It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Saturday, July 27, 2024
COLD WAR 2.0
A Russian Navy research vessel is suspected of violating Finnish territorial waters
The Finnish defense ministry says a Russian vessel is suspected of a territorial violation of Finland’s marine area in the Gulf of Finland, an arm of the Baltic Sea
ByThe Associated Press July 26, 2024,
HELSINKI -- A Russian vessel is suspected of a territorial violation of Finland’s marine area in the Gulf of Finland, an arm of the Baltic Sea, the Finnish defense ministry said on Friday.
The suspected violation, which the Finnish Border Guard is currently investigating, took place in the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland Friday afternoon, a brief government statement said.
The ministry didn’t disclose further details of the incident but the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat said, citing information from border officials, that the suspected vessel is the Russian Navy’s hydrographic survey ship, the Mikhail Kazansky.
The Russian vessel, used among other things for underwater topography and repair work, entered into Finnish territorial waters south of the town of Hamina without authorization just after noon Friday, and the violation lasted about seven minutes, the newspaper said.
The previous confirmed territorial violation in the Nordic country took place June 10, when four Russian state-operated aircraft entered Finland’s airspace off the southern towns of Loviisa and Porvoo, the defense ministry said.
Finland, a NATO member, shares a 1,340-kilometer (830-mile) land border with Russia and acts as the European Union’s external border in the north.
Museum pulls wax figure of Sinead O'Connor after complaints it does not compare to the real thing
A Dublin museum has pulled a wax figure of Sinéad O’Connor from its collection after fans and family members complained that it did not compare to how the late singer looked
ByBRIAN MELLEY
Associated Press July 26, 2024
LONDON -- A wax figure of Sinéad O’Connor that did not compare to how the late singer looked caused a minor meltdown among fans and family members, leading a Dublin museum on Friday to pull it from its collection.
The National Wax Museum Plus apologized to O'Connor's family and said it would immediately begin creating a more accurate representation of the singer best known for her 1990 cover of Prince's ballad “Nothing Compares 2 U.”
John O'Connor said it was a “hideous” representation of his sister that looked like a cross between something in a department store window display and a 1960s sci-fi TV show that used electronic puppets.
“When I saw it online yesterday I was shocked," he told Irish broadcaster RTE. “I thought it looked something between a mannequin and something out of the ‘Thunderbirds.’”
The museum had unveiled the figure Thursday in honor of the first anniversary of her death. O'Connor, 56, died in her London home of natural causes July 26, 2023.
O’Connor, who became a controversial figure after she tore up a photo of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live in 1992, was considered a national treasure in Ireland, where she had started out performing on the streets of Dublin.
Fans filled the street of her former seaside hometown during a funeral procession in August following a private service attended by then-Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, President Michael Higgins and musical luminaries such as Bono of U2 and Bob Geldof of the Boomtown Rats.
Accurately capturing the likeness of celebrities has famously tripped up many an artist.
A Polish wax museum was ridiculed last year for what some called creepy depictions of Kate, the Princess of Wales, and her husband, Prince William. A sculptor mocked for his bronze of Portuguese soccer great Cristiano Ronaldo went back to his studio a do-over that was more warmly received.
Likewise, U.S. women's soccer star Brandi Chastain got a replacement for a panned plaque where she was compared to looking like actors Gary Busey and Mickey Rooney, and former New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick.
Paddy Dunning, the Dublin museum’s director who called O'Connor a longtime friend, said she deserved a better tribute.
“In response to the public’s feedback regarding the wax figure, we acknowledge that the current representation did not meet our high standards or the expectations of Sinead’s devoted fans,” the museum said in a statement.
John O'Connor said he was upset by the timing of the unveiling and the fact that no one had contacted his family.
“As I said earlier, the world may have lost a star, and they did, but I lost my sister," he said. "It just should not have been put there even without checking with somebody: ‘Is this all right?’”
Wax museum removes Sinéad O'Connor figure
327 July 2024
A waxwork of the late Sinéad O'Connor in Dublin will be remade after the original came under criticism Photo: Facebook
The National Wax Museum in Dublin is "committed" to creating a new wax figure of Irish singer Sinéad O'Connor after significant public backlash.
It comes after the museum unveiled a waxwork of the late singer and activist to coincide with the first anniversary of her death.
O'Connor was found dead at the age of 56 in her south London home last July.
The figure was first unveiled on Thursday as a tribute to the singer, but the museum has now said it will be removed in order to create "a more accurate representation".
Among those who criticised the original figure was O'Connor's brother, John.
He said he was shocked when he first saw the waxwork online and said it was "inappropriate".
"It looked nothing like her and I thought it was hideous," he told Irish broadcaster RTÉ's Liveline radio programme on Friday.
He added that the figure looked "between a mannequin and something out of the Thunderbirds".
Sinéad O'Connor. Photo: Jason Kempin / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP
The museum says it will remake the waxwork to create a more accurate representation
A statement from the museum said: "In response to the public's feedback regarding the wax figure, we acknowledge that the current representation did not meet our high standards or the expectations of Sinéad's devoted fans.
"We have listened closely to the reactions and agree that the figure does not fully capture Sinéad's unique presence and essence as we intended."
New figure to 'truly honour' singer
The museum said O'Connor's impact on music is "immeasurable" and its goal was to honour the late singer in the "most fitting and respectful manner".
"With this in mind, we are committed to creating a new wax figure that better reflect's Sinéad O'Connor's true spirit and iconic image," it added.
"Our team of skilled artists will begin this project immediately, ensuring that every detail is meticulously crafted to celebrate her legacy appropriately."
It said the museum looks forward to unveiling a new figure that "truly honours" O'Connor and her "extraordinary impact".
The Nothing Compares 2 U singer was found dead at her home last year Photo: Fred Tanneau / AFP
Who is Sinéad O'Connor?
Sinéad Marie Bernadette O'Connor was born on 8 December 1966 in the affluent Glenageary suburb of Dublin.
Her debut album in 1987, The Lion and the Cobra, was a storming success, earning O'Connor a Grammy nomination for best female rock vocal performance.
But it was her 1990 Prince cover single 'Nothing Compares 2 U' which saw her catapult to worldwide fame.
O'Connor was outspoken on subjects including religion, women's rights and racism.
In 1992, she tore up a photo of Pope John Paul II while performing on US television programme Saturday Night Live in protest against child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
In 2018, she converted to Islam, changing her name to Shuhada Sadaqat.
However she continued to perform under her birth name.
On 26 July 2023, the musician was found unresponsive at her home in Herne Hill, south London and was later pronounced dead.
A coroner ruled that she died of natural causes.
- BBC
Five UK energy companies have now racked up £240 BILLION in profits since 2020
Dubbed ‘Profiteers Week’, this week will see interim results from five energy companies who have already banked over £240 billion since the start of the energy crisis as campaigners call for a proper tax on all those in the sector making ‘obscene’ profits. Meanwhile, the latest reporting reflects that Up to 45% or 615,000 people in Wales are living in fuel poverty.
Energy companies: rolling in it
Interim results this week show the following profits:Iberdrola (owners of Scottish Power) pocketed £3.8 billion. Equinor have made £5.8 billion. Centrica (British Gas) who made £1 billion. EDF who have banked £8 billion. Drax who have made £463 million.
This brings the total profits made by just these five companies since 2020 to over £241,576,960,000.
Commissioned by campaign group, Warm This Winter, the energy profit tracker monitors the declared profits of firms ranging from energy producers (such as Equinor and Shell) through to the firms that control our energy grid (such as National Grid, UK Power Networks and Cadent) as well as suppliers (such as British Gas). “It’s just obscene”
Climate Cymru Campaign Coordinator spokesperson David Kilner said:
Frankly it is just obscene. In fact it’s hard to grasp the mind boggling greed, plunging people in to poverty so that these corporations can make a billion pounds each week [2] under the last government since the energy crisis started three years ago.
That is why we have to bring back fairness and introduce a proper tax on all companies profiteering in the energy sector while six million people in the UK are living in fuel poverty, facing a stark choice between heating and eating.
The new Labour governments have inherited a broken energy system, they must act urgently to address it – we must see urgent action to support struggling households through the next winter.
In total, energy corporations have made nearly £427 billion in profits since the energy crisis according to the analysis of company reports to June this year.
Energy companies are making a killing – while killing the rest of us
End Fuel Poverty Coalition coordinator Simon Francis said:
These figures show that there is plenty of money in our broken energy system. But rather than this money being used to help people struggling in cold damp homes and with the record cost of energy, the cash is being used to line the pockets of energy firms.
As households struggle in energy debt and even turn to illegal money lenders, new ministers must step in. We need to ensure the most vulnerable households are protected with a more comprehensive warm homes discount, action to bring down energy debt and the Treasury must draw a line in the sand to stop this profiteering.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift added:
The UK’s high dependence on expensive gas is why millions are still struggling with unaffordable energy bills. Energy companies obviously want to lock us into oil and gas for years to come to keep the profits rolling in, but the only way to reduce bills is to insulate homes and switch to homegrown renewable energy. We need to see the government now deliver on its commitment to move us off oil and gas and onto a better, fairer energy system.
The International Court of Justice of the United Nations. The Hague, Holland. (Picture: varfolomeev on Flickr)
The West presents itself as an upholder of international law, democracy and justice. Its support of Israel’s genocide exposes this as a lie.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled last week that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land is “illegal”, breaches laws of “apartheid” and international law.
But the United States and Europe haven’t stopped supporting—or arming—Israel’s genocide and apartheid regime, showing a deep hypocrisy.
Western countries often champion themselves as great bastion of freedom, battling on the global stage to uphold democracy.
For example, US president Joe Biden said at an international summit last year that he’s proud “to defend those fundamental values we all share—justice, the rule of law, assembly, freedom of press, freedom of religion”.
“And our core belief in the interest of human rights for every single individual in the world,” he went on. What about the rights of Palestinians? When Israel slaughters and starves Palestinians, where is this core belief?
Not only does the West continue to support Israel, but it enables it by sending huge amounts of weapons. Biden’s “core belief” is completely shallow.
All of the West’s talk about “defending democracy” is empty rhetoric used to justify its economic and military interests.
It’s because Israel defends and furthers those interests that Western imperialism will continue to support Israel regardless of the horrors it carries out.
In a global imperialist system of inter-state rivalry, the ruling classes in the West see holding onto power as far more important than the struggles of the Palestinians.
And the hypocrisy is on show when the US and Europe, while remaining silent about Israel’s apartheid regime, attack Russia for being dictatorial or China as being authoritarian.
The key difference is that these are imperialist states that oppose and threaten Western interests. When liberal democracies wage wars, it’s supposedly a selfless act of policing international law.
But wars waged by anyone opposing Western imperialism are criminal enterprises violating international law. This points to something more fundamental.
International law is largely a Western invention at the service of the US and its allies, acting as an instrument to justify their acts.
The ICJ ruling is an ideological defeat for Israel and its Western backers. It should make it harder for every university, company and state to dismiss opposition to Israel and its institutions.
We should use it in the fight to force the Labour government to stop all arms to Israel. And activists should use the ruling to expose the hypocrisy of the West and boost the struggle for Palestinian liberation.
Why is Labour obsessed with ‘growth’?
The party repeated the word endlessly during the election campaign. Here Marxist economist Rob Hoveman points out the flaws in Labour’s theory
Keir Starmer hosted a CEO business reception at Downing street this week. He’s hinged his strategy on boosting economic growth (Picture: Number 10 Flickr)
Why is the new Labour government fixated with economic growth?
Two words run like a mantra through everything Labour says, “stability” and “growth”.
Stability, it says, will come from two sources. First, Labour’s big parliamentary majority and the prospect of just one prime minister and one chancellor for at least the next five years.
And second, by the government abiding by the judgements of an independent panel of experts, the Office of Budget Responsibility, on how much it can borrow and spend.
This “stability” is supposed to be the basis on which the government can then secure higher economic growth. Rachel Reeves, the new chancellor and the first woman to be in the job, is haunted by the Liz Truss debacle.
As Tory prime minister Truss made uncosted tax cuts and spending commitments that spooked the financial markets and almost led to the collapse of big pension funds.
The markets humiliated Truss and effectively forced her out of government.
But what is this ‘growth’ that all main political parties fetishise?
Economists measure growth by tracking a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is defined as the total value of goods produced and sold, investments made, government spending and exports minus imports.
Almost all mainstream commentators accept GDP as an indicator of the economic health of an economy—and its ability to attract investment which can further boost growth.
China has seen phenomenal economic growth over the last 25 years or so. The transformation has helped lift many millions of people out of poverty and put China into the position of a rising imperialist challenger to the United States.
The Keir Starmer government hopes that economic growth will improve the incomes and living standards of the majority of people in Britain—without it having to redistribute wealth and income through higher taxes on the rich.
Starmer and Reeves think that rising economic growth, if they can achieve it, will be led by housebuilding.
With the right incentives, they believe developers will build some 1.5 million new homes over the next five years and provide the tax revenues to begin to fix our broken NHS, schools, universities and local government.
Why has growth been so low for so long?
Economic growth across the world’s major economies, with the exception of China, has been slow at best since the financial crisis of 2008. And it took a further big hit during the years of the Covid lockdowns.
Marxists argue the underlying problem is the low profit rates resulting from an over-investment in technology relative to the employment of workers.
That’s because bosses exploiting workers—paying them much less than the value of the goods and services they produce—is the basis of profit across the capitalist system.
Is Britain in particularly poor shape?
This country has been a consistently poor performer in terms of growth because of low productivity.
Low productivity means that the value of goods and services produced per worker in Britain has been lower than in other major economies.
And that low productivity has been the consequence of relatively low levels of investment in the real economy over many years.
Britain’s economic growth, such as it has been, has been largely the product of an increase in the number of productive workers through immigration, a fact that politicians on all sides have chosen to ignore.
What is Labour’s growth plan?
Turning round Britain’s chronically low economic growth would be a formidable challenge for any government. But one way to do it would be by increasing government spending, both by borrowing more and raising taxation.
Labour insists it is not going to raise tax. But despite its claim, taxation is going to rise nevertheless. That’s because the government is committed to not raising tax bands till 2028.
Therefore, millions of people will be pulled into a higher tax band or see a greater proportion of their salaries taxed, particularly those who have secured wage increases.
Despite increased state revenue, the total tax take will barely cover essential government spending if at all. It will not account for new spending to boost the economy.
Starmer and Reeves have set their faces against increased spending that cannot be financed out of economic growth.
Their plan to boost growth focuses on persuading the private sector and the rich that Britain is a place where, with government support, business can make good profits they couldn’t make elsewhere.
That’s why the government talks endlessly about a partnership with business.
Can this growth plan work?
Labour’s basic assumption is that there is a wealth of money out there just waiting to be invested. The task, it believes, is to give the rich the confidence that they will make big profits from their investments.
This explains why they place so much emphasis on planning reform and why Starmer wants to encourage housebuilding.
He holds on to that notion despite there being no evidence that such an ambitious housebuilding programme—especially for affordable, social housing—can be achieved without major government funding.
Even the International Monetary Fund forecasts continuing low economic growth internationally.
Right wing newspapers boasted recently that Britain was top of the league for growth among the G7 group of the world’s biggest economies.
But this inflated claim was based on a projected rise from just 0.5 percent to 0.7 percent. These figures are tiny compared to earlier periods.
Will higher growth benefit workers and public services?
Economic growth will not necessarily benefit either—and there is little prospect of it doing so any time soon, especially given Starmer’s plans.
His commitment to keep taxes on the rich low, and to abide by spending rules laid down by conventional economists, means the government will starve itself of cash.
There will not be money to grant pay claims to stem the recruitment crisis in the health service, schools and in local government. And there’ll be precious little for key services either.
And there’s a more fundamental problem with the concept of “economic growth”. That’s because it takes no account of what it is we are actually producing and how useful to us it is.
Producing more weapons of mass destruction, for example, is one way to generate an increase in GDP. The one area where Starmer is committed to increase public spending is on “defence” or rather, arms.
And the government can choose to use any increased revenues it has by giving tax cuts to the rich—in the hope bosses will reinvest their money. That’s one of the ways in which partnership with business works.
Is higher growth a socialist aim, or is it intrinsically a capitalist aspiration?
Growth as it is conventionally defined is an intrinsically capitalist concept. It takes no account of the happiness and well-being of the workers being driven to create economic growth.
It takes no account of the use of the goods and services being produced and whether they are meeting the needs of the majority.
And it takes no account of the environmental damage caused by that growth, often pursued by ignoring the environmental consequences.
In this respect, it is a disaster that Reeves had Labour abandon its plans to spend £28 billion seeking to save the environment by “greening” the economy.
How should the left respond to Labour’s plans?
The first thing is to recognise that Labour could have made different choices.
All the opinion polls show that a majority of people would welcome higher taxation if the revenues were used to fund the NHS and many of the other services on which our well‑being depends.
Our public services across the board need a big boost to their spending, including paying decent wages to their overworked staff. And higher public spending and wages will in turn boost the economy.
We need to challenge Starmer’s agenda across the board, on the two-child benefit cap, on public sector pay, on the building of social affordable housing, on the destruction of the planet and on immigration and refugees.
Starmer has offered crumbs to the left and to the working class. The people that actually create the wealth of society deserve much better.
THE UK COLD WAR & NATO IN THE PACIFIC
Labour’s imperialist role in Indonesia’s freedom fight
The 1945-51 Labour government fought to restore Dutch colonial rule to Indonesia
Indonesian freedom fighters, Solo, Java, 1949. (Picture: National Museum of World Cultures)
The Labour government of 1945-51 has a wholly undeserved reputation for being progressive as far as British imperialism is concerned.
But nothing demonstrates its imperialist role better than the British intervention in Indonesia to restore Dutch colonial rule in 1945-46.
After Japan surrendered in August 1945 at the end of the Second World War, Indonesia’s nationalist movement proclaimed independence.
It was determined not to be reoccupied by the Dutch colonialists who had been driven out by the Japanese. On 19 September over 200,000 people demonstrated in Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, demanding independence.
Throughout much of the country nationalist militias took control. Restoration The Labour government was absolutely committed to the restoration of imperial rule, but not just in British colonies that had fallen to the Japanese.
It was also committed to French rule of Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos and Dutch rule of Indonesia.
The first British troops arrived on 29 September to be greeted by nationalist demonstrations and banners, written in English, demanding independence.
Within a very short time there were armed clashes that soon developed into full-scale warfare as the British set about attempting to break the nationalist movement.
Eventually over 60,000 British and Indian troops were to be sent to crush the nationalists. From the very beginning this intervention was not popular with many British soldiers.
The government was worried that Britain suffering a large number of deaths while restoring Dutch colonial rule would cause problems at home.
Accordingly, the government decided to rely as much as possible on Indian troops whose lives apparently did not count so much and to rearm the surrendered Japanese garrison.
Soon there was fierce fighting across much of Indonesia with the decisive engagement being the battle for the port city of Surabaya.
Here over 20,000 British troops fought the poorly armed nationalist militia from the end of October into November. British warships shelled the city and British aircraft relentlessly bombed it.
A Scottish woman Muriel Walker who was living in the city, worked with the nationalists, broadcasting on a rebel radio station to the British troops and urging them to stop fighting.
She was known as “Surabaya Sue”. She described how “hundreds upon hundreds were killed”. “The streets ran with blood, women and children lay dead in the gutters… But the Indonesians did not surrender.”
The British drove most of the population out of the city, which was left in ruins. During the war, at least one British unit refused to fight and had to be redeployed.
Australian troops on a number of occasions took part in nationalist demonstrations and even gave the rebels their weapons.
Back in Australia, the trade unions refused to handle the shipping of troops and munitions to Indonesia with over 500 vessels eventually stopped.
To break the boycott, the British government brought in Indian sea workers with the king’s brother, Prince Henry, personally addressing them and praising them for their loyalty to the British Empire.
Boycott The translator, however, changed his speech into a passionate plea to support the boycott and the sea workers all walked out to join the picket lines.
Even British troops on the British warships held collections for the strikers. Some 600 Indian soldiers actually went over to the rebels, taking their weapons with them.
By the time the last British troops were withdrawn at the end of 1946, imperialist troops had killed more than 20,000 Indonesians.
200 British university academics, workers, and student groups have declared their solidarity with the student movement in Bangladesh that has emerged in the wake of quota reform protests.
They are also calling for an end to the Bangladeshi government’s repression of students, as well as to the British government’s training of Bangladeshi police forces like the notorious Rapid Action Battalion unit (RAB).
Bangladesh: protesting outdated laws
As the Canary’s Priscilla Oei previously reported, in Bangladesh university students are protesting the job quota system for public service, calling it outdated and discriminatory. The Awami League government originally established the system after 1972 to help disadvantaged groups.
Now, it faces criticism for favouring individuals with political connections, rather than merit. This has caused frustration among young people, who feel their job opportunities are being unfairly limited.
Demonstrations began on 1 July 2024, where tens of thousands of students across the country took to the streets. This soon turned into an outburst of violence against the police. Around 174 people have been killed in the clashes, including several police officers. The authorities imposed a curfew and cut mobile and internet services.
They have deployed security forces to control the unrest, but human rights groups accuse them of using excessive force against protesters. Footage from redstreamnet on X shows police vehicles running over pedestrians with ultimately life-threatening consequences.
So, in the UK the joint statement calls for solidarity with the student movement.
Intimidation and punishment for dissent
The statement, coordinated by the UK Bangladeshi organisation Nijjor Manush, is published amidst the growing repression of faculty in Bangladesh who are engaging with student protesters. This includes Dr Shakera Nargis, a lecturer at Sylhet’s MAG Osmani Medical College, who is facing legal threats after allegedly attending a student meeting.
This situation marks a disturbing escalation in efforts to intimidate and punish dissenting faculty.
Highlighting the progressive role of student movements historically, the statement stresses the links between recent student mass mobilisations in Bangladesh and Britain, such as the student encampment movement in solidarity with Palestinians, and the draconian response from the government and universities in both instances.
The signatories call for academics and university workers in Bangladesh to lend their solidarity to their students and affirm their support for the deepening of the democratic struggle in Bangladesh. Outrage at Bangladesh’s government
A spokesperson from Nijjor Manush, which coordinated the statement, says:
Bangladeshis in the diaspora have been outraged by the brutal response of the Bangladeshi government to the current student movement.
It has exposed the thinly-veiled contempt of the Bangladeshi government towards its people and their democratic aspirations.
On this, the Bangladeshi government can find common ground with our own government here in Britain – given the British state’s training and support for the notorious Rapid Action Battalion police unit and the recent joint agreement between the two governments to expedite the deportation of Bangladeshi asylum seekers from Britain.
We call for an end to the British government’s complicity with state violence in Bangladesh and express our support for the deepening of popular democratic struggle in Bangladesh by students, workers, peasants and the oppressed as the antidote to the oppressive rule of the Awami League government.
Dr. Adnan Fakir, lecturer at the University of Sussex, says:
As Bangladeshi academics in Britain, we extend our full solidarity and support to students currently on the frontline in Bangladesh and call on our counterparts in Bangladeshi universities to support their students.
The re-emergence of the quota reform movement – and the draconian response to it – has seen the arrested ambitions of students and youth in Bangladesh, facing large-scale unemployment and inequitable access to public sector employment, reveal the widespread discontent with the ruling dispensation in Bangladesh.
The government needs to publicly acknowledge, apologize, and provide justice for the martyrs of the movement in order for the nation to move forward.
The collective memory of the draconian acts, without proper justice and political reformation, will only lead to repeated cycles of the horror that has transpired. The task of transforming society cannot be shouldered by students alone. It is one that can only be carried through by the students of Bangladesh alongside the peasants, the workers and the oppressed.
Featured image via Al Jazeera – screengrab
Plan for UK’s biggest solar farm will be biggest test of Government’s anti-nimby drive
BIG READ
Ed Miliband will shortly rule on whether an eight-square-mile solar farm capable of powering 180,000 homes should get the go-ahead
The Labour Government launched its GB Energy plan this week (Photo: i)
The Government faces the biggest test so far of its anti-Nimby drive as it decides whether to give the green light to what would be the UK’s biggest solar farm.
The Cottam Solar project would occupy 12.5 square kilometres – almost eight square miles – of farmland on the border of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, generating enough electricity to power 180,000 homes.
It would be considerably bigger than any solar farm currently in operation, generating eight times the energy of the largest site at the moment, Llanwern in Wales.
And it would be almost 25 per cent bigger than Sunnica, the giant solar development on the border of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, which Energy Secretary Ed Miliband waved through this month just three days into his new job – despite being opposed by the Government’s own Planning Inspectorate.
He now has until 5 September to make a decision on Cottam Solar, near the market town of Gainsborough.
Mr Miliband will consider the need to quickly and dramatically scale up solar and onshore wind generation if the UK is to have any chance of meeting highly ambitious and legally binding targets to make power virtually net zero in just six years.
And he will set that against very strong local opposition and the unprecedented size of solar farm, by UK standards, experts said.
Simon Skelton, a retired coal and gas power station worker who moved to the area in search of a country lifestyle, is one of the locals strongly opposed to the project.
“I live in the middle of the Cottam Solar project site and I just can’t image what it will do to the landscape – it will be horrendous. The panels are 4.5 metres high, which is the height of a double decker bus, covering three thousand acres,” he told i.
“Apart from the visual impact it’s a very inefficient use of agricultural land. If we’re going to go down this route of putting solar panels everywhere then we should start on rooftops first to see whether we can do it that way – before we start taking up huge amounts of farmland, which we feel is foolhardy.”
Simon Skerry stands on the proposed site for Cottam Solar with a 4.5 metre high pole – the same height as the solar panels will be (Photo: Simon Skerry)
Jerry Parker, a retired IT business owner who lives in the nearby village of Cammeringham, told i: “We would say we’re not Nimbys. A Nimby, to me, is somebody who wants nothing near them, no matter what they are and why they might be placed there. We don’t fall into that category.
“It’s not because we’re Nimbys, it’s because solar technology is inefficient. It takes vast amounts of land to produce the power it does.
“We just seem to be inundated in Lincolnshire with these projects. We’re going to live in an industrial zone and none of us live where we do because we want that type of environment. I think it’s a David and Goliath situation we have here.”
Sir Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough, said the project “is utterly inappropriate. By building on quality agricultural land, we will destroy a natural resource in the heart of England’s green and pleasant land.”
On Monday, a major report led by the Royal Academy of Engineering called for decarbonising the electricity grid by the end of the decade to be treated as a national mission similar to the work of the Covid vaccines taskforce.
The panel of behind the report, including science minister Sir Patrick Vallance, suggested the Government’s target of ”clean power by 2030” could see net-zero energy generation on three quarters of days.
On remaining days, when wind or sunshine levels are lower, small amounts of electricity from gas power stations would top up supplies.
Dr Simon Harrison of engineering consultancy Mott MacDonald, who worked on the report, said: “The scale of work required to decarbonise the electricity system in such a short period of time cannot be underestimated. A radical shift in our approach will be needed.”
What the Royal Academy of Engineering report is calling for:
Strong central leadership, backed by the Prime Minister, and a clear strategic plan for the country to deliver the infrastructure needed.
Ministers must get the public and industry on board with the “mission” to deliver clean power by 2030, and spell out the benefits which include…
Personal benefits – for example lower bills from electricity tariffs that let the supplier have flexibility on when to charge an electric vehicle;
Local benefits – for example the jobs clean power can bring to an area;
Benefits for society as whole – avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, combating respiratory illnesses by switching from polluting boilers and vehicles; reducing costs to the NHS because of this;
The Government must tackle difficult decisions on planning, consents and delays to connecting new schemes to the grid – such as local opposition to overhead power lines, or the higher costs on bills of putting them underground.
However, he added: “We not advocating for running roughshod over the planning system”.
Ed Griffiths of Barbour ABI, which provides construction data to the Government, was not involved in that report, but said: “The Cottam Solar decision looks set to be the biggest test case yet for the Government’s determination to push ahead with new solar farms.
“We have consistently seen a lot of planning activity for green energy projects in Lincolnshire and, at approximately 3,000 acres and 600 megawatts, our research shows Cottam would be the biggest solar development anywhere in the UK.”
A spokesperson for Island Green Power, the London-based renewable energy developer behind Cottam Solar, said: “Since 2021, we have been working with the local councils, communities and stakeholders to develop proposals for Cottam Solar Project, which have also gone through rigorous examination by the Government’s Planning Inspectorate.
“The end result is a proposal that, if approved, will make a significant contribution to the Government’s commitment to make Britain a clean energy superpower, creating a renewable source of electricity that is enough to power 180,000 UK households annually.
“Beyond delivering affordable, renewable electricity, we’re pleased that our final proposals will improve biodiversity across the area. Environmental studies suggest there will be improvements of up to 96 per cent measured in habitat units.
“At the same time, we’re committed to providing direct funding to local communities near to the project. This will be scoped in consultation over the coming months.”
Mr Miliband has been sent the Planning Inspectorate’s report and recommendation – although he has not said whether it is for or against the project.
However, he disregarded a recommendation against development earlier this month when he gave permission to Sunnica – so he will not automatically go with the inspectorate’s advice.
The Department for Energy and Net Zero said it was unable to comment on Cottam Solar because it is a live planning application. A spokesperson added: “Solar power is crucial to achieving net zero, providing an abundant source of cleaner, cheaper energy.
“The Energy Secretary has taken immediate action to boost the role of solar – approving three major solar projects and launching a rooftop revolution for solar panels on new homes.
“We will make tough decisions with ambition and urgency – all part of our plan to make the UK a clean energy superpower.”
Earlier this month, Mr Miliband said “solar power is crucial to achieving net zero” and he has declared his intention to drive through onshore wind and solar farms where the case for them is merited.
On Friday he wrote to the developers of Cottam Solar looking for further clarification on any potential harm caused to fish by the electromagnetic fields that would be generated by the solar farm; and on targets to boost biodiversity on the site.
After Trump’s election, women of color had more underweight, premature babies, study finds
"That thousands of infants may have been healthier had the election not occurred is incredibly troubling," said Caitlin Patler, associate professor at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy
Now, with Trump once again in contention for the White House, a new study from the University of California, Berkeley, reveals the surprising — and potentially lifelong — association between those early Trump years and the health of society's newest citizens.
In the two years after Trump was elected, there was a significant increase in the number of non-white women in the U.S. who gave birth to children who were premature or underweight, researchers report in a study published today in the journal Demography. The increase in underweight and premature births was especially pronounced for children born to Black mothers, the study found.
"Elections matter to health in enduring ways," said Paola D. Langer, a postdoctoral fellow at the campus's Goldman School of Public Policy and study's first author. "Our results show a link between the two years after Trump’s election and an increase in adverse birth outcomes among non-white groups in the U.S. that is likely explained by a combination of stress and policy impacts."
To understand the effect Trump's election may have had on newborns, researchers analyzed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from more than 15 million U.S. births between November 2012 and November 2018. The CDC records account for all infants born nationwide. Low birth weight and premature births are widely used metrics linked to both infant mortality rates and physical and cognitive development later in life.
Rates of low birth weight and preterm births increased for Black, Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islander mothers in the two years after Trump’s election compared to the years when Barack Obama was president.
Black mothers had the largest increases in children born underweight, a 0.62 percentage point increase, according to adjusted models. In other words, if Trump hadn't been elected, the analysis suggests, about 3,783 fewer infants may have been born underweight.
While the percentage point difference may seem small, the effect is alarming when extrapolated to the population, Langer said. For perspective, a recent study found that exposure to large wildfires was associated with a 0.2% increase in infants with low birth weights.
"The changes we observed for infants born to U.S.-born Black mothers in the first two years after Trump’s election are approximately three times as large as that of the wildfires," Langer said.
Society-altering events like elections, large-scale protests, wars or disasters are known to affect population health — especially when those events espouse and foment racism, xenophobia and hate. Much like the pandemic put a microscope up to societal inequalities, major political and social events disproportionately harm disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
Even still, the findings are jarring, said Caitlin Patler, an associate professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy and co-author of the paper.
"It is always shocking to quantify the health harms that may be the result of structural racism and xenophobia," Patler said. "That thousands of infants may have been healthier had the election not occurred is incredibly troubling."
Added Erin Hamilton, the paper's senior author and a UC Davis sociology professor: “We don’t usually think about things like elections harming health, but insofar as major political events cause stress, which we know they do, they can have physical health consequences.”
Langer and Patler cautioned that their analysis could not rule out what role events other than the election may have contributed to the increased rate of low birth weights. For example, the racist and widely viewed Unite the Right rally, a white supremacist event held in August 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, overlapped with the time period they were studying, as did other events that could have contributed to the changes.
Regardless, Patler and Langer said, something major changed after the election of Donald Trump. They hope future research will be able to more directly link the causes and track the effects of such disruptive, anxiety-inducing events.
"Racial disparities in health can change rapidly and substantially following macro-level political events that are racialized or xenophobic," Langer said. "In this case, Trump’s election appears to have affected the life chances of even the newest members of U.S. society: infants born in the two years after he took office.
"The legacy of these health harms could be long-lasting and dire."
JOURNAL
Demography
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Data/statistical analysis
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
People
ARTICLE TITLE
Adverse Infant Health Outcomes Increased After the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Among Non-White U.S.-born and Foreign-born Mothers
by 
