Who is Jagmeet Singh? A look at how the NDP leader’s past has shaped his campaign

By Christopher Reynolds The Canadian Press
Posted August 29, 2021 

 Canada election: How do voters rank the federal leaders?

READ MORE: Singh seen as most likeable leader in election as Trudeau’s popularity craters: poll

Jagmeet Singh was barely out of his teens when he took his little brother in.

A biology student at the University of Western Ontario, Singh insisted on looking after Gurratan, then 15, following a nearly violent confrontation with their father that prompted a police call to their farmhouse in Windsor, Ont.

The change was a blessing for both, offering a stable environment for the younger sibling and a chance for the two to reconnect.

“I was getting a little bit frightened, quite frankly, and anxious being at home. And he kind of, at the perfect moment, took me off to London, Ont. I think he was very sensitive to the fact that he didn’t want me to feel those emotions again,” said Gurratan, now a lawmaker in the Ontario legislature.

The duo lived there for three years along with their German shepherd, Jugnu, with college friends popping in and out via the balcony across from a nearby mall to walk the dog unprompted while Singh worked three jobs, Gurratan said.

“He’s a really great cook now, but back then he wasn’t the best,” his brother recalled. “I remember one time I was really hungry… He passed me this plate of pasta, and it’s all these chopped-up veggie dogs. “I was like, `What is this, man?’ But he was trying his best. He was trying to do what he’s always done: make the best out of a tough situation.”

The same might be said of the current election campaign.

Canada election: Singh responds to Trudeau cancelling event due to safety concerns

Jagmeet Singh consistently enjoys the highest net favourability ratings of any federal leader and has a record to run on after nearly four years as leader of the federal NDP, but his prospects of returning New Democrats to the official Opposition status they achieved in 2011 — with most of that caucus based in Quebec — appear a long way off from the fourth-party spot they have now.

Having been reduced to 44 seats in the 2015 election that returned the Liberals to power under Justin Trudeau, the NDP managed to send just 24 MPs to the House of Commons under Singh’s first campaign at the helm in 2019.

That smaller caucus nonetheless wielded some influence in the minority Parliament, securing enhanced pandemic benefits and paid sick leave in exchange for supporting the throne speech. Days before Trudeau visited the Governor General, Singh wrote the prime minister a letter, which he published on social media, accusing him of breeding cynicism for telling Canadians that a minority government cannot work.

Nonetheless, he treads the campaign trail with a smile, inviting comparisons to the “happy warrior” persona of venerated former NDP leader Jack Layton. His gait is a confident stride, a slower version of the catwalk struts he’s trotted out at fashion shows and gala fundraisers in recent years.

At a coffee shop west of Ottawa’s downtown earlier this month, Singh, 42, displays the selective style for which he’s become known: a maroon polo made by British Columbia’s Reigning Champ, jeans from Montreal’s Naked and Famous Denim, and an artisanally crafted kirpan — a ceremonial Sikh dagger — cut from spalted maple by a knifemaker in Cobourg, Ont.

The GQ-esque esthetics — from the 2017 spread in said magazine to the Rolex watches and urban bicycles — might seem at odds with the working-class voters traditionally courted by the NDP. But he’s described his sharp fashion sense as a kind of armour against racial prejudice, a form of cladding that dates back to his time as a criminal defence lawyer in the mid-2000s when he was one of the few racialized, turbaned attorneys at the courthouse in Brampton, Ont.

Born in east Toronto and raised in Windsor, Ont., after an early childhood in Newfoundland, Singh grew up in a family environment that was both supportive and at times frighteningly unstable.

His father, who comes from a village in India’s Punjab region where he studied on a dirt floor, rose to become head of the psychiatry department at a Windsor hospital. He also suffered from a debilitating addiction to alcohol that created a rift in the family.

Canada election: Singh pledges to tackle student debt crisis if elected

“The hardest decision in my life was when I had to say, `Pops, you can’t live here anymore. You can’t live in a place where you’re hurting people,”’ Singh recalls.

“It was so complex, because when you love someone, it is also weird to also be afraid of that same person.”

Nonetheless, he cites his dad’s trajectory as “an incredible inspiration.”

“I saw him so frail that he had to walk with a walker. And now he can do a headstand,” Singh says, sipping on a kombucha.

“His story is really human. It’s not that everything was always good. He had amazing highs and amazing lows, but he came back.”

READ MORE: NDP pledges universal pharmacare, looks to distinguish party from Liberals

Singh, whose wife, Gurkiran Kaur Sidhu, is expecting their first child, has faced his own ups and downs.

In elementary school he dealt with racism and confronted bullies with words and fists, his younger brother said.

The elder Singh’s first stab at federal politics following pro bono work in support of refugees and migrant workers saw him lose in the former riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton in 2011.

But overall, Singh’s achievement chart has notched upward, fuelled by a sense of empathy-infused social justice.

He tapped that resource as a member of provincial parliament between 2011 and 2017, and more recently as federal party leader, to sound off on affordability, universal pharmacare and a tax-the-rich populism.

 Canada election: NDP push to ban for-profit long-term care homes

Years earlier at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, he embraced the Socratic side of the lecture hall and a more structural view of social ills.

“He had very definite ideas about the problems with the way the law currently functioned and the necessity of changing those. And in the space of criminal law, I think a lot of that was about police behaviour and over-policing and racism,” said Sonia Lawrence, an Osgoode professor who taught Singh in her first-year course.

Less interested in legal minutiae or the “strict, black-letter rules of law,” Lawrence said Singh projected a “big personality” that took up space but also invited dialogue and accommodated divergent points of view.

“He was always very eager to learn, always very eager to contribute, but also had a lot of generosity about the comments that he was making in class,” she recalled.

The two connected via socially conscious hip hop as well, from A Tribe Called Quest to Jay-Z.

“Organize the wealth into a socialist economy, A way of life based off the common need,” Singh riffs at the coffee shop, quoting the lyrics to “Police State” by Dead Prez.

He continues to blend rhythm and righteousness on social media, where the Burnaby South MP has an outsized presence. One TikTok post last month encouraging young people to vote as Singh grooves to a viral remix garnered 6.2 million views.


“How I became aware of him was through his social media presence, TikTok especially,” said Ezra McCaveney, 23, who asked Singh for a selfie outside the cafe.

“He cares about the next generation, right?”

“He knows how to target us,” said Mathios Felmina, 26, after a short chat on cuisine with the country’s top New Democrat. “It’s super impressive that he actually knows how to cook injera, which is my cultural meal” — a spongy, fermented flatbread common in Ethiopia and Somalia.

Singh has developed beyond the butchered veggie dogs he served his baby brother more than two decades ago. Whether the electorate’s view of that compassionate older sibling has evolved to hand him more than the 24 seats now in NDP hands will be decided at the ballot box on Sept. 20.

© 2021 The Canadian Press

CTV QP interview: NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh on Afghanistan, taxing the super rich, and universal pharmacare

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh addresses supporters during a campaign stop in Thunder Bay, Ont., Friday, Aug. 27, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson


CTVNews.caStaff
Sunday, August 29, 2021 

TORONTO -- In this first of a series of interviews with Canada’s major federal party leaders, Question Period Host Evan Solomon talks to NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh.

Below is a full transcript:

Question Period Host Evan Solomon: I’ve got to start with the issue of Afghanistan. As you know, you have criticized the Liberal Party in terms of how they handled this issue, but Canada got out 3,700 people -- that's more than countries like France, the third most per capita. Can you please tell us in detail and practically what you would have done differently, given the fact that Canada, our ground forces, left that country back in 2014?


Go to election.ctvnews.ca for all our federal election updates


NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh: Well, what we've heard from a lot of veterans, and as information is coming out more and more, is it looks like they were reaching out to the Canadian government, reaching out to Justin Trudeau, to advise that the process to help our allies that put their lives at risk to support our Canadian Forces was too complicated, did not respond to people in a crisis zone -- it was not working. And they raised those concerns for months and months. And so that's our concern: that for months and months, the calls for a better process to help our allies were not heeded. And sadly, folks have raised a concern that calling an election while this crisis happened may have taken away some resources and time that went towards the campaign that could have gone towards a better response to this crisis.

Solomon: If you were the leader, would you right now be speaking with the Taliban, negotiating with the Taliban to try to get safe passage for Canadians and interpreters left behind? Would you directly negotiate with the Taliban?

Singh: No, our approach is that right now things are things are really dire and I just want to acknowledge how scary it is for so many people in Afghanistan for people here in Canada we spoke with an organization, a coalition of Canadian Afghans, who are talking about how dire the situation is and how afraid they are for their family and loved ones, so things are really bad. We right now know that it's difficult, and we're just going to encourage Canada to continue with our allies, to find ways to make sure everyone gets evacuated.

Solomon: I’ve got to quickly just push back. The United States is directly talking to the Taliban to negotiate safe passage. You're saying you wouldn't. Canada's clearly talking to the Taliban via the proxy of the U.S. If you were the prime minister, you would not directly -- you don't have to recognize them, they're a terrorist organization according to Canada -- but why would you not negotiate and talk to the Taliban to try to get more Canadians out by securing a safe passage.

Singh: Well, we certainly wouldn't recognize – the Taliban is a terrorist organization -- but we would encourage, using all resources and all avenues possible to secure the release of our allies. So I should be clear on that; that it's important to use every tool possible work with our international allies, and find ways to secure the, the safe evacuation of people that put their lives at risk to support our forces.

Solomon: OK, let me let me go to health care, a huge issue. You support mandatory vaccines for all your candidates, you support it for federal workers, you even said that employees who don't get vaccinated should or could lose their jobs. Public service unions disagree with you, they don't like it. So could you be clear: Would you oversee firing public servants or them losing their jobs if they refuse to get vaccinated?

Singh: We know that the vast majority of Canadians want to do their part to keep people safe, and want to get vaccinated. And we also know that the vast majority Canadians believe in having some way to prove that by having a vaccine passport. And we know that people on the front lines, that are providing care or providing services directly to Canadians, can pose a higher risk and should be vaccinated. So we would work with unions and work with the workers on the ground to make sure we establish a way to move forward, but we absolutely believe that there needs to be mandatory vaccines and there would be consequences for those who are not able to, or not willing to do that, and we can look at what those consequences are.

Solomon: OK but you’ve said in the past that the consequences could be they'd lose their job, so you're open to that: no vaccine, no job.

Singh: If someone doesn't get vaccinated, that's obviously their choice. But if they're providing care or services on the frontline, and we've said we would mandate vaccination for our frontline workers, for federally regulated workers, then they wouldn't be able to continue in that position. So that's something that, that would be a consequence, and we're prepared to do what's necessary to make sure Canadians are safe.

Solomon: Can you explain why you and your team are not doing rapid daily COVID-19 tests while on the campaign trail, as other campaigns are?

Singh: So what we're doing is we have a mask mandate -- we wear a mask, we are all double vaccinated, and we're doing contact tracing, as well as temperature checks. So those are our methods, those are our steps that we're taking. And we're always open to hearing feedback from public health experts around any additional measures, but those are the measures that we're taking.

Solomon: OK polls at this stage don't mean a lot. I understand that. But in 2019 you were explicit: you said, ‘I will never work with a Conservative government, in a minority government, under Andrew Scheer.’ Would you now, as you have seemed to indicate, would you be open to working with a Conservative minority government under Erin O'Toole? You ruled it out in 2019, are you ruling it out again in 2021?

Singh: Well I want to be really clear on this: I'm running to form government. So as a New Democratic government, our goal would be to deliver the help that people need. That's my focus. If you're asking me my position or where I stand on the Conservatives, we've got nothing in common. It's clear they teamed up with Justin Trudeau to fight against getting rid of private, long-term care homes, and for-profit long-term care homes. They work together to vote against pharmacare. So in fact, it looks like Mr. Trudeau and Mr. O’Toole have more in common, since they've worked together to hurt people. We believe in doing everything we can to lift people up and provide them the help they need.

Solomon: OK but again I'm just trying to get (an answer): in 2019 you were explicit, ‘I won't work with them.’ In 2021, what's the position?

Singh: Our position is we've got nothing in common with the Conservatives. We think that Canadians can't afford another four years of Mr. Trudeau or Mr. O'Toole. Both of them have voted against things that Canadians believe in. They both voted against taxing billionaires and making sure they pay their fair share, something that we believe is essential so that we can invest in people for a better future, for better health care, to tackle the housing crisis. So that's where we stand. We don't think that Canadians would benefit from either Mr. O'Toole or Mr. Trudeau being the prime minister. That's why we're running to elect more New Democrats so we can help people.

Solomon: OK, well we'll find out if there's a minority or not. Climate -- obviously a critical issue for many, many people across this country. You have been open over the years, opposing the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The Liberals spent billions of dollars, they bought it. People can't figure out if you would kill that project if you were in power, if you were the government would you kill that project and cancel the construction? Yes or no.

Singh: Our position is clear in terms of that, this is a project that we've opposed, that's obviously still the case when it comes to what we would do with the asset: we'd have to understand it, take a look at it -- there's information we don't have because we're not in government -- and then we will look at that information to make the best decision that's in the interest of Canadians.


Solomon: OK but (former Green Party leader) Elizabeth May says you've opposed it, but you won't promise to kill it. So, does that sound very much like the person you've been criticizing, Mr. Trudeau, says one thing and does another thing -- that's what your criticism has been. You don't like the pipeline, you become the government, do you kill it or not? You know, (U.S. President) Joe Biden killed the pipeline, would Jagmeet Singh kill the pipeline.

Singh: Well, it's a very different situation in the sense that Mr. Trudeau already bought it, and has already started doing, you know, some construction. We don't know what that looks like in terms of an asset, and we don't know what would be in the best interest of Canadians. Once we form government, we would have access to that information, and then we would make the best decision possible. It's impossible to make that decision in terms of what would be in the best interests of Canadians, without actually understanding what the nature of the asset is and what the nature of our obligations are. So I would absolutely commit that we need to invest in renewable energy.

Solomon: (The Liberal government) poured $5 billion into that pipeline already, it could take another $10 billion more to complete it. In 20-odd days if you become the prime minister-elect, you could make a decision on that. And so you're saying you're not ruling out keeping that pipeline.

Singh: What we're saying is, it wasn't something that we would have done in the first place. We've always been opposed to it. When we form government we will look at the asset and make the best decision for Canadians

Solomon: You promised to create a national pharmacare program a $10-billion program, but, but you’d get it done by 2022 -- that's in a year. So that's provincial jurisdiction. How would you practically get, how can you promise people you'll get something done, when it's not your timetable, it's the provinces timetable?

Singh: Well with universal pharmacare, it's something that just makes sense. It's about using our buying power as a nation, and negotiating prices as a nation. We already know that each province and territory purchases medication for their citizens, for people in hospitals -- they already purchase medication. Wouldn't it just make more sense for us to negotiate that collectively? There's ways to do that right away. Our plan isn't just to have a stop-gap measure, which is what the Liberals are doing, and folks should know, that's not universal pharmacare. Our plan is to make sure, when someone needs medication, whether they have a plan where they don't have any coverage, we're going to save them money by eliminating any fee when it comes to getting medication. That's your co-pay, that's your premium, that's for people who don't have coverage, that's for people who have coverage -- everyone's going to save, provinces are going to save. I can't imagine anyone saying no to a program, which is going to save them money, once we put the money on the table. Once you've laid the plan out on the table, we're going to get everyone to sign on.

Solomon: Right, but provinces have said no, and a lot of them have said they don't want that. So, it's just an interesting promise based on someone—

Singh: They said no to Mr. Trudeau. It's important, Evan, to know that they said no to Mr. Trudeau and they said no to him because he's someone who's maintained the cuts to Harper cuts to health care, he's maintained those same cuts that he criticized himself, he's maintained them, and he hasn’t put on the table a universal pharmacare for all program.

Solomon: Sorry sir, I just have to interrupt you, you know it’s not a cut. I just want our viewers to know--

Singh: Well it’s exactly what Mr. Trudeau criticized when he was in opposition, he criticized Mr. Harper and said it was the wrong thing.

Solomon: I just want people to know, there was no cut to health care, it was a six per cent…

Singh: He criticized Mr. Harper for doing it. It's on the record. He criticized them, and then when he got into power, he kept the exact same funding that Mr. Harper had in place, that he had criticized. So that makes it clear: he knew was the wrong thing to do, but he kept it in place when he formed government.

Solomon: I just want to make sure (viewers know), the Canadian Health Transfer has steadily increased in that time, but Mr. Harper's formula was to cut the six per cent annual escalator down to either, you know, the rate of inflation or three per cent. And yes you're right, the Liberals kept that for him. It's actually still an increase overall but you're right, it's a cut from the six per cent. I appreciate it, I just want to make sure that people have a sense of that.

So you’ve always stood up for the rights of minorities, and you've talked about that explicitly -- you face it yourself. But you said on Quebec’s most popular television show (‘Toute le monde en parle’) that you would not appeal or take any action against Quebec’s secularism law that prevents people in certain jobs from wearing religious symbols like hijabs, turbans, and kirpans. You have called the law discriminatory, but you're going to do nothing about it. You won't appeal to the courts. How do you reconcile that? How do people trust that you'll actually fight for their rights, when in Quebec, a law that you call discriminatory, you refuse to challenge in court? What does that say?

Singh: That's not at all the case. I've said very clearly: this law is discriminatory, it divides people, it creates two categories of Quebecers, and it's wrong. Right now it is being fought in court, and I'm a lawyer and I understand what that means. Right now it's being challenged in court by Quebecers, and that is the right thing to do, and we're going see what happens with the result of that. We've got to wait and see what happens. And it's being fought in court and I acknowledge that. I think that's incredible that Quebecers have come together to say, ‘We think this is wrong.’ We also know that in Quebec, people in Quebec, aren't unanimous on this, they don't believe this is the right thing, there's a lot of people that are opposed to it. That's the right thing to happen right now. It's being challenged in court and we'll see what happens next.

Solomon: I will just say, on ‘Toute le monde en parle,’ the most popular program in Quebec, you said, ‘I will not try to appeal this decision if I was the prime minister,’ and you said this, ‘I accept that this is Quebec’s jurisdiction.’ So you said one thing to a Quebec audience, sir, that you're saying a little differently here, so I just tried to get clear, would you—

Singh: No, no. Not at all. I said it’s before the courts. And as a lawyer, you don't know what a judgment’s going to look like until the judgment’s released. And so once you look at the judgment, you'll be able to make a determination of the next steps. Right now it's before the courts, and it's being challenged in court, and that is the right thing to do. I'm going to continue to do exactly what I've done, which is say it is divisible, it's divisive, it's discriminatory and it's wrong, and I will continue to do that.

Solomon: On human rights, just one issue: boycotting the upcoming Olympics in China. Of course, the two Michaels (Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig), the Canadians who have been so badly mistreated and imprisoned well over 1,000 days, the treatment of the Muslim minority, the Uighur minority, you've called it a genocide, as by the way the United States and the U.K. have. Would you boycott the Olympics? And is there an attendant thing -- not only to make the athletes, sort of the pawns of policy, would you ban trading with China? If you believe they're committing a genocide.

Singh: Well, the first question around the athletes, I think that paramount analysis of that, to come up with a solution or response, is to assess the risk to our athletes. And right now there are some serious concerns around their safety and their risk, given the treatment of Mr. Spavor and Mr. Kovrig. Given what's happened to them, there are some legitimate concerns around safety, and because of that I think we've got to be vigilant around assessing that safety risk and making a decision based on what's going to protect our athletes. And so that's something that will be ongoing and we'll continue to assess that risk.

Solomon: Finally, a lot of people are saying, ‘OK, what's this election about?’ In your view, what's this election about. What are people going to take to the polls, because a lot of folks might say, ‘I don't know, Jagmeet’s team was working well with Justin Trudeau, seems like he kind of supports the Liberal agenda. They work well together, that seems fine.’ In your view, what's the key question?

Singh: The question in this election is: Can we afford four more years of Justin Trudeau, who's let the super rich continue to have a free ride? Or do you want to vote for New Democrats, who will make the billionaires start paying their fair share, so we can invest in people in the recovery, make life better by investing in health care, tackling the housing crisis, making sure we've got clean drinking water for Indigenous people. That's really the question: A free ride for billionaires, Justin Trudeau has done that, or New Democrats who will make them pay their fair share.

Solomon: All right, Jagmeet Singh, I really appreciate you taking time off your busy campaign, thank you sir.

Sing: Of course, thank you.

Alberta doctors holding COVID-19 updates in absence of province briefings

KENNEY & UCP MIA

By Morgan Black & Karen Bartko Global News
Posted August 30, 2021

As COVID-19 numbers keep climbing in Alberta, there's no sign of Premier Jason Kenney. It's been more than two weeks since Albertans last heard from Kenney, who has been on vacation. As Tom Vernon explains, there are growing calls for him to come back to work.

In the absence of regular provincial government news conferences, a group of Alberta doctors are providing their own COVID-19 update on Monday afternoon.

“There’s been a lot of people who have wanted some — any kind of movement forward — since our government hasn’t shown the willingness to do anything, despite this exponential rise in hospitalizations, ICUs and cases,” said Dr. Joe Vipond, a Calgary emergency room doctor who has been outspoken about the province’s response to the pandemic.

Vipond is one of the organizers of the “Protect our Province: COVID Briefing.”

It’s being spearheaded by the same medical professionals who led protests during the rollback of the vast majority of COVID-19 restrictions in July, opposing the Alberta government’s plan to lift mandatory isolation rules, scale back contact tracing and COVID-19 testing.

Albertans hold second day of protests against changing COVID-19 measures – Jul 31, 2021

In mid-August, the government announced it would keep those measures for another six weeks.

That was the last time chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw was made available to answer questions at a news conference.

READ MORE: Alberta keeping COVID-19 measures for another six weeks

Premier Jason Kenney’s last public appearance was three weeks ago on Aug. 9, after which he went on vacation for two weeks.

Health Minister Tyler Shandro has not been made available to answer questions in several weeks either, although he recently tweeted about visiting a vaccination clinic and attending community events.

“It’s hard to figure out exactly what’s going on, but the way the policy is rolled out, it means that they are allowing this disease to run unmitigated through our unvaccinated population,” Vipond said, adding as a result of that, breakthrough infections amongst the vaccinated are happening as well.

“So if that’s not the intention of the policy, it’s certainly the result of it.”


READ MORE: Breakthrough cases: What’s it like catching COVID-19 after vaccination?

Vipond said he’s worried the health-care system will quickly become overwhelmed again.

“It takes about two weeks for any kind of policy change to roll through on the numbers, and maybe even more of that for the hospitalization, so even if we were to put in impressive mitigation measures now, it would still be a while before they roll through.

“This is a very serious situation. I can’t say why they’re allowing this to happen, but it seems to be an intentional effort to try to let it rip.”

Dr. Neeja Bakshi, an internal medicine and COVID-19 unit physician, said the virtual news conference will provide a platform for Albertans and news organizations to ask questions.

“We know Albertans have questions, like going back to school, the current state of the health-care system.”

Bakshi said right now, there is a “void” in regards to information in the province.

“We haven’t heard a lot from our public health leaders in the last couple of weeks. There is a lot of anxiety and apprehension about going back to school. We are hopeful we can provide some information and background in regards to what’s going on.”

Vipond said with Alberta’s COVID-19 numbers climbing again, gathering in-person again like this summer’s protests is too dangerous now.

“So we thought, ‘We have all these people with expertise, these scientists, these physicians. Why don’t we try and fill some of the information gap that exists by allowing media and Albertans to ask questions of some of the experts?'”

The panel will include physicians and other health-care experts like aerosol specialist Conor Ruzycki and Malgorzata (Gosia) Gasperowicz, who does COVID modelling.

Calgary E.R. doctor fears kids will pay for Alberta’s plan to drop most COVID-19 restrictions – Jul 29, 2021

“We want to provide a forum where Albertans can get the information they need,” Bakshi said. “We are advocating for Albertans. We want to provide a forum that’s outside of a Twitter thread.

“I see what’s happening in the health-care system first-hand, and I can’t be silent.”


READ MORE: Kids and the Delta variant: As cases tick up, what does COVID-19 look like for children?

Bakshi said the forum will provide context on how Alberta can minimize the threat of COVID-19.
“Providing the context of [doctors], our experience, our exposure — certainly I’m not the chief medical officer of health, nor am I trying to be, but I can talk about what I am experiencing and what I’m seeing and hopefully, influence how we tackle this thing.”

“The lack of information is where my concern is. The policy and how things are executed are not my expertise.


“But arming Albertans with the information they need to make decisions in their life is the bare minimum, and I’m hoping we can provide an unbiased view of that.”

Vipond said this week that the panel will take place on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and after that, they will see what works before setting a regular schedule.

“We’re hoping to fill that vacuum, but maybe we’ll also be successful in flushing the government out. Maybe they don’t want us to own the information sphere. Maybe they need to return to the discourse and make themselves available to the media for questioning,” he said.

While one of the goals is to inform citizens and give journalists an opportunity to ask questions, Vipond said the ultimate object is to get the spread of COVID-19 and the Delta variant under control, “because we’re in for a heap of trouble if we just continue to let it rip.”

‘Exponential growth’

Vipond was joined by a handful of other doctors and health experts on Monday afternoon.

The format was familiar — complete with the pre-briefing music that often came before provincial updates. Vipond provided an update on the number of cases, hospitalizations, ICU rates and deaths.

“We have had an 81.4 per cent increase in our ICU rates in the last week,” Vipond said. “We have had this exponential growth in the fourth wave.”

The panel took questions from journalists and other viewers, including questions the province wasn’t available for Monday, like the announcement that third doses will soon be available for immunocompromised people or those living in congregate care.

“As health-care workers in Alberta, we are continually fighting this battle,” said Bakshi. “As health-care workers, we will continue to show up for what we believe in, which is caring for patients.”

Braid: The UCP seems sick of the pandemic

It began to seem that nobody was minding the store — and worse, that the government didn’t really care if COVID-19 got out of hand again

Author of the article: Don Braid • Calgary Herald

Publishing date:Aug 30, 2021

Lethbridge East MLA Nathan Neudorf is seen in this file photo. Neudorf suggested he'd like to see COVID rates rise quickly and pass through the unvaccinated population, in hopes of a fast decline.  FINGERS CROSSED

There’s nothing more embarrassing than making the dumbest comment of your life at the exact moment when everybody else in the room falls silent.

So it was with UCP MLA Nathan Neudorf, from Lethbridge, who found himself the sole voice on COVID-19 in a week when the entire government was in hibernation.

His comments — which seemed to approve of COVID-19 raging through the unvaccinated population — echoed across Alberta and the country.

To some, the remarks seemed a logical escalation of Alberta government policy — and maybe what the UCP types actually say behind closed doors.

Neudorf sharply changed the emphasis on Monday.

In the full media glare beyond his riding, there was no talk of letting the virus burn through the unvaccinated so it could hit the brick wall of the vaccinated population and then fade away.

Without acknowledging retreat, Neudorf said the government only wants as many people as possible vaccinated and hopes the current surge in cases comes down.

“I think we have shown through the entire pandemic that when case numbers rise with the increased number of hospitalizations and ICU numbers, we take additional action,” Neudorf said.

“And I believe we are watching that especially closely as we look to going back to school.”

He got a very barbed question about whether he wanted the virus to thrive among kids under 12, none of whom are vaccinated.

“Absolutely not,” he said.

“I’ve never hoped that cases would go up.”

It was that word — hope — that got him into trouble in the first place.

Referring to British experience (which he seems to have misread, but that’s another story) he told a TV outlet: “I’m very hopeful that we will see the same kind of trend, maybe a bit of an accelerated case rate, but then a very quick decline as well, allowing us to safely keep businesses open so we don’t have to add further restrictions.”

That was very badly worded but it’s hardly proof that Neudorf wants people to suffer for the larger cause; and even less likely, considering that he and his wife have five kids.

Neudorf seems to have authority beyond the usual backbencher because he’s the chair of the UCP caucus. He was installed after Todd Loewen resigned from that job, and was later kicked out of caucus, for calling on Premier Jason Kenney to quit.

Neudorf’s provocative comments were also amplified by the profound government silence.

Kenney was on holiday at some undisclosed place on earth. His office denied that he was in France, although the government was abuzz with talk that he had been to Europe.

Top media aides simply refused to respond to questions about his whereabouts. Health Minister Tyler Shandro was away for a time as well.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 cases were rising sharply to above 1,000 a day, by far the highest count in Canada, both per capita and in absolute terms. Those numbers are not going down.



It began to seem that nobody was minding the store — and worse, that the government didn’t really care if COVID-19 got out of hand again. Neudorf’s remarks seemed to be confirmation.

Now the lonely MLA says the government is on the same track as always; encourage vaccination and react with measures when cases rise (but not before).

On Monday afternoon the apparatus suddenly sprang to life, approving third “booster” shots for the immunocompromised and seniors living in congregate care. Nearly 120,000 people will be eligible.

Evidently the government is back at work. Soon it may even talk again.

But it’s obvious that the UCP is sick of governing with so much emphasis on the pandemic, and longs to hand decision-making to lesser agencies for matters like vaccine passports.

Which does not mean, no matter what one might think of this outfit, that they actually want people to get sick.

YES THEY DO, DON

Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald

 

New book explores the different—and surprising—types of atheism in science

by Amy McCaig, Rice University

A newly published book argues that a significant part of the public wrongly sees scientists who are atheists as immoral elitists who don't care about the common good.

Misconceptions and distrust of science and scientists—including those who are atheists—have been amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the book's authors, Elaine Howard Ecklund, the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences, professor of sociology and director of the Religion and Public Life Program at Rice University, and David Johnson, an associate professor of higher education at Georgia State University.

In "Varieties of Atheism in Science," Ecklund and Johnson draw from the most comprehensive study of atheist scientists ever completed. They surveyed 1,293 atheist scientists in the U.S. and U.K. over a five-year period and conducted in-depth interviews with 81 of these individuals. They conclude that the perception of atheist scientists as dishonest, arrogant and selfish is inaccurate.

As it turns out, the "New Atheism" embraced by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other notable scientists is at odds with the beliefs of most scientists who are atheists.

"Atheist scientists and religious communities, for example, certainly disagree about many things, but we found that they have so much more in common than they might think they share," Ecklund said. "Both groups often have a sense of fascination about the world, a sense of meaning and purpose and a desire to explain something larger than themselves."

For example, some atheist scientists identify as "culturally religious," which Ecklund and Johnson define as being meaningfully involved in religious traditions even though they are committed atheists. Often, these scientists have a religious partner or spouse and their children attend religious services.

"These individuals expressed that the moral frameworks from religion are important for living life well, and even for application of scientific work," Ecklund said. "I think it's really interesting and important to learn that some of these atheist scientists might be active participants in religious communities."

The authors said many scientists they interviewed were raised religious, and that bad experiences—including parents who dismissed their curiosity about science—led them to abandon their beliefs.

Other types of atheism the authors encountered in their study were modernist atheism (in which people have no religious views and don't engage with faith traditions, but they're not hostile to religion or religious people) and spiritual atheism (in which spirituality is important, often as it relates to research).

Ecklund and Johnson argue that improving the public's perception of scientists requires uncovering the real story of who atheist scientists are.

"As the pandemic continues to ravage the global population, never before has it been more important to improve the relationship between the public and the science community," Ecklund said.

Of the New Atheists, the book concludes, "It is now our responsibility to replace their rhetoric with reality."

Religious leaders are key to vaccination efforts, expert says

Provided by Rice University 

Nearly 70 Line 3 Resisters Arrested Outside Minnesota Governor’s Mansion

Indigenous leaders and Water Protectors protest Canadian oil company Enbridge's expansion of the Line 3 tar sands pipeline on August 25, 2021, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

MICHAEL NIGRO / PACIFIC PRESS/LIGHTROCKET VIA GETTY IMAGES

BYJulia Conley, Common Dreams

PUBLISHED August 30, 2021

Environmental justice campaigners expressed solidarity over the weekend with nearly 70 people who were arrested Saturday by Minnesota law enforcement as they assembled outside Democratic Gov. Tim Walz’s home, demanding the governor take action to stop the construction of the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline.

Protesters were loaded into buses after police threatened dozens with pepper spray, rubber bullets, and a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) for peacefully protesting the pipeline, which violates the treaty rights of the Anishinaabe people as well as threatening water safety in northern Minnesota.

RootsAction urged supporters to donate to bail funds for the campaigners, many of whom have been arrested multiple times for standing up for Indigenous rights, public health, and the future of the planet.

On Saturday, more than 100 people marched to Walz’s mansion from the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, demanding the governor live up to campaign statements he made opposing the pipeline and intervene in the permitting process for Line 3.

Walz has expressed support for moving “away from fossil fuels,” but since taking office he has declined to stop construction, which is now on the verge of completion.

“If we’re gonna transport oil, we need to do it as safely as we possibly can with the most modern equipment,” said Walz on Friday as thousands of demonstrators camped out on the grounds of the state Capitol.

At the rally in front of the governor’s home on Saturday, Indigenous water protectors read a statement demanding action from Walz and President Joe Biden, who advocates say should suspend the permit allowing construction of the Line 3 pipeline under the Clean Water Act and “undertake a thorough review” of the federal permitting process and the project.

“Line 3 violates treaties by threatening water, manoomin, and our climate, leading to the loss of usufructuary and cultural rights,” said the organizers. “President Biden, as well, has failed to uphold treaties and the principle of free, prior, and informed consent by allowing the project to proceed without nation to nation consultation with sovereign tribes opposed to the project.”

Organizers including Taysha Martineau, one of the Anishinaabe women leading the resistance to the pipeline, chained themselves to the gates in front of Walz’s mansion before the arrests.

“I’m here locked to the fence demanding that Governor Tim Walz speak to us,” Martineau said. “We’re calling on Governor Walz to pull the permits for Line 3 and demanding a federal Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Water protectors marched 256 miles from the headwaters of the Mississippi River to speak with this gentleman. He has not come to listen to their voices and so we came here. We’re here demanding that they hear us.”

Minnesota appeals court affirms state water quality permit for Enbridge's Line 3

Pipeline opponents had challenged the MPCA's water and wetlands permit for construction of the 340-mile oil pipeline across northern Minnesota.

By Mike Hughlett Star Tribune
AUGUST 30, 2021 — 3:28PM

File photo from 2018 on work being done at the Minnesota-Wisconsin boarder on the Line 3 pipeline replacement. (AP Photo/Jim Mone, file)

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld a state water quality and wetland permit for the construction of Enbridge's Line 3, another legal blow to pipeline opponents.

Two Ojibwe bands and three environmental groups had challenged the "401" permit issued in November by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), saying the agency committed legal errors on several fronts.

A three-judge panel of the appellate court disagreed, saying in a ruling Monday: "We conclude that the MPCA's section 401 certification is not affected by legal error and is supported by substantial evidence in the record."

The appeal was filed by the Red Lake and White Earth bands of Ojibwe; Honor the Earth, an indigenous environmental group; and Friends of the Headwaters and the Sierra Club, two environmental organizations.

They say the MPCA was neglecting its obligations under the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act. The pipeline will cross 212 streams and affect more than 700 acres of wetlands in Minnesota,

"We are disappointed that the Minnesota Court of Appeals has deferred to the MPCA's bad decision in granting the 401 permit to Enbridge," Scott Strand, an attorney for Friends of the Headwaters said in a statement.

Enbridge, in a statement, said the court's decision "is an important affirmation of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's approval for Line 3's 401 Certification, confirming that wetlands and waterbodies are being appropriately protected during construction."

Monday's ruling is the latest legal setback for opponents of the controversial Line 3, which will transport a particularly heavy crude from Canada to Enbridge's terminal in Superior, Wis. Enbridge has completed more than the 90 % of the 340-mile pipeline across Minnesota.

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected a petition by pipeline opponents that sought to overturn a June decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The appellate court — by a 2-1 vote — upheld the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) 2020 final approval of the pipeline that will replace Enbridge's current Line 3, which is corroding and can operate at only 51 % capacity.

In November, the MPCA said it issued its "most stringent" water-quality permit ever for the Line 3 project, and that Enbridge must do "extensive" mitigation of streams and wetlands that it disturbs, the agency said.

Line 3 opponents countered that the MPCA improperly limited the scope of its own authority over Line 3; erred in determining the new pipeline would comply with state water quality and wetland standards; and failed to consider alternative routes for Line 3.

The appellate court rejected all of those claims, and noted that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, not the MPCA, has jurisdiction over route alternatives.

Line 3 opponents' have a separate appeal that is pending against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which granted a water and wetlands permit for Line 3 that is sort of a federal parallel to the MPCA's water permit.

Plaintiffs allege that deficiencies in the Corps permit should cause it to be rescinded by U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. If the Corps permit were to be rescinded after the pipeline is completed, there is a chance the court could order a temporary halt to any oil flow on Line 3.

Pipeline opponents had hoped the Biden administration would quash Line 3 by intervening in the suit against the Corps. But in a key court filing in late June, the Army Corps of Engineers strongly defended its Line 3 permit.

Enbridge maintains the $3 billion-plus new pipeline is a significant safety improvement; it will restore the full flow and boost the company's earnings.

The new Line 3 runs partly on a new route. Pipeline opponents say it will expose new regions of Minnesota's lakes, rivers and wild rice waters to oil-spill degradation — and will exacerbate climate change.

Mike Hughlett covers energy and other topics for the Star Tribune, where he has worked since 2010. Before that he was a reporter at newspapers in Chicago, St. Paul, New Orleans and Duluth.

‘Game-changer’ for geothermal energy as UK plant unlocks vast supply of lithium

By Kira Taylor | EURACTIV.com
Aug 29, 2021

The United Downs geothermal power plant in Cornwall is expected to come online in 2022 and could be producing 1,500 tonnes of lithium by the end of 2023

 [Geothermal Energy Ltd]

A geothermal power plant in the UK has discovered the highest concentration of lithium ever found in geothermal fluid, opening the door to a new business model for the renewable energy source.

Third-party tests carried out this summer revealed more than 250 milligrams of lithium – a critical metal for the green transition – per litre of the fluid used to transfer heat from under the Earth.

“It’s really become a game-changer for the industry to be able to say we don’t just produce power, don’t just produce heat – we will produce lithium as well, particularly zero carbon lithium,” the founder of Geothermal Energy Ltd Ryan Law told EURACTIV.

The Cornwall-based company has plans for four new geothermal sites across the county, which together will power 45,000 homes. Each plant is expected to take 18 months to complete and all are expected to be running by 2026.

Once these are online, the company expects to extract 4,000 tonnes of lithium annually, with United Downs – the geothermal plant already constructed – possibly producing 1,500 tonnes by the end of 2023, depending on the technology.

Geothermal power is responsible for only a fraction of renewable energy used in Europe despite being accessible in some form across most of the continent. That is partly because it has extremely high start-up costs, making it a less attractive investment.

But now the technology is seeing more interest from investors, partly driven by the prospect of lithium extraction.

“It’s a big deal to try and get lithium that is both incredibly low carbon – in our case, zero carbon – and, geopolitically, to have it produced in your own country,” said Law.

Lithium is brought to the surface by geothermal fluid. In the case of the Cornish plant, this is water from an underground reservoir that is pumped between two wells to bring the heat to the surface. The water can reach temperatures of almost 200°C, but is under such pressure that it remains a liquid. At this high temperature, it is very good at absorbing minerals, like lithium, from the rocks around it.

Law’s company is trialling zero carbon methods to remove the lithium from the fluid, and is currently capable of achieve extraction rates of 95%, he says.

The discovery means the possibility of a big processing plant, possibly even a Gigafactory in Cornwall, he told EURACTIV. This would be a huge U-turn for the county, which is one of the poorest in England, and could see a partial return to the mining that the area is infamous for.

This history of mining has also helped engage the community, alongside efforts by the company, according to Cherilyn Mackrory, a Cornish Conservative MP.

“It’s important to say that they’ve taken the community with them on this, because I think that could have been potentially a scary project for a local, rural community. But actually, the community has been really involved and really engaged, because they see the benefits of what is coming,” she told EURACTIV.

Demand for lithium is expected to boom in the coming years on the back of the shift to electric vehicles. According to the government-backed Faraday Institution, the UK will need to fulfil a domestic demand for lithium that could reach 59,000 tonnes of lithium carbonate equivalent per year by 2035.

Currently, the top five producers of lithium are Australia, Chile, China, Argentina and Zimbabwe but imports from those countries can have issues related to human rights or carbon footprint because of the transportation distances involved.

This is why having a lithium supply in Cornwall could be crucial to form a domestic supply chain in the UK, according to MP Mackrory.

“Lithium is a mineral for the future – a crucial component for electric car batteries among other high tech uses – hence mining and manufacturing it locally will be a big driver in the energy transition and make Cornwall a key contributor towards realising the UK’s climate targets,” she said.

As part of its ambition to hit net zero emissions by 2050, the UK plans to end sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 and rule out sales of new hybrids by 2035.

Europe too is expected to see a huge increase in demand for lithium, with a stated aim to create a fleet of 30 million electric vehicles by 2030.

Alongside this, the European Union will soon adopt policies to introduce traceability into the supply chains of lithium batteries and Law expects a similar rule to be introduced in the UK.

“Some of the big car manufacturers, not just Tesla, but Renault and others, are already signing agreements about how they source their low carbon lithium because they can see what’s coming – you won’t be able to produce a high carbon lithium battery within Europe fairly shortly,” he said.

Stalin-era mass graves unearthed in Ukraine

Issued on: 30/08/2021 - 

People work on the site of mass graves site unearthed near Odessa airport in Ukraine Oleksandr GIMANOV AFP

Odessa (Ukraine) (AFP)

The remains of up to 20,000 people have been found in Ukraine's southern city of Odessa as excavations continue at a site believed to be a mass grave of victims of Stalin's Terror, historians said Monday.

According to various estimates, the bones of between 5,000 and 20,000 people lie in the ground, making it one of the largest mass graves unearthed in Ukraine so far.

They were discovered this month close to Odessa airport after exploratory works started as part of expansion plans.

"As of today, 29 graves have been discovered. The bodies lie in several layers," local historian Oleksandr Babych told journalists at the site which until recently was a garbage dump.

The bones of between 5,000 and 20,000 people lie in the ground, making it one of the largest mass graves unearthed in Ukraine Oleksandr GIMANOV AFP

"Already we can clearly see at least five layers", he said.

Historians believe that these people were executed in the 1930s, the time known as Stalin's Great Terror.

Archaeologist Tetyana Samoylova, a chief consultant at the site, highlighted the "cynicism" with which the sentences were carried out.

"They dug out pits in the garbage and threw these people in or shot them dead as they were standing there," Samoylova said.

"And then they covered them with the same garbage," she added, standing next to the dozens of graves marked by red tape.

It took 400 trucks to remove the top layer of garbage, according to a search group.

"When we carry out the exhumation, we will decide what to do here. And, of course, we plan to make a memorial," Odessa mayor Gennady Trukhanov said.

Historians believe the people were executed in the 1930s, the time known as Stalin's Great Terror Oleksandr GIMANOV AFP

Some mass graves had already been unearthed in this area in previous years.

The prisoners' nationalities and the crimes for which they were sentenced to die remain unknown.

According to estimates made by historians, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians were imprisoned or executed in Gulag camps during the Stalinist repressions.

One of the best-known execution sites is the forest near the village of Bykivnia on the outskirts of the capital Kiev, where tens of thousands of victims were buried in 1937-1941.

Millions of Ukrainians also died in the great famine of 1932-1933, which Kiev regards as a genocide orchestrated by Stalin. NATIONALIST BULLSHIT TO COVER FOR THEIR CRIMES OF COLLABORATION WIHT THE NAZI'S

stringer-osh/acl/bp

© 2021 AFP

'Where are they?': Relatives of Mexico's missing demand answers

Issued on: 30/08/2021 -

Relatives of missing Mexicans protest outside the presidential palace on International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances

 PEDRO PARDO AFP

Mexico City (AFP)

Relatives of missing Mexicans protested on Monday in front of the presidential palace, calling on the government to do more to find the tens of thousands of people who have disappeared.

"90,000+. Where are they?" read a banner brought by families to the event in Mexico City marking International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.

"This day cannot go unnoticed," said Maria Teresa Valadez, whose brother Fernando went missing in 2015 in the state of Sonora in the north of the violence-plagued country.

"Why does the government worry about other things and not forced disappearances?" the 39-year-old asked.

A woman wears a face mask reading 'Where is my son?' at a protest in Mexico City

 PEDRO PARDO AFP

The Mexican office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called on the authorities to strengthen rights guarantees for the missing and their relatives.

"Disappearances are one of the most terrible human rights violations... and as such require a committed and coordinated response from institutions," it said in a statement.

It praised efforts so far including the creation of a forensics coordinating team in March 2020 aimed at identifying thousands of unclaimed bodies.

Last week, a group representing families of the missing said that more than 50,000 unidentified bodies were lying in mass graves or with forensic services.

Families brought clothes of their missing loved ones to the demonstration 

PEDRO PARDO AFP

The Movement for Our Disappeared in Mexico warned that the country was facing "a deep forensic crisis" in the identification of human remains.

© 2021 AFP

Plastic threatens migratory species in Asia-Pacific: UN

Issued on: 31/08/2021 - TOMMOROWS NEWS TODAY

Asian Elephants have been seen scavenging on rubbish dumps in Sri Lanka 

LAKRUWAN WANNIARACHCHI AFP/File

Paris (AFP)

From endangered freshwater dolphins drowned by discarded fishing nets to elephants scavenging through rubbish, migratory species are among the most vulnerable to plastic pollution, a UN report on the Asia-Pacific region said Tuesday, calling for greater action to cut waste.

Plastic particles have infiltrated even the most remote and seemingly-pristine regions of the planet, with tiny fragments discovered inside fish in the deepest recesses of the ocean and peppering Arctic sea ice.

The paper by the UN's Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) focused on the impacts of plastic on freshwater species in rivers and on land animals and birds, which researchers said were often overlooked victims of humanity's expanding trash crisis.

It said that because these creatures encounter different environments -- including industrialised and polluted areas -- they are likely at risk of higher exposure to plastics and associated contaminants.

Researchers cited estimates that 80 percent of the plastic that ends up in the oceans originates on land -- with rivers thought to play a key role in carrying debris out to sea.

The report comes just days ahead of a major summit of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which will include a motion calling for an end to marine plastic pollution by 2030.

"Actions to address this global issue have fallen far short of what is needed," said CMS Executive Secretary Amy Fraenkel.

"The focus has thus far been on clean up in our oceans, but that is already too late in the process. We need to focus on solutions and prevention of plastic pollution upstream."

- 'Additional stress' -

The UN report highlights two regions -- the Ganges and Mekong river basins -- which together contribute an estimated 200,000 tons of plastic pollution to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean every year.

Discarded fishing gear were found to be major threats.

Dolphins can become entangled and trapped under water by old nets, with endangered Irrawaddy Dolphins and Ganges River Dolphins at particular risk.

The report also said migratory seabirds, such as Black-footed Albatrosses and Laysan Albatrosses, may not be able to tell plastic from prey when flying over the ocean and can accidentally eat floating debris.

Dolphins can become entangled in discarded fishing nets that stop them being able to get to the surface to breathe 

WWF CAMBODIA  CANON/AFP/File

This means the plastic could build up in their guts or be passed on to their chicks when they regurgitate food for them, it said.

On land, Asian Elephants had also been observed scavenging on rubbish dumps in Sri Lanka and eating plastic in Thailand, the report noted.

The report stressed that species in Asia-Pacific face a multitude of threats, including habitat loss, overfishing, industrial pollution and climate change.

"Even if plastic pollution is not the most significant of these stressors, it can add an additional stress to already vulnerable populations," it said.

It called for strategies to prevent plastic being dumped in the environment, reducing waste through better design and recycling, as well as greater efforts to understand the effects of this pollution on migratory species.

Maine’s ban on ‘forever chemicals’ marks
a big win for some scientists

Nonstick pans often rely on the repellant properties of per- and polyfluoroalky
l substances. PPENGCREATIVE/ISTOCK

By XiaoZhi Lim Aug. 27, 2021

Last month, a group of scientists scored an unexpected win in chemical regulation: The state of Maine became the world’s first jurisdiction to ban the sale of products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The controversial chemicals are common in consumer goods such as nonstick cookware. By 2030, Maine will forbid selling products that use PFASs unless regulators determine their use is “currently unavoidable.”

The law, adopted 15 July, targets a family of chemicals that includes some 5000 compounds, including several banned under the international Stockholm Convention because they threaten human health. Because PFASs have a similar basic structure that can persist in the environment for long periods, some researchers have argued governments should drop the traditional approach of regulating them one by one. Instead, they want regulators to restrict the entire class, requiring manufacturers who want to use a PFAS in a product to prove the chemical’s use is “essential” for health, safety, or the functioning of society, and that there are no alternatives.

The essential-use approach “is really about trying to find more efficient regulatory means to control something that has been identified as hazardous,” says Kathleen Garnett, an environmental law scholar at Wageningen University & Research’s Law Group and a proponent of the idea

Industry groups, however, have pushed back, saying the approach is not rooted in science and could put useful chemicals off limits. “A one-size-fits-all approach to chemical regulation is neither scientifically accurate, nor appropriate,” said the American Chemistry Council in a recent statement on the Maine law.

For decades, manufacturers used PFASs to create materials that repel water and stains and make fire-fighting products. The compounds’ basic structure—a string of carbon atoms swathed in fluorine—resists degradation, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.” After two PFASs were linked to health problems in the 1990s, major manufacturers—including 3M and DuPont—voluntarily replaced them with related compounds they said were safer. Since then, many communities in the United States and elsewhere have discovered PFASs in their water supplies, sparking extensive legal and political battles over cleanups.

In the meantime, regulators and researchers have struggled to determine the risks posed by PFASs that are now in use. One challenge has been that companies are often unwilling to share information with outside scientists, notes analytical chemist Xenia Trier of the European Environment Agency, who says she could not properly measure PFASs in food packaging in Denmark because companies did not cooperate. Another challenge has been that manufacturers change the specific PFASs they use, making it difficult for scientists and regulators conducting risk assessments to keep up.

In 2013, PFAS researchers discussed such frustrations at a meeting that Trier and environmental scientist Ian Cousins of Stockholm University organized in Helsingør, Denmark. “There was a clear bubbling [of] a certain sense of urgency and concern,” recalls Martin Scheringer, an environmental chemist at ETH Zurich. The discussions resulted in a document, known as the Helsingør Statement, that summarized key concerns about PFASs and research needs. It also urged that PFASs “only be used in applications where they are truly needed and proven indispensable.”

That idea wasn’t new. In the late 1970s, the U.S. government pioneered the essential-use approach in restricting chemicals that harm Earth’s protective ozone layer. It allowed the use of ozone-destroying chemicals that were important for health and safety—such as propellants in asthma inhalers—but banned uses in products such as hairsprays. Several international pacts to control pollutants adopted similar ideas.

After the Helsingør meeting, Trier, Cousins, and their collaborators fine-tuned their ideas about how to apply the essential-use concept to PFASs and, in 2017, founded the Global PFAS Science Panel to focus on the issue. “We kind of had this mission that we wanted to phase [PFASs] out of society,” Cousins says. In May 2019, Cousins and other scientists provided examples of how the policy might work in Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts. They noted, for example, that using PFASs to make highly water- and oil-repellant surgical gowns and firefighting gear could be considered an essential use, but using the compounds in rain jackets or surfing gear would not.

The idea has made some headway. In October 2020, the European Union announced a Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, which includes a proposal to ban PFASs except for essential uses. In China, a January update to a key chemical law asks manufacturers to explain why use of a hazardous substance is necessary.

The new Maine law, however, is one of the strongest embraces yet of essential use. In 2019, officials discovered PFAS pollution is widespread in the state, even though the chemicals are not manufactured there. Legislators wanted “an approach to PFASs that gets to the root of the problem,” says Patrick MacRoy of the nonprofit Defend Our Health, which helped shape the law. “That was a very deliberate decision.”

Maine and other governments that adopt essential-use policies are likely to face fierce disputes over which chemicals should be included in the PFAS family—and which uses will be defined as essential. PFAS manufacturers, for example, want large molecules known as fluoropolymers excluded, arguing they should not affect health because the molecules are too big to be absorbed by humans and other animals. (Some scientists, however, point out that manufacturing fluoropolymers often involves smaller PFASs, and historically PFAS pollution originated at facilities that made fluoropolymers.)

Even as these debates heat up, some companies are removing PFASs from their products. An Oregon-based company, KEEN Footwear, recently eliminated PFASs from shoes. Large cosmetics brands, such as Sephora, have pledged to follow suit.

In the meantime, researchers pushing the essential-use concept are thrilled by the recent policy developments. Cousins, for example, is “superexcited” about the Maine law. “I just hope it holds.”

doi:10.1126/science.abm1382