies the doghouse. While authoritarian states such as China start up plants more quickly – though not nearly as quickly as they throw up giant wind and solar farms – in the West construction time is almost always vastly underestimated. Supposedly about ten years, though usually much longer.

Since 2000 only one new European reactor has gone online, and in the US the first to be built in more than three decades began operations in Georgia this year. Of the 63 reactors that commenced construction globally between 2012 and 2021, only 19 are operational – and almost all of them in China.

This also means that the world’s current nuclear fleet is aging – average age 31 years. And as France’s disastrous summer of 2022 taught us (half of its reactors were down for repairs) old nuclear technology is unreliable – anything but the 24/7 phenomenon that advocates claim.

None of these numbers or arguments, however, should obscure the original reason that Germany, as well fellow European countries Spain and Switzerland, chose to toss in nuclear power, to say nothing of many of the 163 countries that never went the way of spitting atoms for energy in the first place.

Nuclear fission remains an extremely dangerous and toxic means of energy generation. In addition to the meltdowns in Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986) and Fukushima, Japan (2011), according to the IAEA, there have been 31 serious incidents at nuclear power stations worldwide since 1952— including two in France and six in the United States.

Most recently, in November 2022 the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant north of Minneapolis, Minnesota, leaked about 400,000 gallons of radioactive water into a nearby stream.

And nuclear waste remains a radioactive dilemma without a solution. There are currently more than 250,000 tonnes of spent fuel sitting on or near nuclear plant sites – waiting for permanent repository sites to be named and constructed. The problem since 1954: nobody but nobody wants it stored near their communities or water supplies.

Germany, and all of Europe, is building out renewable energy, smart grids, electric vehicles and energy storage facilities at breakneck pace to eliminate fossil fuels from its energy supply.

This is a clear-headed, evidence-based decision in contrast to the pipedream of a nuclear future.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

The pandemic deepened gender inequality in dual-career households

Story by Tina Sharifi, PhD Candidate, Human Resource Management, York University, Canada 

 Ayesha Tabassum, PhD Candidate, School of Human Resources Management, York University, Canada THE CONVERSATION • 6h ago

The switch to remote work because of the COVID-19 pandemic required dual-career couples to adapt to a new way of life. As work and domestic responsibilities blurred, couples attempted to balance work and family life at home.


Although younger couples tend to share household labour more equitably, women still take on the bulk of home and family responsibilities.© (Shutterstock)

For many heterosexual couples, this return to home life did not reflect their pre-pandemic routine, but one that resembled a scene from the 1950s.

Researchers examined these new relationship dynamics and found that, although both men and women were actively employed, women took on the greatest number of domestic responsibilities during the pandemic.

Working mothers reduced their working hours or left their careers to take on the role of homemaker, while their male partners continued to work.

This phenomenon, where women take on a greater share of domestic responsibilities due to gender stereotypes, is known as the gendered division of labour.

Questions remain as to how and why the majority of domestic labour continues to fall on women, and what factors may be contributing to this type of gender inequality.

Gendered division of labour

The gendered division of labour can be explained by the social roles assigned to men and women at home and work. Social roles, in turn, are shaped by gender stereotypes. While women are seen as homemakers and caretakers, men are considered providers — best suited for employment.

However, gender equality in the workplace and at home has greatly improved over the last several decades. Specifically, younger couples reported having more equitable relationship dynamics.

For example, men have taken on a more equal share of household work. Overall, dual-career couples of today have different expectations of gender roles, with partners making household decisions based on factors beyond gender.

At the beginning of the pandemic, it was predicted that the shift to remote work would lead to more equal division of domestic labour. However, our recent research, pending publication, found this progress was set back by the pandemic. In particular, we found the gendered division of labour among dual-career couples worsened.



The gendered division of labour worsened during the pandemic.© (Shutterstock)

The goal of our study was to better understand why couples were returning to a more unequal division of labour, despite significant progress over the last several years. We interviewed employees who were part of dual-career partnerships to understand the circumstances and decisions behind these inequitable outcomes.

Pandemic increased gender inequality

Our findings showed that the pandemic worsened the gendered division of labour among dual-career heterosexual couples working remotely. This division was influenced by the age of couples and the existence of children.

Our research found that couples 50 years of age and over had a more traditional division of labour during the pandemic. Despite being fully employed, women in these partnerships took on most, if not all, of the household tasks and care-giving responsibilities.

One woman over 50 told us:
“So, I’m cooking and cleaning, I do all the grocery shopping. I do all the out stuff. He (spouse) has never been interested in cooking and chores, not knowing where simple things are, like where a rolling pin is kept, because he’s never used it in the kitchen, so it’s very much a division.”

On the other hand, couples under 50 participated in a more equal division of labour, with women and men sharing domestic tasks and responsibilities. However, when these couples had young children, women often took on a majority of household and caregiving responsibilities.

For couples who did not have children, despite a more equal division of labour, women were responsible for more feminine-oriented tasks (i.e., cooking and cleaning) while their male partners participated in more male-oriented tasks (i.e., taking out the garbage and yard work).

One woman under 50 told us:
“I’m Martha Stewart and making dinner…in terms of division of labour…it’s stereotypical, he (spouse) will do the stuff outside the house, so lawn mowing, shovelling and I would do stuff inside the house.”

Overall, domestic labour defaulted to women, who took on more home and family responsibilities, more feminine-oriented tasks, and felt a greater emotional burden towards this division of labour.



For couples who did not have children, women were responsible for more feminine-oriented tasks, while their partners participated in more male-oriented tasks like taking out the garbage.© (Shutterstock)

Women’s feelings about domestic labour

The interviews provided us with the opportunity to better understand participants’ feelings towards their division of household labour. Women within the 50 and over age group felt dissatisfied and frustrated with such unequal division of labour.

One woman over 50 told us:

“I don’t like it and am not pleased with it, but it’s a battle and I haven’t got the strength for a fight. I mean, you will have to keep going anyways anyhow.”

On the other hand, women under 50, who experienced a more equal division of labour, expressed mixed feelings of guilt, gratitude and anxiety. Many women felt fortunate to have partners who shared the workload in the household, but others felt guilty.

Our findings demonstrated that, despite differences in age and caregiving responsibilities, women felt a moral obligation towards domestic labour. Researchers refer to this as “doing gender.”

One woman under 50 told us:

“I feel intense guilt and stress and anxiety because I’m not able to participate in the kinds of food preparation that I was able to do before.”

Implications for the future

Our findings have important implications for the workplace and beyond. Given the increasing number of dual-career couples, these inequalities can lead to significant negative career outcomes for both men and women.

Employers must recognize these challenges and develop policies and practices to support working women who aspire to grow and develop their careers. This can include advocacy for paid leave for both mothers and fathers, flexible work-from-home arrangements, or improved pay and benefits to help with increasing costs of living.

As well, employers should facilitate critical discussions about gender inequality and open the door for progress around gender roles and gender expectations.

These work-related challenges are a reflection of existing gender inequities within our broader society. With our findings, we aim to raise awareness about gender inequality and encourage individuals to advocate for closing the gender gap. Our hope is to encourage and promote a more equal and fair future for both men and women.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

Read more:
The pandemic exposed gender inequality: Let’s seize the opportunity to remedy it

Women are struggling to regain lost ground in the workforce after COVID-19

WE HAVE NO SAY

Majority Of Canadians Don’t Want Charles Recognized As King, Says New Poll

Story by Corey Atad • 

Canadians are no fans of King Charles.

On May 6, the British monarch will have his coronation, but according to a new poll, the majority of Canadians do not want him recognized as King of Canada.

According to the CBC, the poll, conducted by the Angus Reid Institute, found 60 per cent of respondents opposed Charles as King of Canada.

Only 28 per cent said that they held a favourable view of Charles, with 48 per cent saying they do not hold a favourable view of the king.

UK VeuerPoll Ahead of Coronation Reveals King Charles Support in Danger
1:07

Meanwhile, Charles' wife, the Queen Consort Camilla, has even more dismal poll numbers among Canadians.

60 per cent said she should not be referred to as Queen, with only 19 per cent believing she should even have the title of Queen Consort.

Support for the monarchy is generally low, with 52 per cent of those polled saying they don't want Canada to continue as a constitutional monarchy at all, and 88 per cent saying they would be okay with the country breaking ties with the monarchy.

Per Canada's constitution, King Charles has already been recognized as Canada's Head of State, taking up the title after the passing of Queen Elizabeth last year.

I FOR ONE AM A SUPPORTER OF A CANADIAN REPUBLIC

UN human rights experts begin US tour focusing on racial justice and policing

Story by Maya Yang • TODAY -  The Guardian

A team of United Nations experts has arrived in the US on a tour that will focus on racial justice, law enforcement and policing.


Photograph: Megan Varner/Getty Images

On Monday, the Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in the Context of Law Enforcement, an independent panel appointed by the UN human rights council, began its two-week visit to the US.

The panel, which was established in response to widespread outcry following the killing of the Black man George Floyd in 2020 by a white police officer, is set to visit Washington DC, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis and New York City.

Floyd’s death was just one of many instances of racist killings by police in the US but – spurred by powerful video shot by bystanders – it triggered widespread protests across America, which then spread internationally.

The UN trip is to “further transformative change for racial justice and equality in the context of law enforcement for Africans and people of African descent”, said the UN.

In addition to visiting government officials at federal, state and local levels, the team will also visit law enforcement authorities, civil society organizations and places of detentions.

“We look forward to gaining first-hand insight about the lived experiences of people of African descent in the United States, and to offer recommendations to the government at all levels, to support efforts in combating systemic racism and excessive use of force, and ensure accountability and justice”, Juan Méndez, a panel member said in a statement.

The panel will examine laws and practices surrounding the use of force by law enforcement officials and whether they are aligned with international human rights standards.

Activists in Atlanta are especially looking forward to the panel, especially as many are opposing the construction of a $90m police and fire department training center known as “Cop City” in a forest south-east of the city.

“Of particular interest is that the EMLER chose to locate their hearing in the very city where so many are saying ‘No to Cop City’ and where a younger generation of political prisoners accused of domestic terrorism is at risk,” an activist in Atlanta told the Guardian.

In recent months, numerous activists protesting against Cop City have been charged with domestic terrorism by prosecutors in what critics call a “complete politicization of the law” and a “judicial pogrom”.

The panel, which will visit Atlanta on Wednesday, will hear testimonies discussing families affected by state violence, the school-to-prison pipeline, political prisoners and access to justice.

“Extrajudicial killings have become increasingly routine in American policing,” said Collette Flanagan, the founder of Mothers Against Police Brutality, whose unarmed son Clinton Allen was killed by police in Dallas, Texas, in 2013.

“They happen literally every day. This deadly police brutality represents a massive human rights violation that falls most heavily on people of African descent. We welcome the Expert Mechanism to Atlanta in the name of our martyred children. We hope this visit will help us move our country to live up to its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights agreements,” she added in a statement.

As part of its visit, the panel will make recommendations to “ensure access to justice, accountability and redress for excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officials against Africans and people of African descent in the United States,” the UN said.

The panel will then present a report about its visit to the UN human rights council at its 54th session this fall.

The steps that could help address biodiversity loss could also help fix the climate crisis

Story by cboudreau@insider.com (Catherine Boudreau) • 


Insider's Catherine Boudreau led a panel with Susan Chomba, director of vital landscapes at the World Resources Institute, and Michal Nachmany, founder and CEO of Climate Policy Radar. Courtesy of Insider Studios© Courtesy of Insider Studios

Biodiversity loss doesn't always get as much attention as the climate but the crises are linked.
The solutions to these problems are often the same as well, experts said during an Insider panel.
The comments came as part of the event "For a Better Future: Bridging Culture, Business, and Climate."

When Susan Chomba thinks about biodiversity loss in Africa, her mind goes to a white rhino she once visited with her children in Northern Kenya.

The animal, named Sudan, was the last male northern white rhino. He died in 2018.

Chomba, who is the director of vital landscapes at the World Resources Institute, told Insider that Sudan's disappearance — and the grim implications for the northern white rhino subspecies — was a tangible example of what's at risk from biodiversity loss.

Her comments came during a recent Insider event called "For a Better Future: Bridging Culture, Business, and Climate."

Chomba, who joined the panel from Kenya's capital, Nairobi, said researchers have tried to save the northern white rhino by storing semen from the males. The hope, at one time, was to create embryos using eggs from females. "Scientists have tried all they can," she said.

The loss of biodiversity doesn't always get as much attention as the climate crisis but the two challenges are linked. And both need to be solved to prevent devastating consequences for humanity, according to the panelists. In many cases, the path to solving one can help the other, they said.

Panelist Michal Nachmany, who's based in London and is founder and CEO of Climate Policy Radar, said biodiversity loss is something we can all see when we stop to look. She pointed to how different it is to cycle or drive through the countryside in Europe — or to go for a picnic — because there are far fewer insects than there were just a decade or two ago.

"Those insects — half of them are gone," Nachmany said. "And although it might be nice not to be bitten by mosquitoes, those insects represent our food systems. They provide critical pollination services that have a critical impact on our ability to grow food."



A ranger takes care of Sudan, who was the world's last male northern white rhino, at the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Laikipia county in Kenya in 2017.

 Associated Press© Associated Press

The complexity of natural systems means there are linkages — even ones we don't necessarily understand — that tie animals, insects, and humans to the fate of the planet's temperatures

Related video: What is geoengineering, and why is it sparking climate change debate? (Scripps News)

Duration 5:38   View on Watch

Sky NewsClimate activists threaten 'to disobey'

1:08

"Anybody who's working with these issues — biodiversity, climate change, and the underlying drivers of it — realize the interconnectedness of it," Chomba said.

Nachmany said thinking of biodiversity loss and the climate crisis at the same time can lead to better understanding of what humans need to do to slow changes that could jeopardize human needs.

"The solutions that address both climate change and biodiversity conservation are the same solutions," she said.

"You grow a tree, it gives you food. It reduces the ambient air temperature. It gives space to pollinators that then can support food systems. It provides shade that allows people to enjoy community. A lot of those needs — we tend to think about them as secondary needs — but our wellbeing and our happiness contribute to our resilience in front of rising challenges," Nachmany said.


Education Images/Universal Images Group

There are signs that biodiversity is drawing more attention. Nearly 200 countries reached a landmark agreement in December to protect 30% of the world's lands and oceans by the end of the decade to slow an unprecedented loss of nature.

Still, more needs to be done, the panelists agreed. There should be a steeper price put on activities that harm biodiversity and the environment in general, Nachmany said. That would help incentivize better behavior.

"Financial instruments are also a mechanism to ensure that polluting activities and damaging and destructive activities are capped and banned," she said. "The question is, can we put a price on destroying nature?"

Efforts to protect forests, for example, are often competing against companies that want to develop the land for fossil-fuel extraction, Chomba said. That is the case in the Democratic Republic of Congo, home to the largest area of rainforest in the Congo Basin, where the government last year stirred international concerns over its decision to auction off oil and gas leases.

This was despite a pledge in 2021 at the UN climate summit to support the protection of the Congo Basin, a move that was endorsed by the European Union, the US, the UK, South Korea, and Japan and included an initial $500 million investment.

"If we really care about biodiversity, if we really care about carbon that is in the peatlands, if we really care about the Indigenous people, why are we not putting our money where our mouths are?" Chomba asked.

Nachmany said some parts of the financial world are recognizing that biodiversity loss and the climate crisis are two parts of the same problem. She pointed to investor coalitions that have formed around these types of issues — climate and biodiversity — because they see that protecting nature is in their own interest.

"Without a livable planet, no investment is safe," Nachmany said.

Murray Mandryk: Tone-deafness now a way bigger problem for Sask. Party

Opinion by Murray Mandryk 

The hubris vibe from the Saskatchewan Party cabinet is starting to grate on people simply looking for leadership and help.© Michelle Berg



The Saskatchewan Party isn’t the only party in this province struggling to connect with voters.

This has obviously been a longstanding problem for the Saskatchewan NDP that started well before it was relegated to opposition.

Come to think of it, it started the same way: A 16-year-old NDP government got caught up in its own hubris, forgot how to listen and grew out of touch. Sound familiar?

Last’s week’s Insightrix poll of online panellists may be demonstrating the consequences.

The poll showed the Sask. Party at 46 per cent provincewide (compared with 60.7 per cent popular vote in the 2020 election) and now only nine percentage points ahead of the NDP at 37 per cent (compared with 31.8 per cent in 2020).

LIKE ALBERTA
With most of the NDP gains in Regina (where it’s at 57 per cent) and Saskatoon (48 per cent) and the Sask. Party still at 56 per cent elsewhere in the province, perhaps there’s reason for the Sask. Party to still feel smug about its prospects.

But while that arrogance might work in the legislative assembly, it doesn’t work when the government has to confront real people and problems.

That reality appeared to hit home during last week’s Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association ( SUMA) bearpit .

The truth be told, most every major organization in this province leans one way or the other. Sask. Party MLAs are near giddy when they wander on the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities convention floor.

But SUMA — a combination of big-city and small-town mayors and councillors — is as cross-sectional and non-partisan as it gets in Saskatchewan.

Perhaps it’s because municipal politicians have to deal with people who think government is too big and their taxes are too high while simultaneously demanding local politicians do something for those who are homeless.

For such reasons, mayors and councillors tend to be more grounded. They come face to face with such problems in ways MLAs don’t.

Sask. Party MLAs should start listening to what municipal politicians are saying.

Ninety per cent of SUMA delegates voted last week to say “growth that works for everyone” isn’t working if you’re on social assistance.

Mayors and councillors bluntly told Premier Scott Moe and his cabinet that the problem with the Saskatchewan Income Support program isn’t Justin and Jagmeet or the carbon tax. The problem with SIS is that it’s broken and the province needs to fix it by reinstating direct payments for rent and utilities.

Maybe that same message is just rhetoric from opposition MLAs. But should it mean something coming from local councillors?

“My people are suffering while the province they live in celebrates wealth and success,” said Prince Albert Coun. Tony Head, challenging the government to commit $100 million of its surplus to mental health and addictions driving the problems.

Added Saskatoon Coun. David Kirton: “Across Saskatchewan, people are saying SIS is manufacturing homelessness. People are stuck in shelters and the math does not work.”

The response from Finance Minister Donna Harpauer? A one-time resource windfall and 2023-24 surplus can’t be used to fix actual problems. Municipal politicians might as well have been talking to the wall.

After SUMA, grumbling over cabinet’s attitude was as loud as it was after the budget a month ago. That, too, says something.

One gets it’s natural for a 16-year government to fall out of touch. And, as is evident in the Insightrix poll, the NDP is still floundering at 25 per cent outside the two major cities. Clearly, it hasn’t hit on all the right issues, either.

But for every issue like “ Duty to Consult” on First Nations issues unlikely to add to the NDP’s still-meagre vote total, the Opposition is raising another one that is now resonating.

SIS. Homelessness. Emergency hospital service closures . Ambulance shortages. Burned-out doctors and nurses being muzzled . Even inflation that sees Saskatchewan people cutting back more than any other Canadians, according to a recent Angus Reid Institute poll.

Whether the Sask. Party knows it or not, it’s falling out of touch. It’s actually a problem made worse by the fact it can’t recognize it.

Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.