Fox News editor dismissed after defending Biden prediction says US suffers from ‘informational malnourishment’

Chris Riotta 
The Independent

Updated Sun., January 31, 2021

Trump supporters storm the US Capitol in his name (EPA-EFE)

A former Fox News editor who claims he was recently ousted from the conservative network after being the first to predict President Joe Biden’s election victory in Arizona has said the US is suffering from “informational malnourishment” in an Op-Ed published on Thursday.

Fox News said that the editor’s dismissal was part of a restructuring.

Chris Stirewalt had previously served as a politics editor for the network, where he helped forecast the latest election results and made the call for Arizona – which had not voted to elect a Democratic presidential candidate since 1996 – well before the Associated Press and other major news outlets.

“I was proud of our being first to project that Joe Biden would win Arizona, and very happy to defend that call in the face of a public backlash egged on by former President Trump,” Mr Stirewalt wrote in the article published by Los Angeles Times. “Being right and beating the competition is no act of heroism; it’s just meeting the job description of the work I love.”

Though he and his team were proven right, Fox News audiences and prominent conservatives attacked Mr Stirewalt and Fox News’ decision desk director Arnon Mishkin for defending the announcement as former President Donald Trump and his allies promoted false conspiracy theories of a rigged vote.

“The rebellion on the populist right against the results of the 2020 election was partly a cynical, knowing effort by political operators and their hype men in the media to steal an election or at least get rich trying,” he continued. “But it was also the tragic consequence of the informational malnourishment so badly afflicting the nation.”

He added: “When I defended the call for Biden in the Arizona election, I became a target of murderous rage from consumers who were furious at not having their views confirmed.”

As Election Day turned into a weeks-long event last year – in part due to an historic surge in mail-in voting, which delayed official vote counts in many states for several days – Mr Stirewalt and his former colleagues took to the airwaves and asserted their assessment of Arizona’s election results were solid.

“Arizona was a state that we thought early, very clearly was going into Biden's column. We held off for a while until we finally called it," Mr Mishkin told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto at the time, adding: “We remain confident and we have not changed the call."

Bill Sammon, a senior vice president and managing editor at Fox's Washington bureau, also announced his retirement earlier this week. Mr Stirewalt’s dismissal from the company was reported by the Associated Press as “part of a restructuring of Fox's digital operations”. Mr Mishkin, who also faced criticism in the wake of the election results, is not a Fox News employee.

“I remain confident that the current depredations of the digital revolution will pass, just as those of the telegraph, radio and broadcast television did,” Mr Stirewalt wrote. “What tugs at my mind after seeing a mob of enthusiastic ignoramuses sack the Capitol, though, is whether that sophistication will come quickly enough when outlets have the means to cater to every unhealthy craving of their consumers.”

Trump’s own lawyers ‘secretly drafted’ Texas lawsuit challenging election results, report says

Shweta Sharma 
The Independent
Updated Mon., February 1, 2021


The Texas lawsuit tried to throw out the vote counts in four states that the Donald Trump lost: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.(Reuters)

The long-shot lawsuit from Texas, which sought to invalidate the results in four swing states, was not drafted by Republican attorney general of Texas, Ken Paxton, but by Donald Trump’s own lawyers, revealed a new report.

The extensive New York Times report examined Mr Trump’s attempted coup to subvert the 2020 elections and the “77 democracy-bending days” when the former president propagated the voters fraud theory.

The efforts by Mr Trump’s campaign to help prevent alleged voters fraud were red-flagged by several Republican attorneys general and their senior staff lawyers, the report said.

Republican leaders were also concerned about Mr Trump’s problem in facing the reality of an electoral defeat.

The report revealed that Mr Paxton, who is said to have filed the Texas lawsuit, hired Lawrence Joseph as a special outside counsel through an “unusual contract” on 7 December.

Mr Joseph had earlier intervened in a US court to support Mr Trump’s efforts to block the release of his income-tax returns.

“The same day [7 Dec] the contract was signed, Mr Paxton filed his complaint with the Supreme Court. Mr Joseph was listed as a special counsel, but the brief did not disclose that it had been written by outside parties,” said the report.

Mr Paxton, however, was not the first choice for Trump’s team to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in swing states as he had criminal investigations going on against him.

An appeal was also made to Louisiana’s attorney general, Jeffrey M Landry, but he had declined.

"For every lawyer on Mr Trump's team who quietly pulled back, there was one ready to push forward with propagandistic suits that skated the lines of legal ethics and reason," the report said.

"That included not only Mr [Rudy] Giuliani and lawyers like Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, but also the vast majority of Republican attorneys general, whose dead-on-arrival Supreme Court lawsuit seeking to discount 20 million votes was secretly drafted by lawyers close to the White House, The Times found."

The Supreme Court on 12 December unanimously dismissed the baseless lawsuit filed by Texas that tried to throw out the vote counts in four states that Mr Trump lost — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Days before the court’s decision, Trump allies continued to mount pressure to pull support for the Texas lawsuit. Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana sent an email requesting congressional Republicans’ support for the Texas lawsuit.

The letter with the subject line “time-sensitive request from President Trump” said that the president “specifically asked me to contact all Republican Members of the House and Senate today and request that all join.”

The amicus brief gained support from two-thirds of the Republican attorneys general despite several senior officials raising red flags.

The Jan. 6 rally that fed the deadly Capitol siege was reportedly a Trump White House production

Peter Weber  The Week
Updated Mon., February 1, 2021


In the wake of the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former President Donald Trump, "a picture has emerged of entropic forces coming together on Trump's behalf in an ad hoc, yet calamitous, crash of rage and denial," The New York Times reports in a detailed look at "the 77 democracy-bending days between election and inauguration" of President Biden. "But interviews with central players, and documents including previously unreported emails, videos, and social media posts scattered across the web, tell a more encompassing story of a more coordinated campaign," ultimately "summoned and directed by the departing president" in "one final norm-defying act of a reality-denying presidency."

The Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse that led to the mobbing of the Capitol was originally organized by a pro-Trump group called Women for America First. After Trump decided on Dec. 18 that trying to get Congress to overturn his loss on Jan. 6 was his last best hope, the group, founded by Tea Party veteran Amy Kremer and led by her daughter, Kylie Jane Kremer, put together a multi-state bus tour to Washington, D.C.

Two activists with close ties to Stephen Bannon — Jennifer Lawrence and Dustin Stockton — helped organize the effort, the Times reports, with funding from Bannon's "War Room" podcast and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Trump tweeted on Jan. 2 that he would be at the event, and though "Kremer held the permit, the rally would now effectively become a White House production," the Times reports. Publix supermarket heiress Julie Jenkins Fancelli donated $300,000 and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones chipped in another $50,000; Caroline Wren, a former deputy to Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Trump campaign adviser Katrina Pierson joined the organizing of the event.

Stockton, a hard-right gun activist, told the Times "he was surprised to learn on the day of the rally that it would now include a march from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Before the White House became involved, he said, the plan had been to stay at the Ellipse until the counting of state electoral slates was completed."

The violent assault on the Capitol, followed by Congress certifying Biden's victory, spelled the end of Trump's post-election campaign, the Times reports, but "the same cannot be said about the political staying power, the grip on the Republican faithful, of the lie he set in motion," that the election was stolen from him. 

Read more at The New York Times.

Legal costs low, fundraising totals high after Trump's false claims of voter fraud

As Trump aked In Cash Denying His Loss, Little Went to Actual Legal Fight

Shane Goldmacher and Rachel Shorey

The New York Times

Updated Mon., February 1, 2021

Former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party entered this year having stockpiled more than $175 million from fundraising in November and December based on his false claims of voter fraud, spending only a tiny fraction on lawyers and bills for his effort to overturn the presidential election, according to new campaign finance reports filed Sunday night.

The picture that emerges in the new Federal Election Commission reports is of Trump mounting a furious public relations effort to spread the lie and keep generating money from it, rather than making a sustained legal push to try to support his conspiracy theories.

His campaign’s single biggest expense in December was a nearly $5 million media buy paid to the firm that bought his television advertisements. His second-largest payment, $4.4 million, was for online advertising. And the Republican National Committee pocketed millions of dollars in donations — collecting 25 cents for every dollar Trump raised online — in the final weeks of the year as it spent relatively little on legal costs

All told, Trump’s campaign spent only $10 million on legal costs — about one-fifth of what it spent on advertising and fundraising, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings from Nov. 4 through the end of the year.

During that period, Trump’s conspiracy-fueled accusations that votes had been miscounted or misappropriated repeatedly fell flat in the courts. Joe Biden was elected president by voters on Nov. 3, confirmed by the Electoral College on Dec. 14 and ratified by Congress on Jan. 6 — the same day that Trump incited a mob that stormed the Capitol.

But while Trump’s efforts to delegitimize the election did not keep him in power, they did spur millions in contributions from loyal supporters and provided both him and the party with an enormous infusion of cash.

The Republican National Committee ended the year with more than $80 million in the bank after the fundraising blitz, and Trump had $31 million in the new political action committee he formed in November for his post-presidential political ventures.

That accounts for just some of their haul. The party and the former president had roughly $63 million more in two shared accounts waiting to be distributed between them, with Trump’s PAC entitled to 75% of the money raised in December, giving him an estimated $70 million PAC war chest.

Most of the money appears to have come online and from smaller contributors, with relatively few five- and six-figure checks, especially once the calendar turned to December. One $100,000 check in early December came from Elaine J. Wold, a major Republican donor in Florida.

Though his race was over, Trump’s voracious online fundraising from Nov. 24 through the end of the year even outpaced that of the two Republican senators, Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who were competing in the Georgia runoff elections that would determine control of the chamber.

During those 39 days, Trump and his shared committees with the RNC raised $80 million online; Loeffler and Perdue combined for closer to $75 million. Both lost.

Trump did incur some legal costs from more than a dozen law firms.

He paid $1.6 million to Kasowitz Benson Torres, more than $500,000 to Jones Day and about $600,000 to Dechert. The law firm of Kurt Hilbert, who was on Trump’s phone call pressuring the Republican secretary of state in Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” votes to overturn the election outcome, was paid more than $480,000. A $3 million payment went to the Wisconsin election commission to pay for a recount.

One major Republican donor, C. Boyden Gray, who contributed more than $2 million to Republicans in the 2020 cycle, also provided legal consulting for Trump, earning $114,000.

The man who made so many public appearances on behalf of Trump as his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, reported no payments by the former president’s campaign. His firm was reimbursed for $63,423 in travel in mid-December.

An associate of Giuliani’s had asked that he be paid $20,000 a day for his work for Trump, which Giuliani initially denied. He later acknowledged the request to The New York Times, but he has continued to publicly deny making money for his work, including in a radio appearance Sunday.

“I haven’t made a penny on it,” Giuliani said.

The Trump campaign also spent $20,130 in mid-December for what were described as travel reimbursements to the Kerik Group, led by former New York Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik, whom Trump pardoned last year for his 2010 conviction on eight felonies. Kerik is a close ally of Giuliani’s.

The Trump operation continued to spend on fundraising, pouring millions more into a secretive limited liability company, American Made Media Consultants, for online and text-message advertising. Family members of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence once served on the board of that company, which had more than $700 million in spending flow through it during the 2020 campaign.

One of Trump’s shared committees with the Republican National Committee spent $237,000 on books through a company, Reagan Investments, that has also done work for a PAC controlled by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. The Trump campaign offered signed copies of Cruz’s book last fall to donors who gave $75 or more.

And, as they have since the beginning of his candidacy in 2015, Trump’s campaign accounts patronized his businesses in the postelection period.

The Trump Victory committee paid $34,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection in its final 2020 filing. The same committee also paid a Trump-owned limited liability company that operates a private plane, DT Endeavor, $39,200 on Nov. 24.

Another Trump campaign committee paid $75,000 in rent to the Trump Tower building in December.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2021 The New York Times Company
Originally published Mon., February 1, 2021

Trump's baseless warnings on Antifa diverted attention away from investigations into right-wing extremists


Sarah Al-Arshani Business Insider
Updated Sun., January 31, 2021,

Getty


Trump's warnings about antifa diverted resources when the threat of right-wing extremism was growing.


The FBI and Justice Department moved agents to Portland last summer despite having 1,000 open cases.


Officials have repeatedly said that they view right-wing extremism as a bigger threat.


Former President Donald Trump's baseless warnings about antifa and far-left extremist threats caused federal authorities to divert federal authorities' attention from credible right-wing threats, The New York Times reported.

Trump and those in his administration repeatedly claimed that antifa, a leaderless, non-hierarchial organization that has existed for decades, was responsible for the protests that ensued last summer following the death of George Floyd.

The former president seized on the opportunity to try and designate the group as a domestic terrorist organization.

Trump's interest in the group and demand for authorities to investigate them did not stop the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation from pursuing cases of right-wing extremism but it did divert key resources away from the threat when it was growing, the Times reported.

This included sending dozens of agents to Portland, Oregon, leaving some FBI and Justice Department officials limited resources to combat more pressing concerns, including the 1,000 domestic terrorism cases that were open at the time.

Trump's aides attempted to suppress the use of the phrase "domestic terrorism" and White House and Justice Department officials stopped efforts to talk about right-wing threats publically, the Times reported.

Read more: Coronavirus variants threaten to upend pandemic progress. Here's how 4 top vaccine makers are fighting back.

Additionally, agents and prosecutors felt "pressured" to uncover a left-wing extremist criminal conspiracy that never ended up existing, while funding that was requested for analysts to examine social media posts for threats was denied.

In 2019, former Attorney General William Barr began an FBI briefing by asking what the agency was doing about antifa. Barr told the Times that there was no prioritization given to threats from the left and all threats were equally considered.

"The F.B.I. already had a robust program to combat violence driven by white supremacy and nationalism," Barr said. "I wanted there to be a comparable one for antifa and antifalike groups."

During the spring and summer, despite finding the right-wing boogaloo movement more of a threat, the FBI opened the same amount of investigations into both them and Antifa, 40 each.

The diversion of resources did not prevent authorities from monitoring militia groups. Agents in Michigan were able to learn that members of Wolverine Watchmen, a self-styled antigovernment "militia" group. planned to kidnap governors.

In October, six members of the group were charged with attempting to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.

Read the full New York Times story here >>>

Originally published Sun., January 31, 2021

Russia may fine citizens for using SpaceX's Starlink internet. Here's how Elon Musk's service poses a threat to authoritarian regimes.

Kate Duffy, Business Insider
Updated Sat., January 30, 2021

SpaceX owner and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. 

HANNIBAL HANSCHKE/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Russian citizens and companies may get fined by the state for using SpaceX's Starlink internet.

Analyst John Byrne told Insider it's easier for Russia to fine citizens rather than Starlink.

"Satellite potentially turns the tables because the government doesn't control space," Byrne said.

The Russian government may fine individuals or companies for using Starlink internet developed by the American company SpaceX, according to local reports.

The new law, proposed by Russia's legislative body the State Duma, seeks to prevent citizens accessing the internet via one of Elon Musk's hundreds of satellites.

Ordinary users could be charged between 10,000 and 30,000 rubles ($135-$405), whereas legal entities might have to pay up to one million rubles ($6,750 to $13,500) if they use the western satellite service, according to Popular Mechanics.

In response to the local reports, Musk tweeted: "We're just trying to get people to Mars. Help would be greatly appreciated."

After launching a record-breaking 143 satellites into orbit on Sunday, SpaceX is slowly inching towards its goal of wrapping the Earth with up to 42,000 Starlink satellites to provide superfast internet.

So far, the space company has blasted 944 working satellites into space with the help of its Falcon 9 reusable rockets.

This takeover of the skies poses a threat to authoritarian regimes such as Russia. John Byrne, a service director specializing in telecom technology at GlobalData, told Insider it's hard for Russia to penalize the internet provider, but "it's easier to fine, or at least threaten to fine, your own citizens."

Byrne said a government is able to control the rights to operate a cellular internet service, adding that if China told its network operators to ban certain sites through this internet medium, it would be easy.

"Satellite potentially turns the tables because the government doesn't control space; as a result, the government has a much harder time regulating content over satellite," he said.

Having said this, governments do have a right to regulate vertical space, for example when planes travel in their designated airspace.

Starlink involves low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites, which operate at a much lower altitude than traditional satellites but much higher than cellular service. With that in mind, the question is whether they will considered to be within the sphere of government control or not, Byrne said.

Read more: The space industry will grow by over $1 trillion in the next decade, Bank of America says. Here are the 14 stocks best positioned to benefit from the boom.

Russia has plans to develop its own satellite internet constellation called Sfera, which could be launched in 2024, IntelliNews reported in November. The project, which is expected to cost 1.5 trillion rubles (around $20 billion), would presumably allow the country to continue to monitor domestic internet traffic, Byrne said.

According to Byrne, if Russian citizens use Musk's satellite constellation, the country could be blocked from monitoring their internet traffic like it does with cellular service. He added that this could ultimately heighten tensions between the US and Russia.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Originally published Sat., January 30, 2021

CANADA NEEDS 21 CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE

‘Broadband isn’t a luxury': groups call for internet benefit for low-income households

Shruti Shekar
·Telecom & Tech Reporter
Updated Fri., January 29, 2021

“The idea of getting internet at home would have been attractive except for the cost,” said Ray Noyes, a 64-year-old man who thinks it’s time the federal government creates a broadband internet benefit.

The Ottawa, Ont.-based man said in an interview that even though he is part of the Ontario Disability Support Program, it doesn’t cover the costs required to pay for internet services.

“With my $1,169, I’ve got to pay over half of that in rent,” he said.

Noyes is also a member of ACORN Canada (an independent national organization of low and moderate-income families), which, in partnership with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), and the National Pensioners Federation, are campaigning for a $50 a month Canadian Broadband Benefit.

The proposed benefit is similar to what the Federal Communications Commission in the U.S. has been tasked with creating.

Ray Noyes, an ACORN member, can't afford to pay for internet services and is calling the federal government to help. Image credit: ACORN

The three groups want the benefit to be provided monthly for low-income Canadians, seniors on fixed incomes, and for those Canadians qualifying for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB).

John Lawford, executive director and general counsel of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said in an interview that the program should run for at least six months.

He added that while the government offered CERB, those funds aren’t enough to pay for a service that was already expensive before the pandemic.

“There was already an [internet] affordability crisis before COVID, which was not being addressed by the CRTC or the government,” he said. “The federal government felt a bit bad and did the Connecting Families program, which is a very limited program.”

In 2017, the government announced the $13.2 million Connecting Families initiative that provides cheaper internet services for qualified families that fall under the low-income bracket.

Lawford said it was unacceptable for people to be stuck at home and not be able to connect with the outside world.

“Perhaps the government believes that part of the CERB would go towards paying for internet, but the members, the low-income members we’re talking to, it’s not adequate,” he said. “If you have a pre-existing affordability problem, it’s not going to fix it.”

Trish McAuliffe, president of the National Pensioner’s Federation, echoed Lawford and added that many older seniors receive low pension payments because they haven’t worked enough.

“There is a lot of economic pressure,” she said. “They’re struggling to get food on the table, and take their meds, and we know the internet is very expensive. They just can’t pay for all of this. They’re suffering in silence.”

Dwayne Winseck, a media industry researcher at Carleton University in Ottawa, said that pushing for a benefit like this underscores the severe necessity of a service that is no longer considered a luxury.

“It’s kind of a fundamental necessity in contemporary life, not at all a luxury,” he said in an interview. “I don’t think this is a pie in the sky fantasy. This is a very realistic proposal that addresses a very real need and the real status of internet access.”

Winseck said that while CERB may help some Canadians pay for internet services, many in the low-income bracket have other priorities.

“For lower-income households, essential services like telecommunications or internet access constitute a larger portion of their household spending than it does for other households,” he said. “And for that reason, it’s targeting these particular households.”

Christopher Ali, a telecom expert and associate professor at the University of Virginia, said in an interview the Canadian government shouldn’t make Canadians pick one or the other when it comes to what they decide to pay for using their stimulus checks.

“You don’t need to have it one way or the other. I think you could give funds to Canadians and have them spend it as they see fit. But you can also mark part of that for broadband services because the two do go hand in hand,” he said.

“I also feel we haven’t convinced everybody that broadband isn’t a luxury and that people need to get on board quite frankly.”

Originally published Fri., January 29, 2021

WE CAN HOPE

Biden's climate agenda: Is this the beginning of the end for fossil fuels?

Justin Rowlatt - 

Chief environment correspondent BBC
Updated Sun., January 31, 2021

After years of Trump, the new US administration wants to rejoin world efforts to tackle the climate change emergency

Fossil fuels have been the bedrock of US prosperity for more than a century.

The country's economy, security and society depend on them.

But in the few days since his inauguration, the new American president has gone to war against coal, oil and natural gas with a decisiveness that has caught everyone by surprise.

This week I spoke to the man Joe Biden has tasked with drawing up his climate change battle plans - John Kerry.

"It is one of his top priorities, without any question whatsoever," Mr Kerry assured me. "He'll make more progress on the issue than any previous president."

That seriousness is reflected in his choice of John Kerry as his special envoy on climate.

John Kerry calls Trump 'reckless' over climate

'Exceptionally hot' 2020 concludes warmest decade

Why is the US rejoining the Paris climate agreement?

Mr Kerry was President Barack Obama's secretary of state and a key architect of the Paris climate change summit in 2015.

In other words, he is someone deeply invested in tackling global warming, who understands current global climate diplomacy, and personally knows many of the key people the US will have to work with.

Ambitious start

In the handful of days the new president has been in office, he has already exceeded expectations.

We knew he was going to re-join the Paris climate accord, we didn't know that a few days later he'd order his domestic climate "tzar", Gina McCarthy, to draw up plans to commit the US to "the most aggressive" carbon cut possible.

We expected him to try and kill the giant Keystone XL oil pipeline, but not that he'd pull the permit on his first day in office, stopping the 2,000km pipeline project dead in its tracks.

We knew he planned to make climate change a priority in policy-making, but not that he'd order the Pentagon to make it an issue of national security.

It is part of what is being called a "whole government" approach to the issue.

"He is mobilising every department, every agency of the United States government to focus on climate and he is determined to try and restore America's credibility and reputation," explained Kerry.

Even some of the deepest green activists have been impressed.

"There is a shock-and-awe feel to the barrage of actions," says veteran environmental campaigner Bill McKibben.

The proposed route of the Keystone XL oil pipeline

He believes the flurry of executive orders is designed to make an important point.

The president wants to send "a decisive signal about the end of one epoch and the beginning of another," says Mr McKibben.

That signal is aimed at investors, he says. "Fossil fuel, Biden is making clear, is not a safe bet, or even a good bet, for making real money."
Oil feels the heat

The oil industry has been left reeling. Share prices plunged, and Goldman Sachs warned of a drop in US crude supplies.

"The industry is aghast at these changes," one oil services company CEO told Bloomberg. "They are more direct, more fierce and quicker than what folks expected."

Biden and his team have been meticulous in casting the agenda as an exercise in job creation and economic stimulus in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis.

Mr Kerry repeats the now familiar "build back better" mantra to me.

"If we're going to invest new money," he says, "let's invest it in clean energy, invest it in clean jobs, invest it in those technologies and other things that will build the future, rather than simply being the prisoners of the past."


US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII


Coal mine go-ahead 'undermines climate summit'


'Exceptionally hot' 2020 concludes warmest decade

Meanwhile, there have been a few modest sops to the fossil fuel industry.

Fracking won't stop, for example, although there will be tighter regulations, and Biden promised to put displaced fossil fuel workers to work sealing off the estimated one million leaking oil and gas wells.

The plan to build 1.5 million new energy-efficient homes, and manufacture and install half a million new electric-vehicle charging stations, would also create millions of "prevailing wage" jobs.

And the car industry will be delighted by the commitment to electrify the government's 650,000-strong fleet of vehicles.

But, at the same time, President Biden has reiterated his desire to end all fossil fuel subsidies, ordered a ban on new oil and gas leases on federal land, and said a third of all federal lands must be reserved for conservation.

He also ordered agencies to accelerate the authorising of renewables projects, as part of his effort to double wind capacity by 2030, and make the electricity sector zero-carbon by 2035.
Private sector 'buy-in'?

These initiatives don't depend on the Democrats wafer-thin majority in the Senate, Mr Kerry insisted. These are areas where the president already has authority.

"Now, that's not to say the president isn't going to try and get Congress to be part of this, of course he wants them. But this isn't going to be solely dependent on one source."

For instance, Mr Biden plans to reinstate and strengthen Obama-era regulations, repealed by Trump, on the three largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions: vehicles, power plants and methane leaks from oil and gas wells.

The key, says Mr Kerry, is "a massive shift" in attitudes in the private sector.

Why is the Keystone XL pipeline so disputed?


Why 2021 could be turning point for tackling climate change


Trudeau conveys pipeline 'disappointment' to Biden

Companies are increasingly dealing with climate "upfront and directly", says Mr Kerry.

US car makers are coming to accept that fuel economy standards have to rise, for example.

Only this week General Motors announced plans to phase out petrol and diesel cars and trucks completely, and sell only vehicles with zero emissions by 2035.

And some big oil and gas companies have acknowledged some of the curbs on emissions lifted by President Trump need to be reinstated.

But Mr Kerry knows there will be pushback from others in the fossil fuel industry and from the lawmakers who back it.

Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator for West Virginia, is likely to be a particular thorn in the side of the Biden administration.

He is to lead the Senate Energy Committee and was elected as a defender of his states coal industry.

He famously campaigned with a TV ad that featured him using a hunting rifle to shoot a copy of one of Obama's climate change bills.

And, remember the Senate is split 50-50 with Vice-President Kamala Harris holding the casting vote.

US rejoining world stage 'with humility'

There will be more freedom of action on the international stage.

Indeed, this may be where Joe Biden and John Kerry have their most transformative impact.

Mr Kerry describes the Glasgow climate summit in November this year as "the last best chance the world has to come together to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis".

It is a propitious time to be talking.

The cost of renewables has fallen dramatically since he led America's delegation to the Paris talks.

Lots of countries are considering green investments as a way to stimulate their economies post-Covid.

The Los Angeles refinery, California's largest producer of gasoline

And that's consistent with net zero by mid-century pledges that more than 100 countries - including the EU and China - have made recently.

Mr Kerry knows America has to step carefully.

"I think that the fact that the United States has been absent for four years, requires us to approach this with a certain sensitivity and humility."

The hope is, Mr Kerry implies, that aggressive action on the domestic front will give credibility to American efforts to encourage other nations to up their climate ambition.

He said he and the rest of the administration will work hard with the UK government to ensure Glasgow is a success.

"I'm not going to contemplate anything else," he told me, "because it would be a dramatic failure for mankind."

Originally published Sun., January 31, 2021, 3:14 a.m.

The Conversation Canada

What Biden's presidency means for Canada-U.S. agri-food trade

Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, Assistant Professor, Agri-Food Trade and Policy, University of Guelph and Eugene Beaulieu, Professor, Economics, University of Calgary
Updated Sun., January 31, 2021

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden, U.S. vice president at the time, walk down the Hall of Honour on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in December 2016. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Patrick Doyle

Although international trade has long been affected by domestic politics, former U.S. president Donald Trump dramatically increased trade irritants between the United States and Canada. This was especially challenging in the agricultural sector where political interference in international trade is more prevalent than in the non-agricultural sector.

In our recent article in the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, we analyzed how Trump’s presidency affected agri-food trade between the two countries and how the situation might change under President Joe Biden.

We argue that Trump’s negative rhetoric and actions heightened trade uncertainty and undermined global trading rules, which tends to disrupt international trade. This was a major challenge for a small open economy like Canada that depends largely on the American market. In particular, the politically sensitive nature of the agri-food sector makes agricultural trade highly dependent on diplomatic ties between countries.
Canada more reliant on the U.S.

Canada’s relationship with the U.S. is important for the agri-food sector in both countries, but it’s somewhat one-sided in terms of Canadian reliance on the American market.

Canada is the top destination for American agricultural exports, accounting for 15 per cent of the country’s total agricultural exports in 2019. Conversely, the U.S. is the foremost buyer of Canadian agri-food products, accounting for 58 per cent of total Canadian agri-food exports. This isn’t surprising due to the countries’ close proximity and similar consumer tastes and values.

But the Canada-U.S. political relationship became hostile during the Trump presidency due to the former president’s erratic foreign policy decisions, tariff wars and his verbal attacks on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The tense political relationship created an environment of uncertainty, adversely affecting the bilateral trading relationship.

A cyclist passes between two canola fields near Cremona, Alta., in a July 2016. The U.S. was the top market for Canadian canola in 2019. 

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

Major trade disputes between the two countries at both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and within the former North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have largely involved the agricultural sector. WTO trade disputes over softwood lumber, hard wheat and durum and the compulsory country-of-origin labelling requirements, for example, were all within the agricultural sector.

The long-standing softwood lumber dispute predates Trump, but was escalated during his presidency and could not be sorted out under NAFTA and WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. It was resolved only through political negotiations when both parties signed a memorandum of understanding.

Canada diversifying?

The graph below shows that although bilateral agri-food exports from Canada to the U.S. increased marginally from 2015 and 2019, Canadian agri-food imports from the U.S. remained flat.

Agri-food imports and exports. Author provided

The increasing number of agri-food imports to Canada from nations other than the U.S., and the flat-lining of imports from south of the border, shows the Canadian economy may be diversifying away from the U.S. and not relying solely on Americans to be the main suppliers of its food basket.

Continuing trade uncertainty with the U.S. could push Canada to pursue its market diversification agenda more aggressively. Canada has shown serious signs of market diversification through its membership in two major free-trade agreements — the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union and the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) with Pacific Rim countries.

Read more: Canada-U.K. free trade: A post-Brexit opportunity

Biden’s presidency

In his inaugural speech, Biden promised to immediately work to repair and renew relationships with U.S. allies and return America to a leadership role in the world. His first call to a foreign leader was made to Trudeau, and he assured the prime minister that “Buy American” policies weren’t aimed at Canada.

Biden is facing significant domestic political challenges, and it’s too soon to know how he’ll deal with trade irritants and address the harm done by the Trump administration. But it’s clear he’s intent on returning to multilateralism.

The American dissatisfaction with the World Trade Organization (WTO) predates Trump and runs deep in the U.S. Barack Obama’s administration also blocked appointments to the appellate body based on this dissatisfaction. However, Biden has been clear about supporting a strong multilateral trading system and isn’t expected to be obstructionist like the Trump administration, but instead will likely work with allies to address concerns with the WTO.

When it comes to trade deals, Biden has acknowledged the importance of deals like the CPTPP that Trump pulled out of on his third day in office. But he’s also promised to protect American workers.
Protectionist forces

Protectionist forces will continue to disrupt trade between the two countries, but we can expect a closer and more constructive relationship under Biden. Trade disputes won’t disappear, but the approach to them will change, and improved U.S.-Canada diplomatic relations will have a positive impact on Canada’s agri-food sector.

Canada’s prime minister and Biden are much closer in terms of ideology, policy objectives and leadership style than Trump and Trudeau were, and they share views on eliminating trade barriers instead of imposing them.

Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, arrive at the airport in Richmond, B.C. in 2015 when he was serving as U.S. vice-president. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

The past four years of trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada were largely politically motivated, especially Trump’s imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs in the name of national security, which Canada responded to by imposing retaliatory tariffs on a number of agri-food products from the United States.

Such unilateral decisions will probably be minimal under Biden. Bilateral trade flows between both countries are unlikely to be affected by the types of erratic trade actions favoured by Trump.

Closer political ties between the Biden administration and the Canadian prime minister means a more constructive and co-operative approach to solving challenges between the two countries in the agri-food sector. Trade disputes will undoubtedly continue, but diplomatic efforts will work to resolve these disputes. This is a positive development for the Canadian agri-food industry.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor, University of Guelph and Eugene Beaulieu, University of Calgary.

Read more:

The measly $292.50 that could have transformed Canada’s agrifood sector

Canada’s new food policy means everyone’s at the table

Sylvanus Kwaku Afesorgbor receives funding from Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Eugene Beaulieu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Originally published Sun., January 31, 2021

RIP

Jonas Gwangwa: The South African jazz icon who stood up to apartheid

Mo Allie - BBC News, Cape Town

Updated Sat., January 30, 2021, 



South African and world music has lost an icon with the death of jazz trombonist, composer and organiser Jonas Gwangwa.

The musician, who was 83, died on 23 January succumbing to cardiac complications.

He passed away on the same date that his great friend Hugh Masekela had died three years earlier, and two years to the day after Zimbabwean great Oliver Mtukudzi.

Gwangwa, who spent the prime of his life in exile, not only won acclaim for his music, he was also deeply involved in the struggle against white-minority rule in the country.

Born in the Johannesburg township of Soweto on 19 October 1937, Gwangwa went on to enjoy a highly successful musical career spanning six decades.

During that time he answered the call by Oliver Tambo, then-president of the ANC, to lead the Amandla Cultural Ensemble. The group was formed in 1980 to show a softer side to the anti-apartheid struggle, and win support in different parts of the world.

The white-minority National Party government regarded Gwangwa's musical and cultural activism as a big enough threat for their security forces to bomb his house in Botswana in 1985. Fortunately the musician and the other occupants were elsewhere.

His commitment to the liberation struggle together with his exceptional musical talent saw Gwangwa being awarded South Africa's Order of Ikhamanga in Gold - the nation's highest honour.

The citation for the national order, which he received in 2010, recalls how he "enthralled the world with his artistry as a composer and all-round creative genius. For more than 30 years he travelled the world as an exile collecting accolades wherever he went".
'A mirror for society'

Paying tribute to Jonas Gwangwa, President Cyril Ramaphosa said in a statement that he "ascends to our great orchestra of musical ancestors, whose creative genius and dedication to the freedom of all South Africans inspired millions in our country - and mobilised the international community against the apartheid system".

Former president Thabo Mbeki paid his own tribute via his foundation: "Bra JG, as he was affectionately known, understood the potent combination of culture and the arts as an effective instrument for national liberation from the beginning of his career.

"Together with others of his generation, Gwangwa harnessed the enthralling capacity of music not just to entertain, but also to hold up the mirror to society and bare the evil soul of the Apartheid regime to the world."

A young Gwangwa delighted audiences in Johannesburg's vibrant multi-racial cultural hub of Sophiatown, until it became illegal for black people to congregate and the apartheid government censored jazz performances in 1960.

Along with other leading South African musicians like Masekela, Abdullah Ibrahim and Miriam Makeba, Gwangwa went into exile rather than bow to apartheid censorship.

He rose to worldwide prominence in 1965 performing at a Sound of Africa concert at New York's Carnegie Hall with the likes of Makeba, Masekela, and Letta Mbulu.

It was the start of an international career that he used in service of the constantly growing struggle against white-minority rule.

In 1987, alongside English composer George Fenton, Gwangwa composed the score for the film Cry Freedom, earning two Oscar nominations for best original score and song.

He also received numerous awards at home, including at the South African Music Awards in the jazz category.

'Boy, did he play the trombone'

Like most other exiles Gwangwa returned home in the 1990s. Ike Phaahla, one of the country's leading radio jazz presenters, remembers the musician's first performance back home - at the famous Kippies jazz club in Johannesburg in 1991.

"Backstage he regaled us with stories from his time in exile, but boy did he play the trombone that night.

"He was not only an artist but also an activist and freedom fighter. He was insightful but very humble. He always enjoyed the stage and had lots of fun with his band," said Phaahla.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTNYGdGp1hQ

Despite being out of the country, internationally renowned artists like Gwangwa had a huge impact on those at home, including saxophonist Khaya Mahlangu.

"He was one of the pioneers alongside Abdullah Ibrahim, Caiphus Semenya and Hugh Masekela," Mahlangu said.

"They were the trailblazers, guys who hoisted our cultural flag high up on the international stage, and they shaped the cumulative me because much as they spent so much time abroad, they kept the sound of South Africa alive."

He was honoured with a special provincial state funeral on Friday livestreamed online by South Africa's state broadcaster, bringing together those kept apart by coronavirus restrictions.

Gwangwa's death, just two weeks after that of his wife Violet, is a huge loss to South Africa's music fraternity.

But at least the world will still be able to tap their feet and lift their spirits when listening to his music.

Originally published Sat., January 30, 2021,