LOTS OF GRAPHS

COVID-19 Crisis Has Changed How Americans Live


Andy Bergmann
Sat, December 26, 2020



Consumer Reports has no financial relationship with advertisers on this site.

Consumer Reports has been tracking how the coronavirus pandemic has changed Americans’ daily lives, since early March. The CR Survey has tapped a nationally representative sample of Americans on a monthly basis asking about the virus’ impact on jobs, finances, social lives, shopping, and more.

Americans Are Concerned


Overall concern about the spread of the coronavirus in respondents’ local areas over the following month remained consistently high throughout the second half of 2020. Concern peaked in July, dropped in August, then built back up over the following months.


Emotional and Financial Effects

Amid the heartbreaking death toll from COVID-19 and enduring physical health problems for many survivors, the pandemic has also exacted a heavy toll on the emotional and financial well-being of many Americans.


Behaviors Have Changed

A majority of Americans say they would feel at least somewhat safe going in person to the doctor or dentist, but far fewer Americans would feel similarly safe traveling by plane or going to an indoor gym.


This multimode survey was fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago using a nationally representative sample of 2,851 U.S. adults. The most recent survey was conducted Nov. 5 to Nov. 16, 2020, in English and in Spanish. The survey was directed by Karen Jaffe, associate director of survey research at Consumer Reports, and Tess Yanisch, survey research associate at Consumer Reports. (Download a PDF of the full survey results.)

October 2020 Survey

To monitor the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the habits and attitudes of Americans, Consumer Reports’ American Experiences Survey team again interviewed a nationally representative sample of Americans. This time, 2,670 U.S. adults were polled between Oct. 8 and Oct. 26.
Concern Remains High

As COVID-19 cases began to increase again across the country, the majority of Americans continued to express concern about the spread of the virus in their local areas.


Most Americans Would Wait to Be Vaccinated

Only 12 percent of Americans reported that they would feel comfortable getting a COVID-19 vaccination immediately after one is released. The majority said they would wait at least three months, or would not get it at all, when asked about how soon they would feel comfortable getting it after release.


Fewer Americans Very Likely to Get a Vaccine

In October, fewer than 1 in 3 people indicated that they were “very likely” to get a vaccine. (Note that the survey was taken prior to the November elections and recent release of Pfizer trial data.)


Black Americans Are Much Less Confident in Vaccine Safety

Black respondents were much less likely to have confidence in the safety of a COVID-19 vaccine if one became available today than Hispanic and white respondents.



This multimode survey was fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago using a nationally representative sample of 2,670 U.S. adults. The survey was conducted Oct. 8 to Oct. 26, 2020, in English and in Spanish. The survey was directed by Karen Jaffe, associate director of survey research at Consumer Reports, and Jane Manweiler, senior research associate at CR.

September 2020 Survey

To monitor the impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the habits and attitudes of Americans, Consumer Reports’ American Experiences Survey team again interviewed a nationally representative sample of Americans, this time 2,303 U.S. adults polled from Sept. 11 through Sept. 21. CR found that Americans are taking even more precautionary measures because of the pandemic.

Voting by Mail

With the pandemic still affecting communities across the country, 35 percent of Americans indicated that they would vote by mail in the November elections. If they follow through with their plans, that will be considerably higher than the 20.9 percent of votes cast via mail in the 2016 presidential election.


More People Are Wearing Masks

The number of people who reported always wearing a mask in indoor public spaces ticked up again in September.



More Are Likely to Support Businesses That Follow Safety Guidelines

An increased number of Americans now say they’re more likely to support businesses that follow COVID-19 safety guidelines, such as wearing a mask. Those that indicated support increased from 59 percent in June to 68 percent in September.



This multimode survey was fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago using a nationally representative sample. The survey was conducted Sept. 11 to Sept. 21, 2020, in English and Spanish. It was directed by Karen Jaffe, associate director of survey research at Consumer Reports, and Tess Yanisch, survey research associate at CR.

August 2020 Survey

To monitor the impact COVID-19 is having on the habits and attitudes of Americans, Consumer Reports’ American Experiences Survey team again interviewed a nationally representative sample of Americans, this time of 2,236 adults from Aug. 7 through Aug. 19. CR found that Americans were less concerned about the spread of COVID-19 in August than they were in July but are being cautious in their spending habits and willingness to fly.
Overall Concern About the Spread of COVID-19 Dropped in August

After peaking in July, Americans’ overall concern about the spread of COVID-19 in their local areas fell somewhat in August.


Americans Are Spending Less

Over half of Americans are being more cautious about spending than they were before the coronavirus pandemic began. While spending patterns are generally consistent among age groups, high earners are the least likely to report being much more cautious about spending.


Not Ready to Fly

Half of Americans would fly only for an important event or a reason such as a family emergency. The majority of them say that strict rules around social distancing and wearing masks would need to be in place for them to feel comfortable flying. Nineteen percent would not feel comfortable flying unless they had a COVID-19 vaccine.



This multimode survey was fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago using a nationally representative sample. The survey was conducted Aug. 7 to Aug. 19, 2020, in English and in Spanish. The survey was directed by Karen Jaffe, associate director of survey research at Consumer Reports, and Tess Yanisch, survey research associate at CR.

July 2020 Survey

Following a surge in COVID-19 cases after broad reopenings around the country, Consumer Reports’ American Experiences Survey team again interviewed a nationally representative sample of adults, with 2,031 polled between July 9 and July 20. CR found that Americans are more concerned with the spread of the virus than they were in previous surveys and that they’ve been scaling up precautions, with more people reporting wearing masks in public. The survey also found more pronounced growth in concern among Black and Hispanic Americans.
Americans Are More Worried

As COVID-19 caseloads have spiked in many parts of the country, more Americans have become concerned about the spread of the virus in their areas.


More Black, Hispanic Americans ‘Very Concerned’

Although there was a strong increase among all respondents who reported being “very concerned” about the spread of COVID-19 (41 percent in June to 53 percent in July), the increase among Black and Hispanic respondents who reported being “very concerned” grew even more dramatically compared with the previous month.


Women Are More Concerned Than Men

Women have consistently reported greater concern than men over the spread of COVID-19. In June, the gap between women and men who said they were “very concerned” widened by 16 percentage points. But concern among men rose dramatically in July, narrowing the gap to 9 percentage points.


Mask Usage Has Increased

Amid increased concern over the spread of COVID-19, a higher percentage of Americans surveyed reported always wearing a mask when they’re in indoor public spaces.


Mask Usage Varies Based on Location

Mask usage across the U.S. hasn’t been consistent, the survey shows. More residents in the Northeast and the West report always wearing a mask when they’re in indoor public spaces, while those living in the South and the Midwest were less likely to do so.


A Split on In-School Education

With the start of the traditional school year approaching when the survey was conducted, a majority of Americans with school-age children at home reported they were not confident that their schools could prevent the spread of COVID-19 if they reopen for in-person classes.


Black and Hispanic Americans Concerned About School Reopenings

When compared with the general population, a higher percentage of Black and Hispanic Americans reported that they would prefer that schools remain closed, with students attending all classes online.



This multimode survey was fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago using a nationally representative sample. The survey was conducted July 9 to July 20, 2020, in English and Spanish. The survey was directed by Karen Jaffe, Consumer Reports’ associate director of survey research, and Jane Manweiler, survey research associate at CR.

June 2020 Survey

As many states across the U.S. were lifting lockdowns in June and everything from bars to beaches was reopening, Consumer Reports’ American Experiences Survey team once again interviewed a nationally representative sample of adults. This time, 1,014 people were polled between June 4 and June 16. CR discovered that a majority of Americans were still worried about the spread of COVID-19 near them. Those fears have been borne out by the surge of virus infections in several states.

Virus Transmission Concerns Remain High

While states across the U.S. allowed restaurants, bars, stores, and beaches to reopen, Americans reported that they were just as worried as they were a month earlier about the spread of the virus.



Americans Say They’re Distancing and Wearing Masks

Of those Americans who’ve ventured out in recent days, most say they are following safety precautions recommended by health experts, such as donning masks in indoor public spaces and keeping 6 feet away from others wherever they go.



Black and Hispanic Americans Are More Likely to Wear Masks

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that people of color are much more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than white Americans. So it’s notable that they are more likely than white Americans to report always using masks, and Black Americans are most likely to report always socially distancing from others in public.


Older Americans Are Feeling More Worried

Statistics show that COVID-19 is more likely to cause serious illness and death in older adults, so perhaps it’s no surprise that more than half of Americans 60-plus are very concerned about the virus’ spread near them.



But Some Younger Americans Are Eager for Reopenings

As states were lifting restrictions put into place to minimize transmission of COVID-19, we asked Americans what changes they might start making in their daily lives. While the majority planned to do things such as go shopping or to the gym the same amount or less than they did pre-COVID-19, a quarter of Americans ages 18 to 29 said they would be heading to shops and gyms more often than before the pandemic.


Many Americans Support Businesses That Take COVID-19 Seriously

The majority of Americans are more likely to support businesses that require both their employees and customers to wear masks and keep 6 feet away from each other, as recommended by health experts. Most also believe that stores should, by law, be able to deny service to customers who fail to follow their safety guidelines.



This multimode survey was fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago using a nationally representative sample. The survey was conducted June 4 to 16, 2020. The survey was directed by Karen Jaffe, Consumer Reports’ associate director of survey research, and Jane Manweiler, survey research associate at CR.

May 2020 Survey

As COVID-19 continued its deadly spread across the U.S. in May, Consumer Reports’ survey team once again interviewed a nationally representative sample of adults (this time, 2,085 people were polled from May 8 to 18) seeking to learn whether Americans felt the coronavirus pandemic would change their lives in the future—how they work, play, shop, travel, pray, and much more. Important note: This new survey was taken prior to the killing of George Floyd and the protests against systemic racism that followed, revealing that even in mid-May many Americans believed life in the U.S. was in a serious upheaval.
Concerns for Virus Transmission Stay High

As states began lifting restrictions that had been put in place to minimize transmission of COVID-19—such as closing restaurants and beaches—most Americans still had strong concerns about the spread of the virus.


More Black and Hispanic Americans Are Highly Concerned

Our April survey revealed that Black and Hispanic respondents were hit harder by the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. When we asked in May about the further spread of the virus, both groups were more likely to be highly concerned than white Americans about the virus’ spread.


Life in the U.S. Will Never Be the Same

Even as restrictions were being lifted in some parts of the U.S. in mid-May, most Americans said they would be making at least some permanent changes to their daily lives because of COVID-19. Only 16 percent believe they will go back to living life as they did before the virus.


More Black Respondents Plan Life-Altering Changes

Still more evidence that COVID-19 has had a deeper impact on Black Americans: Even before the killing of George Floyd, Black Americans responded that the impact of the virus had permanently changed the way they would live their lives.


What Americans Want to Do ASAP

As quarantines and closures begin to lift across the U.S., many Americans say that within a month of reopening, they’ll get their hair and/or nails done and head to beaches, restaurants, houses of worship, and other meeting places.


Trains, Gyms, Rock Concerts? Maybe Not.

Some of our respondents declared they would never again ride on subways or buses, work out in gyms, or even go to movie theaters in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.


Many Would Get a Vaccine . . . but Some Wouldn't

In spite of the deadliness of COVID-19, one-third of Americans tell us they’re not likely to get a coronavirus vaccine if one becomes available.


Why Some Americans Wouldn't Get Vaccinated

Safety concerns about the vaccine are the leading reason that one-third of Americans are not likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine when offered. Some also don’t believe that the coronavirus is a serious health threat.



This multimode survey was fielded by NORC at the University of Chicago using a nationally representative sample. The survey was conducted May 8 to 18, 2020. The survey was directed by Karen Jaffe, Consumer Reports’ associate director of survey research, and Debra Kalensky, senior research associate at CR.

April 2020 Survey

When COVID-19 was spreading across the U.S. in early March, Consumer Reports’ survey team began to track how the coronavirus pandemic was changing Americans’ lives. We interviewed a nationally representative sample of 1,079 adults in the first two weeks of March, and then 2,164 adults in the first two weeks of April (captured here), seeking insight about the virus’ impact on our jobs, finances, social lives, shopping, and much more. We will continue to update this page over the next few months with our latest findings.
Virus Transmission Concerns Jumped

In just one month, the percentage of Americans who reported feeling highly concerned about the widespread transmission of the coronavirus has increased dramatically.



Note: March survey asked participants their level of concern about the possibility of widespread transmission; April survey asked level of concern about widespread transmission.
An Economic and Emotional Toll

Americans revealed in our April survey that the coronavirus pandemic has had a dramatic effect on their finances and on their sense of well-being.


Not Everyone Is Affected Equally

Those who are Hispanic, Black, or younger than 45 are more likely to have been economically hit hard by COVID-19, with more losing income and falling behind on mortgages or rent, according to our April survey.


Lives Put on Hold

An overwhelming number of those surveyed in April who had important plans affecting their future health or finances reported that they had to delay or cancel those plans because of COVID-19.



Americans who, prior to the coronavirus pandemic, were considering doing each of the above in the next year.
Trying to Stay Safe From COVID-19

Over the course of a few weeks, Americans quickly ramped up the precautions and preparations they were taking to protect themselves in the face of the widening coronavirus pandemic.


Some Things Americans Are Buying Now

In our April survey, we asked people about a few items and services they might have bought in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Here are the percentages of people who purchased or upgraded one of these products or services in recent weeks.


. . . And Things They Can't Find Anywhere

Shortages are a way of life now. But some products have practically disappeared from store shelves. Here are the percentages of Americans who couldn’t track down the following items.

BUDDHIST NATIONALISM

Covid-19: Sri Lanka forcibly cremates Muslim baby sparking anger


Fri, December 25, 2020,

Sri Lanka's Muslim minority are fighting to change the Covid-19 cremation rules

The forced cremation of a 20-day-old Muslim baby in Sri Lanka has highlighted the government's controversial order to burn the bodies of all those who died of Covid. Critics say the decision is not based in science and only intended to target the minority community. BBC Sinhala's Saroj Pathirana reports.

Mohamed Fahim and his wife Fathima Shafna were thrilled when their baby boy Shaykh was born on 18 November after a six-year wait.

But their joy was short-lived.

On the night of 7 December, they noticed the baby was struggling to breathe. They rushed him to the capital Colombo's best children's hospital, the Lady Ridgeway.

"They told us the baby was in a severe condition and was suffering from pneumonia. But then, around midnight, they did an antigen test and told us the baby was positive for coronavirus," Mohamed Fahim, who drives a three-wheeler for a living, told BBC Sinhala.

Doctors then tested Mr Fahim and his wife but they were both negative.

"I asked how my baby was positive when both of us, even the mother who was breastfeeding him, were negative?"

Despite tears and pleas, the anxious couple were sent home by officials who said more tests were needed. They were told to call the hospital for updates.

The next day, they were informed that their baby had died of Covid. Mr Fahim repeatedly asked doctors to conduct a PCR test to reconfirm this, but they refused.

Then, doctors asked him to sign a document authorising the cremation of their child, as required by law in Sri Lanka.

Mr Fahim refused: the cremation of bodies is forbidden in Islam, considered a form of mutilation, forbidden by Allah. Muslims also believe in the resurrection of the physical body, and cremation is thought to prevent this.

And he is not alone. Some Muslim families have refused to claim the bodies of their dead, leaving the government to cremate them on state expense, while many will not accept the ashes of their loved ones.

Sri Lankans of all faiths tied ribbons outside the cemetery where Shaykh was cremated

Mr Fahim says he repeatedly asked for his baby's body to be handed back to him, but officials said no. The next day, he was told his son's body was being taken to the crematorium.

"I went there but I didn't enter the hall," he says. "How can you watch your baby son being burnt?"

'No evidence'

Political, religious and community leaders representing the Muslim community have repeatedly requested the government to change its "cremate only" policy, pointing to the more than 190 countries allowing burials, and World Health Organization advice. It has even taken its fight to the Supreme Court, but the cases were dismissed without an explanation.

The government argues burials could contaminate ground water, based on the say-so of an expert committee, the composition and qualifications of which are unknown.

World-renowned virologist Prof Malik Peiris, however, has questioned the theory.

"Covid-19 is not a waterborne disease," Prof Peiris told the BBC. "And I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it spreads through dead bodies. A virus can only multiply in a living cell. Once a person dies, the ability of the viruses to multiply decreases."

He added: "Dead bodies aren't buried right in running water. Once you bury the body six feet under wrapped in impermeable wrapping, it is highly unlikely it would contaminate running water."

Muslim groups have filed court petitions to change the cremation rule

There had not been much sympathy for the plight of the Muslim community - but the forced cremation of baby Shaykh has changed that.

Soon after the news broke, men, women, clergy from other faiths, rights activists and opposition politicians gathered outside the crematorium, and tied white ribbons on the gate. Many were from the majority Sinhala community.

People have also taken to social media to condemn what happened.

Activist and lawyer Thyagi Ruwanpathirana, who was among those who tied white cloth on the gate, tweeted about her experience: "While I was tying it, a mother and daughter duo crossed the road and joined me with their own white cloths. Till I came they were worried someone may be watching.

"I couldn't quite make out what the mother was trying to say at first because we all had our masks on. Then she said, 'The baby was only two-days-old no? Sin. This way at least my heart will be satisfied'."

The white cloths disappeared overnight, believed to have been removed by authorities, but the anger did not.

The white cloths which adorned the gates disappeared overnight

Hilmy Ahmed, the vice-president of the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka, told the BBC it was clear this was all part of a "racist" agenda, targeting the Muslim minority.

"The government doesn't seem to be responding to anything based on science," he said. "They don't seem to take into consideration the advice of virologists or microbiologists or epidemiologists. This is racist agenda of a few in the technical committee."

"This is probably the last straw for Muslims because nobody expected this little baby to be cremated," he added. "That also without even showing the child to the parents."

But the government denies that the measures are aimed at Muslims, pointing to the fact Sinhala Buddhists are having to cremate their loved ones within 24 hours, which also goes against their traditions.

"Sometimes we will have to do things that we don't like too much," the cabinet spokesman, Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, told the BBC.

"Everybody has to make some kind of sacrifices during this Covid pandemic. I understand this is a very sensitive issue. Even my Muslim friends are calling me and asking me to help them. But as a government we have to take the decisions based on science for the sake of all concerned."

The government says it is looking for suitable land to bury Muslim Covid-19 fatalities

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa has, meanwhile, instructed authorities to find a suitable dry land to bury those dying from coronavirus, his office said in a statement.

Mannar in northern Sri Lanka is thought to be considered by the authorities as a possible location. But it is not being seen as viable by the Muslim community - many of them were driven out of there by Tamil separatists in 1990. They fear that burials there will cause more tension.

And Mr Ahmed has dismissed the offer as "a carrot they are holding every time the pressure" increases. After all, the prime minister has issued similar instructions before, but Muslims are still being cremated.

Meanwhile, Mr Fahil says he still can't come to terms with what happened to his baby son, Shaykh.

"My only wish is that no other person should go through this pain. I don't wish any other child to experience what happened to my son."

India detains 75 in Kashmir after local election

INDIA LOST ELECTION TO KASHMIR OPPOSITION

#KASHMIR IS #INDIA'S #GAZA


FILE PHOTO: Mehbooba Mufti addresses a news conference in Srinagar
Sat, December 26, 202

By Fayaz Bukhari

SRINAGAR, India (Reuters) - India's government detained at least 75 Kashmiri political leaders and activists to forestall political unrest after an alliance of Kashmir's regional political parties won a local election, leaders and a police official said on Saturday.

The District Council election, concluded early this week, was the first such exercise since Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government last year revoked the special status of the Muslim-majority, Indian-controlled region. New Delhi then cracked down on the opposition and rounded up hundreds of people to preempt protests and violence.

The new detentions, including separatist leaders and members of the banned Jamat-e-Islami group, were for preventive custody, said a senior police official, who asked not to be identified in line with official policy.

India and Pakistan have claimed all of the Kashmir region since the partition of British-ruled India into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu-majority India in 1947. Two of the three wars they have fought have been over the Himalayan region.

The detentions undermine the verdict of the people, said Imran Nabi Dar, spokesman for the National Conference, a regional party and a key member of the alliance.

The alliance's victory shows that Kashmiris have not accepted Modi's decision to end Kashmir's special status, said Omar Abdullah, a former chief minister and head of the National Conference.

After their release from lengthy detention, Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, chief of the Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party, announced the alliance in October to seek a peaceful restoration of Kashmir's autonomy.

(Reporting by Fayaz Bukhari in Srinigar; Writing by Mayank Bhardwaj; Editing by William Mallard)

In pursuing historic climate change agenda, Biden may find surprising ally
Adam Edelman
Sat, December 26, 2020

President-elect Joe Biden has made no secret that tackling climate change will be one of his top priorities. But to enact his platform to reduce global warming he may find an unexpected ally: Republicans.

Biden campaigned on the most ambitious climate agenda in history: It included plans for pioneering green energy and infrastructure projects and proposals to address environmental racism. Large chunks of his "Build Back Better" economic agenda are explicitly tied to climate-related policies.

Biden has said he will re-enter the U.S. in the Paris climate accord on his first day in office and will prioritize undoing dozens of environmental regulatory rollbacks put into place by President Donald Trump — all via executive action.


But what comes after that will be the hard part: trying to implement his climate agenda through legislation.

That's where he may find a partnership with Republicans on Capitol Hill.

While some in the GOP remain in steadfast denial that human-caused climate change even exists, dozens of Republican lawmakers have acknowledged that the time has come to address the crisis and have put forward policies that have gained some degree of bipartisan traction.

None, however, have approached the level of reform Biden has proposed. As a result, his administration will have to deftly maneuver balancing the major progressive climate actions he's promised with his desire to reach bipartisan solutions and promote political unity — something he's also promised.

Interviews with lawmakers from both parties and climate advocacy organizations on both ends of the political spectrum suggest the appetite in both parties for climate change policy is robust, making the topic a likely, even if unexpected, area for bipartisan cooperation under the new president.

Much of how Biden might navigate the issue remains tied up in two closely watched Senate runoff elections in Georgia next month. If Democrats win both, they win control of the chamber and with it leadership posts of pivotal climate-oriented committees, which would give Biden a leg up in setting the rules of the road on the issue. But if Democrats fall short, Republicans will maintain Senate control and with it the ability to advance their own climate bills.

Either way, whatever majority exists will be a narrow one, making bipartisan compromise, desired or not, the only way forward on legislation.

"We see a huge opportunity going into this administration," said Quillian Robinson, a spokesperson for the American Conservation Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for conservative solutions to climate change. "Divided government may look like it eliminates opportunity, but, really, it's a chance for durable climate solutions, instead of just flip-flopping from one administration's executive orders to another's."
Opportunities for compromise

Biden has promised to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, to sign executive orders that limit oil and gas drilling on public lands and in public waters, increase gas mileage standards for vehicles and block the construction of specific fossil fuel pipelines. He can do all of that through executive action.

Biden has also promised to pursue a 100 percent clean electricity standard by 2035 (a proposal that could mean the shuttering or total renovation of all coal-fired and gas-fired power plants in the U.S.) and has called for getting the U.S. to net-zero emissions by 2050, at the latest. He's also proposed a $2 trillion investment in renewable energy projects, with 40 percent of the funds benefiting communities of color that have been harmed by pollutants. He might not find a ton of Republican support on those ideas.

Biden has made it clear, especially through his personnel choices, that he sees the topic as one that merits an all-of-government approach that uses Cabinet agencies like the Transportation and Interior departments to help build new green infrastructure and incentivize developing green energy sources, as well as tasking the State Department with corralling other international powers to similarly focus on climate policy and carbon emissions.

It's in these areas — especially as it pertains to the investment in and development of green energy sources, green technologies and green infrastructure — where he could end up finding common ground.

The Growing Climate Solutions Act, sponsored by Sens. Mike Braun, R-Ind.; Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., focuses on carbon-capture technologies in the agricultural sector, while Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Whitehouse have put together another bipartisan bill focused on increasing carbon-capture methods that occur naturally within ocean and coastal ecosystems.

Earlier this year, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., began pushing a new conservative climate policy effort along with seven of his Republican colleagues — meant to rival the progressive Green New Deal — including Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, who introduced legislation, titled the New Energy Frontier, focused on developing carbon-capture technologies.

"This all needs to start with technological innovation," Crenshaw said in an interview. While Crenshaw said he strongly opposes re-entering the U.S. in the Paris agreement and largely disagrees with large chunks of Biden's environmental plans, he is willing to work with the administration on the proposals that are part of his bill.

"I think we could be able to agree on the policies I've put forward," he said.

Meanwhile, Reps. David McKinley, R-W.Va., and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., have proposed a 10-year public and private partnership to invest in clean energy and infrastructure and subsequent new regulations.

Some on the left have bashed those proposals as being too narrow — many emphasize the contradiction between promoting technologies that sequester carbon from carbon-emitting plants and phasing out such carbon-emitting plants — but there appears to be ample space for compromise among Democrats, too.

Whitehouse, who has lent his name to several compromise bills in the Senate, said there’s a great need for Democrats to essentially try anything, and everything, that might combat climate change.

Asked by NBC News whether the Biden administration and its allies in Congress should prioritize the president-elect's agenda or bipartisan compromise, Whitehouse replied, "Both."

"The best outcome will be if we're aggressive and bipartisan at the same time,” Whitehouse, who has both pressed for progressive climate change policies and also co-sponsored more modest bipartisan legislation, wrote in an email to NBC News.

"The Biden plan is broad enough to encompass both, and we should pursue both. But to succeed, the administration must first set the conditions for victory," Whitehouse wrote.

"Real bipartisanship is best achieved from a position of strength," he added.

In a statement, the Biden transition reiterated that the president-elect had prioritized climate change and would implement his policies with "both legislative and executive action."

The strength that Whitehouse referenced could be achieved by kicking off the administration with a flurry of executive actions on climate change, as Biden has promised. But with a thin majority in the House and the Senate close to an even split, regardless of who wins the Georgia runoffs, Biden will almost certainly have to make good on another set of campaign promises he's made frequently: bipartisan cooperation.

Groups on both sides are ready for it.

"Yes, there will be obstruction from some Republicans, but I really do believe there will still be so many chances for bipartisanship on combating climate change," said Michael Brune, the Sierra Club's executive director.

Brune pointed to clean energy standards, accelerating the development of new energy technologies, growing American jobs in the green sector and saving consumers money on their energy bills as solid areas for consensus.

Conservative environmental groups have struck the same tone, even praising some of Biden’s more ambitious proposals.

Robinson, of the conservative American Conservation Coalition, said "incentives are really lining up both politically and economically," making significant investment in green technologies and infrastructure more possible than ever before.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire climate activist and Democrat who ran for president emphasizing an ambitious environmental justice platform, agreed, too, telling NBC News that "the country has moved on the issue."

"I think the business community has very clearly moved; I think Republicans have moved," said Steyer, who helped lead the conversation among 2020 Democrats on climate change but who is not currently working with the administration on the issue.

"This is not a partisan issue anymore,” he said.

But he also made clear that Biden, having won the presidency after making climate change such a big part of his campaign, should get to set the terms of the conversation.

"We won the argument," he said. "Now the moment is here. It's time to bring it home."

Google told its scientists to 'strike a positive tone' in AI research - documents

By Paresh Dave and Jeffrey Dastin

© Reuters/ARND WIEGMANN FILE PHOTO: 

An illuminated Google logo is seen inside an office building in Zurich

OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) - Alphabet Inc's Google this year moved to tighten control over its scientists' papers by launching a "sensitive topics" review, and in at least three cases requested authors refrain from casting its technology in a negative light, according to internal communications and interviews with researchers involved in the work.

Google's new review procedure asks that researchers consult with legal, policy and public relations teams before pursuing topics such as face and sentiment analysis and categorizations of race, gender or political affiliation, according to internal webpages explaining the policy.

"Advances in technology and the growing complexity of our external environment are increasingly leading to situations where seemingly inoffensive projects raise ethical, reputational, regulatory or legal issues," one of the pages for research staff stated. Reuters could not determine the date of the post, though three current employees said the policy began in June.

Google declined to comment for this story.

The "sensitive topics" process adds a round of scrutiny to Google's standard review of papers for pitfalls such as disclosing of trade secrets, eight current and former employees said.

For some projects, Google officials have intervened in later stages. A senior Google manager reviewing a study on content recommendation technology shortly before publication this summer told authors to "take great care to strike a positive tone," according to internal correspondence read to Reuters.

The manager added, "This doesn't mean we should hide from the real challenges" posed by the software.

Subsequent correspondence from a researcher to reviewers shows authors "updated to remove all references to Google products." A draft seen by Reuters had mentioned Google-owned YouTube.

Four staff researchers, including senior scientist Margaret Mitchell, said they believe Google is starting to interfere with crucial studies of potential technology harms.

"If we are researching the appropriate thing given our expertise, and we are not permitted to publish that on grounds that are not in line with high-quality peer review, then we're getting into a serious problem of censorship," Mitchell said.

Google states on its public-facing website that its scientists have "substantial" freedom.

Tensions between Google and some of its staff broke into view this month after the abrupt exit of scientist Timnit Gebru, who led a 12-person team with Mitchell focused on ethics in artificial intelligence software (AI).

Gebru says Google fired her after she questioned an order not to publish research claiming AI that mimics speech could disadvantage marginalized populations. Google said it accepted and expedited her resignation. It could not be determined whether Gebru's paper underwent a "sensitive topics" review.

Google Senior Vice President Jeff Dean said in a statement this month that Gebru's paper dwelled on potential harms without discussing efforts underway to address them.

Dean added that Google supports AI ethics scholarship and is "actively working on improving our paper review processes, because we know that too many checks and balances can become cumbersome."

'SENSITIVE TOPICS'

The explosion in research and development of AI across the tech industry has prompted authorities in the United States and elsewhere to propose rules for its use. Some have cited scientific studies showing that facial analysis software and other AI can perpetuate biases or erode privacy.

Google in recent years incorporated AI throughout its services, using the technology to interpret complex search queries, decide recommendations on YouTube and autocomplete sentences in Gmail. Its researchers published more than 200 papers in the last year about developing AI responsibly, among more than 1,000 projects in total, Dean said.

Studying Google services for biases is among the "sensitive topics" under the company's new policy, according to an internal webpage. Among dozens of other "sensitive topics" listed were the oil industry, China, Iran, Israel, COVID-19, home security, insurance, location data, religion, self-driving vehicles, telecoms and systems that recommend or personalize web content.

The Google paper for which authors were told to strike a positive tone discusses recommendation AI, which services like YouTube employ to personalize users' content feeds. A draft reviewed by Reuters included "concerns" that this technology can promote "disinformation, discriminatory or otherwise unfair results" and "insufficient diversity of content," as well as lead to "political polarization."

The final publication instead says the systems can promote "accurate information, fairness, and diversity of content." The published version, entitled "What are you optimizing for? Aligning Recommender Systems with Human Values," omitted credit to Google researchers. Reuters could not determine why.

A paper this month on AI for understanding a foreign language softened a reference to how the Google Translate product was making mistakes following a request from company reviewers, a source said. The published version says the authors used Google Translate, and a separate sentence says part of the research method was to "review and fix inaccurate translations."

For a paper published last week, a Google employee described the process as a "long-haul," involving more than 100 email exchanges between researchers and reviewers, according to the internal correspondence.

The researchers found that AI can cough up personal data and copyrighted material - including a page from a "Harry Potter" novel - that had been pulled from the internet to develop the system.

A draft described how such disclosures could infringe copyrights or violate European privacy law, a person familiar with the matter said. Following company reviews, authors removed the legal risks, and Google published the paper.

(Reporting by Paresh Dave and Jeffrey Dastin; editing by Jonathan Weber and Edward Tobin)

Biden allies push back on sweeping plan to promote fair housing

President Donald Trump accused Joe Biden during the 2020 campaign of seeking to “destroy the beautiful suburbs” by supporting a sweeping Obama-era fair housing rule that Trump had scrapped.© Seth Wenig/AP Photo This case touches a special nerve because the Black and Hispanic home-ownership rate is so low and minorities are often relegated to substandard housing.

Now, with Biden planning to reinstate the rule, he's likely to run into opposition again — this time from members of his own party.

Lost in the uproar over the Trump administration’s revocation of the rule in July was that even some Democratic localities had deep misgivings about the 2015 regulation, which was intended to bolster the 1968 Fair Housing Act, a landmark anti-discrimination law of the civil rights era.

Local housing officials from both Democratic and Republican counties saw the rule as a rigid, burdensome directive; many were confused about how to comply with its complex requirements.

“Our biggest problem with this was that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate,” said Jennifer Eby, community and resource services manager for Douglas County, a Denver suburb. "It was, from our perspective, very burdensome."

The resistance to the rule suggests Biden will face obstacles even from some of his own allies over the more dramatic plans for his presidency, which include everything from overhauling environmental regulations to reviving the union movement.

Yet this case touches a special nerve because the Black and Hispanic home-ownership rate is so low and minorities are often relegated to substandard housing. The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule was intended to help remedy that, and Trump's opposition to it sparked charges of racism.

The rule would have required local jurisdictions to actively track and address patterns of poverty and segregation with a checklist of 92 questions — or else lose access to federal housing funds.

Critics decried the process as both onerous and costly, an argument made by Trump's Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson — the only Black member of his Cabinet — when he rescinded the rule. But local government officials and public housing authorities were also among those complaining.

While Trump framed the issue as a Democratic plan to force low-income housing down the throats of suburban residents, the concerns of critics about the rule largely fall under two broad complaints: that the directive from Washington, D.C., is too rigid to allow for local input and differences among jurisdictions, and that it is so complicated that compliance often requires outside help.

Several left-leaning cities, including Los Angeles and St. Paul, Minn., complained of having to hire pricey consultants to navigate the rule’s complex requirements.

Housing officials in other states voiced similar concerns with the top-down approach. A group representing over 75 public housing authorities in California criticized the original rule’s “highly prescriptive framework” in a public comment on a proposal to revamp the rule.

“There also was no additional funding that was put into it,” Eby said. “So there’s a lot of extra analysis to do, and a lot of work to put in and no new funding to do it. When that happens, you’re essentially taking money from services.”

Eby also has concerns with the list of “contributing factors” to housing segregation that the rule requires local jurisdictions to track and make progress on addressing. For one thing, she said, the criteria for making progress weren’t clear. But the factors themselves were also broad, she said.

“In a lot of ways, the contributing factors that they're asking communities to look at are not necessarily vectors that are at all under their control,” she said, pointing to factors like transportation and school quality.

Ultimately, Douglas County commissioners decided it wasn’t worth the possible penalties and compliance burdens. In 2016, the county pulled out of HUD's Community Development Block Grant program — forgoing about $750,000 a year in federal funding — as a result of concerns about ceding control over local decision-making, despite easily passing earlier fair housing assessments.

Biden’s transition website lists racial equity as one of four key issues he will focus on immediately — alongside the raging pandemic, economic collapse and climate change. And housing advocates who have pressed their case with Biden’s HUD landing team say they’re confident the incoming administration believes reinstating the 2015 rule is an urgent priority. The Biden transition team didn't respond to a request for comment.

The confusion over the rule — and what reinstituting it will look like — comes as the Black homeownership rate already lags behind that of white people by about 30 points. Lingering effects from the economic crisis could drive it still wider, exacerbating longstanding inequities caused by decades of government-led segregation.

“Blacks and Latinos are more likely to live in health deserts with fewer health care facilities, dentists, primary care physicians,” said Lisa Rice, president and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. The 2015 rule “was designed to fix all of these structural issues. And instead of enforcing AFFH, Trump has eviscerated it.”

The data and assessment tools folded into the original Obama rule may need to be “updated,” she said, but the regulation itself is critical to addressing systemic racism.

“It was clear from Day One that the Trump administration did not understand fair housing, and I personally tried to educate key leadership at HUD about fair housing issues,” Rice added.

Carson suspended the regulation in 2018 before replacing it with a weaker version in July. Because the 2015 rule was already on the books, the incoming administration can simply revoke the replacement regulation and revert to the original without having to go through the long process of promulgating a new rule.

The hard part will be implementing it. Critics stressed that they support the rule's goals — they just want something workable.© Mark Wilson/Getty Images The Department of Housing and Urban Development building is seen in Washington, D.C.

HUD in 2018 withdrew a key computer tool that local governments were supposed to use to analyze patterns of segregation, concentrated poverty, residential health hazards and disparities in access to things like transportation, schools and employment opportunities. They were supposed to use that data to draft an “Assessment of Fair Housing” plan addressing discriminatory barriers, which they would then submit to HUD.

Many areas had trouble with the tool. For the 49 jurisdictions in the first group to submit fair housing assessment plans between October 2016 and December 2017, only 37 percent were initially accepted, according to HUD. While another 28 percent of the plans were accepted after jurisdictions amended them with HUD’s technical assistance, 35 percent were ultimately rejected.

Local public housing agencies had hoped that HUD would streamline and improve the tool, which will need to be revived and updated.

“The new administration definitely needs to get a hold of what has been done to gut this thing,” said Marla Newman, director of community development for Winston-Salem, N.C.

Newman said Winston-Salem was “one of the few jurisdictions that actually got a plan approved” after hiring a consultant to help draft it. HUD was making progress on tweaking the rule to make it more accessible before the Trump administration withdrew it, she said.

“We were starting to get good mapping tools — we were really on a path to a good place — and we need to pick back up where the [Obama] administration left off” with the rule, Newman said.

In the meantime, plenty of jurisdictions will have to shell out money they can hardly spare to consultants to tap desperately needed federal housing funds.

“The stakes in developing an acceptable AFFH are high, as jurisdictions face a reduction in funding if they fail,” the Seattle Housing Authority told HUD in 2018, urging the agency to consider providing support to public housing agencies and “taking PHA size into consideration in its expectations and requirements.”

The National Community Development Association, a bipartisan nonprofit representing over 400 local government agencies, also criticized the original rule’s “cookie-cutter approach” in a public comment submitted in March.

It’s a problem “for the small cities that get a small amount of [block grant] funding every year,” association Executive Director Vicki Watson said. “There’s quite a few cities that get less than $500,000 a year but they have the same requirements as a New York or a San Francisco — there’s a disconnect there.”

“We support affirmatively furthering fair housing, but we think it should be more flexible,” she added. “There just needs to be more funding and more flexibility, particularly for smaller cities.”

Astronomers Detect 'Intriguing Signal' Coming From Proxima Centauri 

IT'S A ROBOCALL

(CSIRO/A. Cherney)
SPACE

RAFI LETZTER, LIVE SCIENCE
25 DECEMBER 2020


Astronomers hunting for radio signals from alien civilizations have detected an "intriguing signal" from the direction of Proxima Centauri, the nearest star system to the sun, The Guardian reported.


The researchers are still preparing a paper on the discovery, and the data have not been made public, according to The Guardian. But the signal is reportedly a narrow beam of 980 MHz radio waves detected in April and May 2019 at the Parkes telescope in Australia.

The Parkes telescope is part of the US$100 million Breakthrough Listen project to hunt for radio signals from technological sources beyond the solar system. The 980 MHz signal appeared once and was never detected again. That frequency is important because, as Scientific American points out, that band of radio waves is typically lacking signals from human-made craft and satellites.

Breakthrough Listen detects unusual radio signals all the time - between earthly sources, the Sun's natural radio output and natural sources beyond the Solar System, there are a lot of radio waves bouncing around out there.

But this signal appears to have come directly from the Proxima Centauri system, just 4.2 light-years from Earth. Even more tantalizing: The signal reportedly shifted slightly while it was being observed, in a way that resembled the shift caused by the movement of a planet. Proxima Centauri has one known rocky world 17 percent larger than Earth, and one known gas giant.


The Guardian quoted an unnamed source with apparent access to the data on this signal as saying "It is the first serious candidate for an alien communication since the 'Wow! Signal,'" a famous radio signal detected in 1977 that also resembled a technosignature.

But The Guardian cautioned that this signal is "likely to have a mundane origin too."

Such more mundane sources include a comet or its hydrogen cloud, which also could explain the Wow! Signal.

Penn State University's Sofia Sheikh, who led the analysis of the signal for Breakthrough Listen, voiced her excitement about it: "It's the most exciting signal that we've found in the Breakthrough Listen project, because we haven't had a signal jump through this many of our filters before," Sheikh told Scientific American, adding that the signal is now being referred to as Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1, or BLC1.

An inherent challenge in searching for alien communications is that no one knows how aliens might communicate, and no one knows all the potential natural sources of radio waves in the Universe. So when signals arrive that seem even plausibly technological and don't come with easy natural explanations, it's tempting to make the jump to aliens.

So far, no data on this signal is public, and it's likely that even when it does become public there will be no conclusive answers; that's what happened with the Wow! Signal after all.

At first look, full post-Brexit text goes beyond a 'Canada-style' deal

Faisal Islam
Economics editor
@faisalislamon Twitter

IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS

BBC News has obtained a full copy of the post-Brexit trade deal agreed by the UK and the EU, setting out the shape of their relationship for years to come. Parliament will vote on the plan next week, but so far Downing Street has published only a short summary, rather than the full document. Our economics editor, Faisal Islam, has been looking at the details.

Late into Christmas Eve, UK government and European lawyers were hard at work completing the process of updating the text of the post-Brexit trade deal into formal language, a process known as legally scrubbing.

Because whatever the general relief over the broad outline of this deal, there are nearly 1,300 pages of legal text that will determine every aspect of the hundreds of billions in trade between the UK and EU.
Some of the thorniest negotiation points have made it into the final text.

10 things to look for in the Brexit deal

How many trade deals has the UK done so far?

What just happened with Brexit?

Innocuous and arcane sounding articles and annexes could have a huge impact on industry and government policy.

For example, the restrictions compensation for unfair subsidies to companies "do not apply" in situations such as natural disasters, exempting the EU's huge current pandemic support package for aviation, aerospace, climate change and electric cars.

A late compromise

On electric cars, an annexe reveals a late compromise.

The EU had sought to offer tariff-free access only to those British cars that are made mostly with European parts. That will now be phased in over six years, but is less generous than the UK ask.

This should be just about enough for Japanese owners of massive UK plants Nissan and Toyota's current production, but raises questions about future rounds of investment.

There is a clear commitment not to lower standards on the environment, workers' rights and climate change from those that exist now and mechanisms to enforce it.

But there is also a mutual right to "rebalance" the agreement if there are "significant divergences" in future that is capable of "impacting trade".

These go way beyond standard free-trade agreements such as those between the EU and Canada or Japan, reflecting the UK's history in the single market.

The text reads like these mechanisms are designed to be used, and created to ensure that both sides remain close to each other's regulatory orbit.

EU-UK post-Brexit trade talks - BBC News