Shocking inequality: why San Francisco voted for 'overpaid executive tax'


Rupert Neate Wealth correspondent
Sat, 21 November 2020
  

Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

On Matt Haney’s walk to work at San Francisco city hall he passes the luxurious homes of some of the richest US tech billionaires, as well as hundreds of the country’s most desperate people living in tent encampments on the street.

The “extreme, shocking inequality” he and the other 900,000 residents are forced to navigate every day led Haney, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the city’s legislative body, to propose a new “overpaid executive tax” designed to help tackle the problem.

San Francisco voters overwhelming backed a new law that will levy an extra 0.1% tax on companies that pay their chief executive more than 100-times the the median of their workforce. The surcharge increases by 0.1 percentage point for each factor of 100 that a CEO is paid above the median, up to a maximum of 0.6%.

Many of the biggest and best-known US companies would easily fall into the highest bracket. For example, Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and the world’s third richest person, was paid $595m (£449m) last year, almost 10,000 times the firm’s median salary of just under $60,000.
   

Elon Musk was paid $595m last year, almost 10,000 times the median pay at Tesla. Photograph: Odd Andersen/AFP/Getty Images

Tim Cook, the chief executive of Apple, was paid $134m in 2019, more than 2,300 times the firm’s median pay of $57,600.

At Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Sundar Pichai’s $86m was only 350 times the median of $246,804. Unlike Tesla and Apple, Alphabet does not operate high street stores, which brings down average pay.

Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Alphabet and Google, was paid 350 time the median pay of his employees. Photograph: Tsering Topgyal/AP

The pay levels of US chief executives have increased by an average of 940% since 1978, compared with a 12% increase in workers’ pay, according to the Economic Policy Institute thinktank.

San Francisco’s new tax is estimated to bring in an extra $60m-$140m a year, revenue that will be spent on improving the housing and healthcare provision for the city’s poorest people. The tax, which comes into force in 2021, will be collected from all companies operating in the city, not just those headquartered there. The pay ratio will be calculated comparing CEO pay with the median of workers in the city, not worldwide.

Haney said that while the city desperately needs more money, the tax is also designed to “encourage companies to pay the lowest paid more or cut their executives’ huge pay”. He hopes the new law will set an example for other cities, states and even countries, like the UK, to follow to try and help tackle inequality worldwide.

“San Francisco has some of the most extreme inequality anywhere in the world, and many of the best-known companies growing here have some of the largest gaps between executive pay and worker pay,” said Haney, in an interview over Zoom as he walked to work this week.

Haney, who represents District 6, which includes the Tenderloin, Mission Bay and South of Market, added: “The contrasts are especially stark in my district where I represent some of the richest parts of San Francisco – and the country – and some of the poorest parts with huge numbers of homeless people without access to healthcare.”

The tents set up by homeless people in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. 

Photograph: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

He said the coronavirus pandemic had exacerbated San Francisco’s inequality problem, which had already created “a city of extreme suffering” that drained local government of resources.

“The heath system was already very strained, and the pandemic has exposed it even more,” Haney said. “It has shown how stark the inequality is, poor people could not afford to shelter and people of colour and essential workers bore the burnt of the pandemic.

“At the same time the richest have gotten much richer [from the pandemic] it shows the fundamental flaw of our economic system. A small number of people continue to make massive profits at a time when almost everyone else was suffering more than ever.

“The only way to solve inequality in San Francisco, is to make those making making huge profits to share it,” he said.

“There is a very dangerous imbalance here, people don’t like where we are going. We want to live in a city where we and our neighbours are doing OK, are healthy and safe, when you have a city so unequal it is very hard to keep everyone health and safe.

“It is the 0.001% of society who are causing the problem, there has to be a reckoning or we will see more suffering and poverty and it is a concern to all of us – our health and quality of life. The pandemic has shown us how we are all connected, and when some people are unable to take care of themselves it can put us all at risk.”

Haney said that in the face of inaction from the national and state government, the city had decided to act on its own. “It is a twofold goal, to address inequality and bring in new resources to allow us to response to the biggest emergency,” he said.

Haney hopes San Francisco could act as a template for others to follow. Portland, Oregon, introduced a similar but more limited levy in 2018 and expected to collect about $3m from roughly 150 companies.

“The overwhelming victory here will lead other cities and states to follow,” Haney said.

“San Francisco is a modern day version of a A Tale of Two Cities everywhere you look, we can’t have a nation that turns into that.”

BP sells its London head office as it shifts to low-carbon energy

Suban Abdulla
Sat, 21 November 2020

BP has agreed to lease its 1 St James’s Square property in central London back from Lifestyle International for two years.

 Photo: Aleksander Kalka/NurPhoto via Getty Images

BP (BP.L) has announced the sale of its London head office to Hong Kong investment firm Lifestyle International (1212.HK) for £250m ($332m).

The British oil giant also agreed to lease its 1 St James’s Square property in central London back from Lifestyle International for two years, saying the deal would give it the opportunity “to reimagine how and where a reinvented BP should be headquartered.”

BP moved into the premises in 2002 after acquiring it from Ericsson (ERIC) for a reported £110m.

It is the latest string of disposals for BP, which is aiming to sell $25bn of assets by 2025 amid a restructuring that pushes the business into low-carbon energy.

The company, led by chief executive Bernard Looney, has already divested or agreed a deal on half of its target, as it seeks to reduce its debt.

READ MORE: BP looks to net-zero goal with new green hydrogen project

In August, it was reported that BP was hunting for a buyer for its London office, as the pandemic changed work patterns.

At the time the property was expected to fetch up to £300m. The sale announcement is £50m short of the predicted value.

Earlier this year, Looney said that the FTSE 100 (^FTSE) company will move to a more “hybrid work style”, balancing home and office working.

BP employs 6,500 staff across its offices in London and in Sunbury-on-Thames in Surrey.

Last week, the oil giant announced it was teaming up with Danish wind power group Orsted (ORSTED.CO) on a green hydrogen project in Germany.

The project is planning to build a renewable energy plant, including a 50 megawatt (MW) electrolyser, at the Lingen refinery, harnessing power from the North Sea to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The move would replace 20% of natural gas-based hydrogen at the plant.

Watch: BP's green hydrogen project takes off

UK

Racism in opinion pieces will continue while media lacks diversity, report finds

Mostafa Rachwani THE GUARDIAN
Sat, 21 November 2020

Photograph: Alamy

The Australian media industry is doomed to continue churning out controversial and often racist opinion pieces, for diminishing returns, unless newsrooms and their owners become more diverse, experts say.

A recent report from the anti-racism body All Together Now (ATN) analysed 315 racialised opinion pieces published across Australia over 12 months. The report’s authors found that 89% were authored by writers of an Anglo/Celtic or European background, 53% them involved negative depictions of race and 89% used techniques of covert racism.

“It reflects poorly,” said Antoinette Lattouf, a director at Media Diversity Australia and a senior journalist at Channel Ten. She told the Guardian the ATN report, released in October, highlighted the malaise gripping the industry.

Related: Rupert Murdoch tries to weather News Corp's climate crisis at AGM | The Weekly Beast

“The problem with the broader news business model is that it is struggling,” she says. “It’s struggling to sustain quality, independent and good journalism. And opinion pieces are easier to write and cost less.”

The ATN report, which recommended the building of cultural competency and racial literacy within newsrooms and diversifying hires, analysed opinion pieces published by a range of mainstream Australian media outlets between April 2019 and April 2020. Its findings pointed to the “racialisation” of the coronavirus, saying that the language used in some of the pieces contributed to and perpetuated racism against Asian and Asian-Australian people.

“Even opinion pieces presenting surface-level inclusivity were ultimately perpetuating racist themes,” it said.

Dr Usha Rodrigues, a senior lecturer in journalism at Deakin University, said the findings were unsurprising and reflected the current media ownership model in Australia.

“You would have to look at the existing structure of the media industry in Australia – a very high level of concentration of commercial media ownership, and the existence of the two public service broadcasters to mitigate the agenda of commercial media,” she said.

“To some extent, all of the responsibility of being fair, balanced and representative of Australia has been relegated to the two public service broadcasters.”

In 2016, a landmark study on media ownership around the world, Who Owns the World’s Media?, was published and found that Australia had the third most concentrated newspaper industry in the world, behind China and Egypt.

To Rodrigues, the diversification of newsrooms was about reflecting changing demographics in Australia and improving a financial model that had left many mastheads struggling.

“This is a miscalculation on the part of commercial media, which are already reeling from increased competition from social media as a source of news; the entry of international media competitors (at the national level news); and of course the shifting of advertising dollars to online platforms.

“The ‘sameness’ of news and views offered by a news organisation is actually counter-productive in today’s competitive conditions for the commercial media.

“The only way to compel news organisations to provide more balanced news and views is to improve diversity in the newsroom. I am not talking about one or two journalists from diverse background, I am talking about a fair representation as per the Australian demographic mix.”

Lattouf said diversity in newsrooms was essential to both combating the proliferation of these opinion pieces and improving the financial standing of many of these publications.

Related: Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull challenge News Corp over reports of ‘foreign interference’ in petition

“There’s piles of international research that shows that diverse organisations are more profitable and more innovative,” she said.

“So if you don’t want to do it for the moral reason or to increase social cohesion and to lessen racial division, well, it makes commercial sense to have a more diverse workplace.”

The report examined stories from the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Courier Mail, the Herald Sun, the Australian and the Daily Telegraph. It also monitored television programs such as The Project, A Current Affair, ABC’s 7.30 and 60 Minutes.

It found that 89% of the pieces that were labelled “racist” opinion pieces were authored by people from an Anglo-Celtic and/or European background.

Deliana Iacoban, a project manager at All Together Now and one of the authors of the report, told the Guardian the findings were part of a larger discussion on diversity in newsrooms.

“We wanted to support, with evidence, that racism in the media is still a big issue, which is why we collected this data and why we published this report. We need to push back against a very problematic media landscape.”

The report looked at 315 opinion pieces across the media landscape and found that of the pieces that discussed Muslims 75% contained negative representations.

Fifty-five per cent that discussed Chinese or Chinese-Australians, and 47% that discussed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, contained negative representations of those communities.

Lattouf lamented the report’s findings, saying there was an audience aching for nuance and representation in reporting.

“I think audiences deserve better,” she said. “Forty-nine per cent of Australians are either born overseas or have a parent born overseas.”

A recent study from the Asian Australian Alliance reported 377 incidents of racism towards Asian and Asian-Australian people between 2 April and 2 June 2020.

The report found that 60% of racist incidents involved physical or verbal harassment including slurs/name calling, physical intimidation, threats or being spat at.

Lattouf said the rise in racist incidents reflected a national and global conversation driven by the Covid-19 pandemic.

“Unfortunately, it’s not unexpected, given what’s happening around the globe, with the previous rise of Trumpism, and the rise of anti-Asian and anti-Chinese sentiments in the discussion of Covid-19.”

The report from All Together Now identified five key techniques it said “mobilise and perpetuate anti-Asian racism in contemporary social commentary”, including the use of irony, stereotypes, fallacies, intertextuality and scaremongering.

Seventy-nine per cent of the stories the report identified as racist were found to use “covert racism”, which worked to blur “the lines between legitimate political criticism and racism”.

• This article and headline were amended on Sunday 22 November to make clear that the sample analysed was 315 selected articles, not all opinion pieces published over a year.

War of the weedkiller: why environmentalists are concerned about moves to ban Roundup

Graham Readfearn THE GUARDIAN
Sat, 21 November 2020


Glyphosate – the weedkiller better known by its most-famous brand name Roundup – does not have the best of public profiles.

The subject of multibillion dollar payouts over claims it causes cancer, the world’s most-popular herbicide developed by Monsanto is not known for having too many friends among environmentalists.

But away from lawsuits and petitions, there are concerns among some opponents of Australia’s invasive weeds that glyphosate – a key tool in their armoury – could be taken away from them.

Next week the Invasive Species Council will begin posting and emailing copies of a new report that looks to defend the chemical from what the council fears is a trend towards restricting its use, and even banning it entirely.

Related: Australia's agriculture minister says Roundup is safe after $16bn US cancer lawsuit

“A ban on glyphosate would have serious environmental consequences,” says the report, seen by Guardian Australia.

“Weed invasions would increase in areas of native vegetation including national parks, and erosion would increase on farms.”

A small number of Australian councils – such as Georges River in south Sydney and Fairfield in the city’s west – have already banned glyphosate. So have several countries.

In July 2019, 500 staff at Blacktown city council walked off the job in protest at being ordered to use glyphosate. They returned when the council promised to trial alternatives.

Andrew Cox, the Invasive Species Council’s chief executive, fears that the steady flow of opposition could lead to a flood.

“We’re worried that restrictions are being put in place across Australia without a scientific basis,” he says.

“We want to make sure that chemical use is safe and necessary, and we don’t want to put people’s lives at risk. But we don’t want to make it impossible for people to do really important weed control.

“Weeds are a major threat to biodiversity and without active management to control weeds and stop them spreading, it would threaten our ecosystems.

“Glyphosate is a good herbicide that has lots of benefits to weed control, particularly for environmental restoration projects and land care programs. To not have that tool available will severely hamper those efforts.”

The Invasive Species Council’s report is researched and written by Tim Low, an ecologist and author of seven books.

He says such was the chemical’s reputation, just authoring the report was “the riskiest thing I have ever written”.

But he says he has become worried the chemical was being unfairly maligned in the public eye, as well as in the “left-leaning media”.

Low’s report picks through the scientific research on the chemical, its origins, uses and its criticisms.

Low also charts the herbicide’s recent history, including the fallout from a 2015 declaration by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate was a “probably carcinogenic”.

The decision to add glyphosate to the agency’s “2A” category, puts it alongside other chemicals that are probable carcinogens, but also alongside other activities in the same category such as consumption of red meat, doing night shifts, working in a hairdresser and drinking beverages hotter than 65C.

The IARC’s category of known carcinogens includes alcohol, processed meat and solar radiation (sunshine).

Legitimate concerns about glyphosate, writes Low, have been “exacerbated by some wildly exaggerated comments”.

Low writes: “Cancer is such a feared disease that many people might suppose that any cancer risk is reason to ban a chemical. But today’s world abounds in carcinogens.”

Related: The Roundup row: is the world’s most popular weedkiller carcinogenic?

The government’s Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority carried out an assessment of glyphosate after the IARC listing. About 500 products containing glyphosate are registered for use in Australia.

The agency said after the assessment it would monitor emerging science closely, but concluded “there are no scientific grounds for placing glyphosate and products containing glyphosate under formal reconsideration”. It said the weight of evidence showed “exposure to glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans”.

The agency is not alone in pushing back against the IARC’s finding. A review from the United State’s government’s EPA found “there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label”.

The EU’s European Chemicals Agency also found no reason to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, although it could cause eye damage and was toxic to aquatic life.

But the chemical continues to make headlines and have strong and passionate opposition, and court hearings are on the horizon.

Monsanto developed the weedkiller in the 1970s. In the 1990s, Monsanto developed genetically-modified crops that were “Roundup ready” and resistant to the herbicide.

In August 2018, Monsanto was ordered to pay US$289m ($397m) to a groundskeeper dying of blood cell cancer. Bayer, Monsanto’s owner, is appealing that case, and two others.

In June this year, the German multinational Bayer announced it would be paying almost $16bn to settle claims the firm inherited when it bought Monsanto in 2018.

I don’t know how that evidence can be ignored. It’s an absolute delusion to suggest that you can only control weeds with poison

Jane Bremmer

Bayer chief executive Werner Baumann said at the time there was extensive scientific evidence that the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup “does not cause cancer” and the company stood strongly behind its glyphosate-based products.

A class action is also being brought in Australia against three former and current Monsanto companies, slated for a hearing in federal court in March 2022.

Lawyers allege Roundup is carcinogenic and raises people’s risk of the blood cancer non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Jane Bremmer, a campaigner at the National Toxics Network, said glyphosate was prolific in the environment, dangerous, and court cases around the world had shown the herbicide was carcinogenic.

“I don’t know how that evidence can be ignored,” she says. “It’s an absolute delusion to suggest that you can only control weeds with poison.

“Glyphosate is leaving a toxic load in our groundwater and river systems.”

Bremmer is a volunteer with a group caring for a bush reserve on the Swann River on Perth’s outskirts without the use of chemicals. They prevent weeds growing by using organic products, covering areas to block sunlight and mechanical and hand weeding, she says.

Glyphosate and other chemicals are poorly regulated because of the power of the petrochemical industry, she says.

Peter Dixon is a board member of the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators (AABR) – a group with more than 700 members promoting ecological restoration.

He says they are a pragmatic bunch of people who know their way around the differences between a hazard (like a shark) and a risk (the chance of being bitten).

“We all have chemicals in our houses that can kill us, but we mitigate the risk of those hazards through knowledge and processes. It’s the same with herbicides,” he says.

According to Dixon, the group’s members are not worried about getting cancer, but they are worried about moves to ban glyphosate.

Dixon, an environmental consultant and volunteer bush regenerator, has been part of an AABR working group on glyphosate created “to try and counter misinformation” over the herbicide.

On the banks of the degraded Duck River in greater Sydney, Dixon has used the herbicide for years as part of a volunteer bush care group to knock back invasive balloon vine and trad.

Bush regenerators use the herbicide as a spray and also on woody weeds where the plant is cut back and the chemical applied like paint on to the stump.

Related: Revealed: Monsanto predicted crop system would damage US farms

He describes glyphosate as a “critical tool” that can keep invasive weeds at bay on a scale that mechanical measures could not.

He says in bush regeneration, glyphosate is used not as a perennial treatment – like in food production – but in a way that lets native vegetation come back to the point where the chemical isn’t needed any more.

Other available chemicals, he says, have not been as well studied as glyphosate and could turn out to be more toxic or less effective.

“The amount of funding that goes into restoring ecosystems is tiny,” says Dixon.

“It’s possible that without the herbicide glyphosate you would need an order of magnitude more resources to do that work.

“Because of the rate of land clearing and degradation, we can’t afford that luxury.”

UK

Liberty Steel set to snap up Tata's Port Talbot steelworks


LaToya Harding
·Contributor
Sat, 21 November 2020

Over the weekend Sanjeev Gupta’s company announced that Swedish firm SSAB was negotiating with Tata over buying its assets in the Netherlands. 

Photo: Reuters/Toby Melville TPX

Indian conglomerate Liberty Steel is poised to snap up Tata’s (TATASTEEL.NS) UK steelworks at Port Talbot in Wales, it has been revealed.

Over the weekend Sanjeev Gupta’s company announced that Swedish firm SSAB (SSAB-A.ST) was negotiating with Tata over buying its assets in the Netherlands. CityAm reported.

If confirmed, the move would lead to the break-up of the group’s European steel operations.

Tata’s Port Talbot steelworks, which currently employs around 8,000 people, has been looking for emergency government funding over the last few months. Last week it revealed it was reviewing all options to ensure the UK business was “self-sustaining” in the future.

Tata Steel UK made a pre-tax loss of £654m ($869m) for the previous financial year. Back in 2016 Liberty Steel submitted a previous bid for the Port Talbot site after Tata put it up for sale. However, it later backtracked and decided to hold onto the plant.

Sources close to Liberty Steel told CityAm that in the event that no funding was forthcoming, Gupta’s firm, which has an appetite for struggling metals businesses, would be a willing buyer.

READ MORE: SSAB eyes Tata Steel's Dutch assets as European consolidation picks up

It comes as Liberty, which is part of Gupta’s GFG Alliance, has submitted a bid for German conglomerate Thyssenkrupp’s (TKA.DE) struggling steel division, potentially creating a disruption behemoth in a crowded European market.

Earlier this month it was in talks with the German government over an aid package worth at least €5bn ($5.9bn, £4.5bn).

At the time, sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government signaled a willingness to provide financial support to shore up the unit and ensure future domestic production of an environmentally friendly form of steel.

Troubled Thyssenkrupp will likely lose €1bn this year, according to the Financial Times.

Liberty Steel declined to comment.

Watch: Thyssenkrupp to cut cut another 5,000 jobs

STATE CAPITALI$M

British satellite firm OneWeb emerges from bankruptcy

Fri, 20 November 2020,

(Reuters) - Satellite operator OneWeb said on Friday it has emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection with $1 billion (752.67 million pounds) in equity investment from a consortium of the UK Government and India's Bharti Enterprises, the new owners of the UK-based company.

The investment puts OneWeb on track to compete with Elon Musk's SpaceX in the race to use low-Earth orbit satellites to provide high-bandwidth and low-latency communication services.

OneWeb said it appointed Neil Masterson, former co-chief operating officer at Thomson Reuters , as its new chief executive officer, succeeding Adrian Steckel, who will continue as an adviser to the board.

OneWeb, founded in 2014 by entrepreneur Greg Wyler, filed for bankruptcy protection at the end of March after its biggest investor SoftBank Group Corp <9984.T> pulled funding.

The company also said it aims to resume satellite launches on Dec. 17 and is on track to begin commercial connectivity services to the UK and the Arctic region in late 2021, and expand globally in 2022.

(Reporting by Ayanti Bera in Bengaluru; Editing by Shailesh Kuber)

UK and Bharti take control of failed satellite firm OneWeb

Ellie Zolfagharifard
Fri, 20 November 2020

A rocket carrying OneWeb satellites blasts off from a launchpad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome - REUTERS/ ROSCOSMOS

OneWeb emerged from bankruptcy on Friday after a consortium led by the British government completed its acquisition of the troubled satellite operator.

The Government and Indian conglomerate Bharti Global have both put $500m (£400m) into the London business, which aims to beam internet signals from a constellation of hundreds of satellites.

The deal means the UK will go head-to-head with Brussels and billionaire tycoon Elon Musk in the scramble to design an alternative to the aging GPS navigation system.

OneWeb claims its on track to offer internet services in the UK next year and globally in 2022.

"This strategic investment demonstrates government’s commitment to the UK’s space sector in the long-term and our ambition to put Britain at the cutting edge of the latest advances in space technology," said Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary.

"Access to our own global fleet of satellites has the potential to connect people worldwide, providing fast UK-backed broadband from the Shetlands to the Sahara and from Pole to Pole.

"This deal gives us the chance to build on our strong advanced manufacturing and services base in the UK, creating jobs and technical expertise."

Neil Masterson, a former co-chief operating officer at Thomson Reuters, has been appointed as OneWeb's new chief executive. Adrián Steckel, the company's former CEO, will continue to serve as an adviser to the board.

The $1bn bid by the UK government and Bharti Global, an arm of Sunil Mittal’s Bharti Enterprises, was made in July after OneWeb went bankrupt in March. In an extremely rare step, the UK took a so-called golden share to grant it veto powers over future investments in the company and access to its technology.

It pushed the buyout through quickly in the face of concern among civil servants that the investment could sour.

OneWeb's planned network of at least 650 satellites orbiting 750 miles above the earth could also unlock ultra-high speed broadband connections for 60,000 homes in isolated rural areas, as well as turbocharging the country's efforts to roll out 5G mobile internet.

New co-owner Bharti has more than 400 million customers and wants to use OneWeb to connect people in remote locations.

The company had launched 74 satellites before it was forced to file for bankruptcy. It plans to launch 36 more satellites on December 17, bringing its in-orbit fleet to 110 satellites.

Satellite firm OneWeb out of bankruptcy as shared UK takeover deal is complete

Jamie Harris, PA Science Technology Reporter
Fri, 20 November 2020


Failed satellite firm OneWeb has been offered a lifeline as it formally emerged from bankruptcy on Friday.

The UK has a “significant equity stake” in the company, as part of a consortium with India’s Bharti Global, after winning a bidding war in July.

Each party is investing 500 million US dollars (£400 million) into OneWeb in a race to beam internet access across the globe from satellites in the low Earth orbit.

Fantastic news that we've secured satellite network @OneWeb. This strategic investment will drive our space sector and put the UK at the forefront of space tech. A terrific boost to our advanced manufacturing, services and tech industries.
— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) November 20, 2020

But with only 74 satellites in orbit at present, the firm will have to play catch-up to rivals such as SpaceX’s Starlink constellation – which more than 800 satellites already in space.

OneWeb plans to launch 36 satellites in December and hopes to begin commercial connectivity services to the UK and the Arctic region in late 2021, before having a full network in 2022.

The next batch of satellites have been shipped from Florida to Vostochny as they undergo preparations for a December 17 target date.

Business Secretary Alok Sharma said: “This strategic investment demonstrates Government’s commitment to the UK’s space sector in the long-term and our ambition to put Britain at the cutting edge of the latest advances in space technology.

“Access to our own global fleet of satellites has the potential to connect people worldwide, providing fast UK-backed broadband from the Shetlands to the Sahara and from Pole to Pole.

“This deal gives us the chance to build on our strong advanced manufacturing and services base in the UK, creating jobs and technical expertise.”

Delighted to confirm that our acquisition of @OneWeb has completed today.

Our investment will create jobs in our strong advanced manufacturing base, and confirms our ambition to put Britain at the cutting edge of the latest advances in space technology.https://t.co/hFjnXPQDyo
— Alok Sharma (@AlokSharma_RDG) November 20, 2020

The company – formed in 2012 – will continue to be headquartered in the UK, ensuring that the country is “at the forefront of a new commercial space industrial age”.

Neil Masterson, who spent 20 years working for Thomson Reuters, has also been named as the new chief executive to coincide with OneWeb’s rebirth.

“I am looking forward to helping the OneWeb team deliver and commercialise their vision to provide internet access across the globe,” Mr Masterson said.

“OneWeb has a strong social purpose to improve the world’s access to information, which I share.

“It has great talent, a compelling commercial opportunity, and is supported by committed and knowledgeable owners and investors.

“Our December launch puts the UK firmly in the global space business, alongside acknowledged Indian telecoms experts, Bharti Global.

“OneWeb will be a model for responsible co-operation in space.”

OneWeb Emerges From Bankruptcy with New CEO

 November 21, 2020  Doug Messier  News  

LONDON, 20 November 2020 (OneWeb PR) — OneWeb, the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) broadband satellite communications company, announces its emergence from U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and achievement of all relevant regulatory approvals. A consortium of UK Government (through the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) and Bharti Global, has invested $1bn of new equity to offer broadband connectivity services, via a constellation of 650 LEO satellites.

OneWeb will continue to be headquartered in the UK, bringing new R&D programmes, manufacturing opportunities and a global platform with priority spectrum usage rights. The company will ensure that the UK is at the forefront of a new commercial space industrial age, evolving technology and innovation, and will work with the UK commercial and academic space communities, along with other international specialists, in its research and development activities.

In connection with completion of the restructuring process, OneWeb is pleased to announce that Neil Masterson has been appointed CEO. Neil is formerly Co-Chief Operating Officer at Thomson Reuters having enjoyed a 20-year career with the global provider of news, information, and software.

He succeeds Adrian Steckel, who continues as an Adviser to the Board. Adrian joined OneWeb as CEO in September 2018 and has guided OneWeb through three successful launches, delivering 74 satellites into orbit, and securing priority spectrum use rights for OneWeb.

Neil Masterson comments: “I am looking forward to helping the OneWeb team deliver and commercialise their vision to provide internet access across the globe. OneWeb has a strong social purpose to improve the world’s access to information, which I share. It has great talent, a compelling commercial opportunity, and is supported by committed and knowledgeable owners and investors.

“Our December launch puts the UK firmly in the global space business, alongside acknowledged Indian telecoms experts, Bharti Global. OneWeb will be a model for responsible co-operation in Space.”

Sunil Bharti Mittal, Founder and Chairman of Bharti Enterprises, comments: “This new phase and focus for the Company brings new leadership from Neil Masterson, who has extensive experience successfully operating global technology platforms in a complex industry undergoing rapid change.

“Together with our UK Government partner, we recognised that OneWeb has valuable global spectrum with priority rights, and we benefit from $3.3bn invested to-date and from the satellites already in orbit, securing our usage rights. I would like to thank Adrian Steckel for his valued contribution.

Sunil Bharti Mittal continues: “These are exciting times and the world now has a LEO alternative to work with. We look forward to partnering with those equally determined to enter this new Space Age. There is unmet demand around the globe for broadband connectivity and we intend to continue OneWeb’s social mission. We will use our joint venture facility to drive down cost of service, opening new use cases for low latency broadband provision.”

UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Alok Sharma said: “This strategic investment demonstrates Government’s commitment to the UK’s space sector in the long-term and our ambition to put Britain at the cutting edge of the latest advances in space technology.

“Access to our own global fleet of satellites has the potential to connect people worldwide, providing fast UK-backed broadband from the Shetlands to the Sahara and from Pole to Pole.

“This deal gives us the chance to build on our strong advanced manufacturing and services base in the UK, creating jobs and technical expertise.”

OneWeb also announces the target date of 17th December 2020 for its Return to Flight, with a 36-satellite payload scheduled for launch by Arianespace from the Vostochny Cosmodrome. All the satellites have been shipped from Florida to Vostochny and are now undergoing preparation for launch.

Due to investment decisions made by the new shareholders, the joint venture facility with Airbus in Florida, USA was re-activated and the dual production lines brought back into service.

Launches will continue throughout 2021 and 2022 and OneWeb is now on track to begin commercial connectivity services to the UK and the Arctic region in late 2021 and will expand to delivering global services in 2022.

Notes to editors

• Neil Masterson has extensive experience as a senior executive in a global, multibillion-dollar digital, business information, content, and technology business.
• He previously spent twenty years working at Thomson Reuters in a variety of senior roles across the multi-platform business. In his most recent role as co-COO, he chaired Thomson Reuters Operating Committee, which was responsible for the company’s $6 billion revenue and twenty thousand members of staff.
• He was also responsible for the strategic direction and overall business performance of Thomson Reuters, including marketing, digital, commercial operations, technology, cyber, and content functions.
• He is currently based in New York and will be returning to the UK following his appointment.

About OneWeb

OneWeb is a global communications network powered from space, headquartered in London, enabling connectivity for governments, businesses, and communities. It is implementing a constellation of Low Earth Orbit satellites with a network of global gateway stations and a range of user terminals to provide an affordable, fast, high-bandwidth and low-latency communications service, connected to the IoT future and a pathway to 5G for everyone, everywhere. Find out more at  http://www.oneweb.world

“Fossil galaxy” found hiding deep inside the Milky Way
Shane McGlaun - Nov 21, 2020

Scientists sorting through data gathered from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey’s Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE) have discovered what they call a “fossil galaxy” that’s tucked away deep inside the Milky Way. Scientists say that the proposed fossil galaxy could have collided with the Milky Way 10 billion years ago when our galaxy was still in its infancy. The fossil galaxy has been named Heracles.

Heracles’ remnants account for about a third of the Milky Way’s spherical halo. As for why no one noticed that there was a remnant of an ancient galaxy inside of our galaxy, it’s because of how deep inside the Milky Way it is. Researcher Ricardo Schiavon from Liverpool John Moores University says to find the fossil galaxy, researchers had to look at the detailed chemical makeup and motion of tens of thousands of stars.

Looking at that many stars is incredibly difficult in the center of the Milky Way because they are hidden from view by gigantic clouds of interstellar dust. APOGEE is perfect for this sort of investigation as it allows astronomers to peer through that dust and look deeper into the heart of our galaxy than ever before. APOGEE allows scientists to look through interstellar dust using near-infrared light, which isn’t obscured by dust the way visible light is.

Finding unusual stars in the heart of the Milky Way is likened to finding needles in a haystack. To separate stars belonging to Heracles from stars in the original Milky Way, the team used both chemical composition and velocity of stars as measured by APOGEE.

Researchers say out of the tens of thousands of stars investigated, a few hundred had strikingly different chemical compositions and velocities. Researchers say those stars were so different from the stars in the Milky Way that they could only have come from another galaxy. A detailed study could allow the researchers to trace the precise location and history of the fossil galaxy.

Tibetan political leader visits White House for first time in six decades

Fri, 20 November 2020

FILE PHOTO: China showcases poverty alleviation during a government organised tour of Tibet


SHANGHAI (Reuters) - The head of the Tibetan government in exile has visited the U.S. White House for the first time in six decades, a move that could further infuriate Beijing, which has accused the United States of trying to destabilise the region.

Lobsang Sangay, President of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), was invited to the White House to meet the newly appointed U.S. Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, Robert Destro, on Friday, the CTA said in a press release.

"This unprecedented meeting perhaps will set an optimistic tone for CTA participation with U.S. officials and be more formalised in the coming years," said the CTA, which is based in India's Dharamshalah.

Tibet has become one of the areas of dispute between the United States and China, with relations between the world's two biggest economies at their lowest point in decades.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Beijing in July of violating Tibetan human rights and said Washington supported "meaningful autonomy" for the region.

Beijing officials have since accused the United States of using Tibet to try to promote "splittism" in China. China has also refused to engage with Destro.

China seized control over Tibet in 1950 in what it described as a "peaceful liberation" that helped it throw off its "feudalist past", but critics led by the exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama say Beijing's rule amounts to "cultural genocide".

Chinese President Xi Jinping said in August that China needed to build an "impregnable fortress" in Tibet in order to protect national unity.

(This story has been refiled to correct spelling of Sangay's name in paragraph two.)

(Reporting by David Stanway)

MSNBC, CNN Anchors Shred Fox’s Geraldo Rivera for Ludicrous Idea to Name Vaccine After Trump

Pilar Melendez
Sat, 21 November 2020

MSNBC, Fox News, CNN

In one of the most bizarre examples of unwavering Trump sycophancy, Fox News correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera on Friday suggested naming the COVID-19 vaccine after the president to cheer him up.

And Rivera’s peers from competing networks brutally roasted him for suggesting Trump—notorious for putting his name on everything from buildings to steaks—might need to be coaxed from office with lavish credit for a cure to a virus he repeatedly downplayed.

“You know, Gerald raises a good point there. It’s possible we just don’t give the president enough credit for his FDR-like devotion to tackling this virus,” MSNBC host Brian Williams sarcastically said on Friday next to images of Trump golfing and not wearing a face mask. “His laser-like focus, his daily devotion, the sympathy he’s forever expressing to the families of the quarter million dead.”

“Even the way the president lectures us in that way to please wear a mask and stop the spread. And he’s always advocated injections. Geraldo may be on to something,” he added.

🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/BrWKJubLUi
— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) November 21, 2020

CNN host Don Lemon took a more direct punch at Rivera, laughing at the supposed “Trump whisperer” for suggesting “something that might make this snowflake of a president feel better.”

“It’s pretty pathetic, even [Fox & Friends co-host] Steve Doocy had to laugh out loud at it,” Lemon said.

Rivera argued during Fox & Friends that naming the COVID-19 vaccine “The Trump” would be “a nice gesture to him and years from now it would become kind of a generic name.”

“‘Have you got your Trump yet?’ ‘I got my Trump, I’m fine.’ I wish we could honor him in that way,” Rivera said, noting that the name could help mend divisiveness across the country and smooth the path for Trump to concede the 2020 election.

Fox's Geraldo Rivera says we should honor Trump by naming the COVID-19 vaccine "Trump", and that Trump's name could eventually become a generic term for vaccines. pic.twitter.com/xoO1A37qIZ
— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) November 20, 2020

The suggestion came just days after Trump wrongly claimed full credit for Pfizer’s announcement that its COVID-19 vaccine was effective. In fact, the drug marker didn’t accept government money for the project.

Since then, another drug company has released results indicating a second, more accessible vaccine could be fast-tracked by the FDA by the end of the year. Dr. Anthony Fauci on Thursday also called the efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccine “extraordinary,” adding it is almost as effective as the measles shot.

On Friday, Trump made the outlandish suggestion that those drug companies deliberately withheld successful results until after the election as a revenge-fueled plot to kick him out of office due to his crusade against prescription drug prices.

Rivera said that he wished the American people could honor Trump by crediting him for the speedy vaccine “because he is definitely the prime architect of this Operation Warp Speed.”

To date, the coronavirus has killed at least 250,000 Americans and infected nearly 12 million—a grim milestone that is only expected to skyrocket as the holiday season and winter loom.

On Friday night, Williams seemed to allude to the tragic reality of the virus surging across the nation, calling out the president for refusing to follow virus mitigation recommendations pushed by his own public health officials, like mask-wearing and social distancing.

“We are all painfully aware life in America will not feel anything close to normal until the coronavirus vaccine has been perfected and really distributed,” he said during his late night show, The 11th Hour.

During his monologue about Trump's “laser focus” on the pandemic, Williams jokingly highlighted the success rate of other products named after the president.

“What Trump Steaks did for the hungry, what Trump Water did for the thirsty in our nation, what Trump University did to lift up the uneducated in our country, well along comes Trump: The Vaccine,” Williams quipped. “Possibilities, I think you’ll agree, are endless.”

Kayleigh McEnany now calls CNN reporters ‘activists’ and takes questions from pro-Trump propagandists. This doesn’t bode well
Fri, 20 November 2020, 
 Andrew BuncombeThe Independent

Kayleigh McEnany was appointed in April (Getty)

Full credit, I suppose, to Kayleigh McEnany.

Six months after being appointed Donald Trump’s White House press secretary, she still has a spring in her step, some vigor in her manner, and a willingness to trade sharp elbows with reporters as she sets about defending the indefensible. All the more credit, given she is now spokesperson for a lame duck administration.

None of what she does benefits the American people. But that has never been the job of any of Trump’s press secretaries. Their task is to sip the Kool-Aid, or whatever may be the preferred 2020 version — disinfectant, perhaps — and go and do battle for the president. Oftentimes, they are performing for just one viewer.

Yet McEnany’s appearance on Friday felt striking, even given the remarkable scenes we now witness on a seemingly daily basis: Rudy Giuliani mopping his brow and dabbing at leaking hair dye as he blames Venezuelans for Joe Biden’s victory, Mike Pence’s fantasies about turning the corner on Covid (true only if he means turning the corner signposted “250,000 Deaths”), Trump’s blatant efforts even this late in the day to try and erode the Constitution he and his supporters claim to hold so dear.

First, McEnany spoke of the news that Pfizer was set to seek FDA permission to start using its Covid vaccine, the development of which she claimed was the work of Trump.

“So many American lives will be saved, thanks to President Trump and the great work of Operation Warp Speed,” she said, failing to mention the 11.7 million Americans who have been infected, or the 253,000 who have died.

Many critics of the president say at least some of those lives may have been saved had the president taken the virus more seriously, led a nationwide plan to halt its spread, and done something as simple as to encourage mask-wearing.

Next up, McEnany was asked about Giuliani’s wild press conference in which he and lawyer Sidney Powell claimed “massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba and likely China" interfered with the election.

McEnany — who was previously cirticised for speaking both on behalf of the White House and the Trump campaign — sought to suggest the question was not really for her, but added: “The president’s been very clear — he wants every legal vote to be counted, and to make sure no illegal votes are counted.”

There was time for no more than a half-a-dozen questions in the fifteen minutes McEnany devoted to her first press conference since the beginning of October.

One was from Chanel Rion, a journalist for One America News Network (OANN), a right-wing pro-Trump site that has an affection for paeans to the president and conspiracy theories. (Trump often tweets his support for the channel these days, saying it is fair more fair than Fox News, which he now considers an enemy.)

Rion claimed that “contrary to the court of media opinion”, there was widespread evidence of “vast” irregularity during the election, something officials from both parties say is not true. Why, she wanted to know, had the White House not called in the FBI?

Of surprise to nobody, McEnany was ready with her answer, which quickly segued into a defiant soliloquy about Trump’s own transition and how everyone had been against him from the start.

At the every end, Kaitlan Collins of CNN tried to ask a question, but McEnany snapped at her: “I don’t take questions from activists." Collins’ colleagues were quick to defend on her Twitter, but she did not really need their help, telling McEnany she was not an activist and that “that's not doing your job, your taxpayer-funded job”.

What to make of all this noise and nonsense and dishonesty, as America prepares for a winter in which the Covid death toll is likely to soar even higher? Was this what it was like 50 years ago during the “Five O’Clock Follies”, when generals in Vietnam would lie to journalists about America’s “progress” against the Viet Cong, as the bodycount ticked up and up?

In short, it all felt very desperate, very wretched — the final acts of a widely discredited administration. It is likely something we will not have to listen to for very much longer.

Rudy Giuliani suggests cutting heads of Democrats in Fox interview after disastrous press conference

Justin Vallejo Sat, 21 November 2020

Rudy Giuliani suggests cutting heads of Democrats in Fox interview (Fox News)

Rudy Giuliani followed his hair-raising press conference with an even more peculiar, but less leaky, Fox News interview suggesting the decapitation of the "corrupt Democrat" establishment.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, Mr Giuliani made a throat chopping gesture as he spoke about the Democratic party leadership since the Clinton administration.

He prefaced that he wasn't talking about ordinary Democrats before commenting: "Somehow the Democrat party was hijacked by Clinton and since then has gotten more corrupt and more corrupt and more corrupt. Somebody better cut their head off."

The Clinton reference echoed the core claims from the Trump campaign's earlier "path to victory" press conference where Mr Giuliani spun a web of connections in his theory of a "national conspiracy" behind a communist plot backed by Venezuela's Hugo Chaves, in concert with Cuba and China, tied to Democrat leadership through the Clinton Foundation and George Soros.

Mr Giuliani's suggestion to give them all the chop gave even Mr Hannity a moment's pause as he ignored the comments and changed the subject before either he or someone in the studio's control room gave the interview the chop.

"Alright Mr Mayor thank you… I'm not trying to cut you off. Are you there? Oh, we've lost him. Alright," Mr Hannity said before moving on to the next segment.

The Fox News interview on Thursday night came just hours after Mr Giuliani held a 1.5-hour press conference that made more headlines for his impression of the movie My Cousin Vinny and leaking hair dye than the evidence provided to support the Trump campaign's claims of election impropriety.

Between the viral clips, the so-called "Kraken" of evidence released by the campaign's lawyers was made up of hundreds of affidavits in key states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where they hope to overturn the results.

Their star witness, via affidavit, was City of Detroit employee Jessie Jacob, who Mr Giuliani quoted as swearing under penalty of perjury that she was instructed by supervisors to backdate ballots to make them valid.

The US cybersecurity official fired by Donald Trump, Chris Krebs, said it was the "most dangerous" 1 hour and 45 minutes in the history of American television.

"And possibly the craziest. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re lucky," Mr Krebes said in a tweet.

Mr Krebs, who as the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), released a statement last week saying the 3 November election was the most secure in American history.

“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," said the statement from CISA, which is part of the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security.

#TRUMPTV

The future of Fox News is hanging in the balance

James Moore
Sat, 21 November 2020
The Independent

Fox host Tucker Carlson has maintained his support for Donald Trump (Getty)

In a recent column I looked at the rise of rivals like One America News (OAN) and Newsmax that seek to outflank the network on the right, which would be tougher with the possible launch of Trump TV (or maybe the soon-to-be-former president will partner with one of them).

I wonder how Fox responds. It’s a fascinating question given the pushback it’s facing from its audience and the central role it plays in Rupert Murdoch’s empire.

CNN’s Brian Stelter has made the point that Fox’s much smaller, but suddenly fast-growing rivals, are driven by their Donald Trump loyalist viewers’ demand for a fictional universe in which their god-emperor won the election.

Fox caters to this with its prime time “opinion” hosts; people like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, who have gleefully followed their viewers down the rabbit hole.

But some of its anchors, in particular its news anchors, and analysts have taken a different path, one guided by the facts.

Trump’s most passionate fans find it very uncomfortable when they’re confronted with those because they’re clear: Joe Biden won the election. He won the popular vote. He won the electoral college. The claims of widespread voter fraud emanating from the White House are fictional.

The network’s number crunchers triggered Trump and his fans with their early (and correct) call of Arizona for Biden. But there was more.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” said host Neil Cavuto, as the network cut away from coverage of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. “She’s charging the other side as welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting. Unless she has more details to back that up, I can’t in good countenance continue to show you this.” And he didn’t, to the ire of Carlson.

Then on Sunday anchor Eric Shawn aired a series of interviews with election officials and experts, including one with Republican Philadelphia city commissioner Al Schmidt, decked out in a stars and stripes mask. They denied the baseless allegations tabled by Donald Trump. He also screened a statement from Dominion Voting Systems saying: “Vote deletion/switching assertions are completely false.” The company flatly refuted any ties to political parties or Venezuela (also screened).

Shawn then served up a monologue in which he asserted: “Election officials across the country insist, as of today, there is not evidence of any widespread fraud affecting the presidential election, that our precious democracy was not tampered with and that such baseless and false claims are an insult to the thousands of elections officials and workers across the country who we have seen dedicating themselves 24/7 to ensure a fair and free election for all of us.”

Fox has always denied that it is the propaganda arm of the Republican Party, insisting rather that it is a news network, albeit one set up as a counterweight to its supposedly liberal-leaning rivals which dominated before its emergence (whether they really were liberal is open to debate).

There are some at the network who appear to believe the hype, who buy into the idea of a fact-based news operation that is distinct from the opinion hosts with their alternative facts.

Fox is still awful. The impact it has had on journalism is awful. The stuff it pumps out is awful. Some of the stories it has whipped up and obsessively followed are scarcely stories at all. The alleged “war on Christmas”, Benghazi, the Clintons as puppet masters behind the deep state responsible for all the world’s ills. Check out the coverage and weep.

But despite the ubiquity of that toxic sludge, in having hosts who view themselves as news anchors guided by facts Fox does differ from the other parts of the conservative media ecosystem it inhabits. They don’t have anything like that. They have displayed no interest in offering any pushback against Trump’s baseless claims. They are a safe space for their audience. Fox sometimes isn’t.

This resistance to Trump’s narrative from certain quarters at Fox has clearly created tension between it and a part of its audience, the part which is, as Stelter rightly pointed out, fully immersed in Trump’s fictional alternate universe. A universe that the channel ultimately helped to create.

The idea that Fox is a news network, as opposed to a propaganda outfit for Republican shills, is an important part of how it sees and markets itself. And it has benefited the channel in the past. When the Obama administration, for example, tried to cut it off, the other networks ignored its constant sniping at them and pushed back on its behalf.

Does that change if it abandons the pretence, and muzzles or kicks out the anchors that have pushed back against Trump? How does Fox handle the competition going forward?

This is no small question for the Murdochs. Fox News Channel has been a moneymaking machine for them, one that has benefited from an effective monopoly position on the right.

If it follows OAN, and Newsmax and dedicates itself solely to the alternative universe they inhabit and some of the viewers want, its attempt to portray itself as a news network will become that much harder. If the Biden administration shows some claws and attempts to replicate what the Obama administration tried it may find it easier to succeed.

On the other hand, if Fox stays the course, the competition from its scrappy rivals on its right flank may become more serious, especially if, as I suggested in my previous column, one or the other of them manages to add Trump to their roster.

Read More

Trump-friendly Newsmax a sudden competitor to Fox News

Fox News hosts lash out at Democrats telling Trump to concede

Trump adviser clashes with Fox News host in fiery exchange