Robert Reich: The Truth About The Economy – OpEd

 February 4, 2024  

By Robert Reich

It’s the economy, stupid. Thus spoke my friend James Carville, one of Bill Clinton’s campaign managers, in 1992. He was correct then and he’s been right ever since. 

The Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the U.S. economy added 353,000 jobs in January, and the unemployment rate remains at 3.7 percent. The BLS also revised upward the two prior months, bringing the average monthly job gain in 2023 to 255,000. 

Even manufacturing, which has been in the doldrums, added 23,000 positions. 

Average hourly earnings grew 0.6 percent from December.

Few economists expected job gains to remain this strong when high interest rates were needed to bring down inflation.

But inflation is way down. Larry Summers (with whom I worked in the Clinton administration) predicted that the Fed would have to cause excessive joblessness to tame inflation (Summers also called the 2021 American Rescue Plan the “least responsible” fiscal policy in 40 years). 

He was wrong. Jobs growth continues to roar. Economic growth is good. Wages are moving in the right direction. 

Yet despite all the good news, 71 percent of Republicans say the economy is getting worse, and Donald Trump is once again claiming that the unemployment numbers are fake. 

Trump and Republicans are focusing on the only real remaining economic problem: Although inflation is down, prices haven’t come down. Why not? Because of corporate pricing power. 

Consider Pepsi. In 2021, PepsiCo, which makes all sorts of drinks and snacks, announced it was forced to raise prices due to “higher costs.”Forced? Really? The company reported $11 billion in profit that year. 

In 2023 PepsiCo’s chief financial officer said that even though inflation was dropping, its prices would not. Pepsi hiked its prices by double digits and announced plans to keep them high in 2024.

If Pepsi had lots of competitors, consumers would just buy something cheaper. But PepsiCo’s only major soda competitor is Coca-Cola, which – surprise, surprise – announced similar price hikes at about the same time as Pepsi, and also kept its prices high in 2023. 

With just one or a few competitors, it’s easy for giant corporations to coordinate price increases and prevent price cuts, to keep their profits up while shafting consumers. 

The CEO of Coca-Cola claimed that the company had “earned the right” to push price hikes because its sodas are popular. Popular? The only thing that’s popular these days seems to be corporate price gouging. 

Pepsi and Coca-Cola dominate the soft drink market. They own most of the brands that appear to be competitors. 

This corporate pricing power isn’t just happening with Coke and Pepsi. Take meat products. At the end of 2023, Americans were paying at least 30% more for beef, pork, and poultry products than they were in 2020. 

Why? Just four companies now control processing of 80 percent of beef, nearly 70 percent of pork, and almost 60 percent of poultry. So of course, it’s easy for them to coordinate price increases and prevent price cuts. 

In 75 percent of U.S. industries, fewer companies now control more of their markets than they did twenty years ago.

Which is why the Biden administration is taking on this monopolization with the most aggressive use of antitrust laws in half a century. 

It’s taken action against alleged price fixing in the meat industry. 

It’s also suing Amazon for using its dominance to artificially jack up prices — one of the biggest anti-monopoly lawsuits in a generation.

It successfully sued to block the merger of JetBlue and Spirit Airlines, which would have made consolidation in the airline industry even worse.

But given how concentrated American industry has become, there’s still a long way to go. 

Inflation is down. But many people don’t feel it because prices are still high, and in some cases are still rising because of continued price gouging. That’s given Trump and his Republican lapdogs an excuse to tell Americans that the economy remains bad. 

The truth is, the economy is remarkably good, but too many big corporations have too much power over prices. The answer is to break them up — but I don’t expect Trump and the Republicans to say this. Do you?

This article was published at Robert Reich’s Substack

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

Economists pilloried for getting forecasts wrong

By AFP
February 3, 2024

Visibility is low for economists as models have failed to keep up with changes in the global economy - Copyright AFP/File STR

Juliette VILROBE, Ali BEKHTAOUI

Economists are taking flak after missing the mark on inflation, failing to anticipate disruptions in global supply chains and forecasting a recession that has not materialised.

The Covid-19 pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine and more recently the Middle East conflict have made it tougher for experts to see clearly into their economic crystal balls.

European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde joined the chorus of criticism at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month.

“Many economists are actually a tribal clique,” she said, referring to a lack of openness to other scientific disciplines.

“They quote each other — men more than women but that’s another story,” the former IMF chief and French finance minister said. “But they don’t go beyond that world because they feel comfortable in that world.”

Economists need to get out of their comfort zone of Excel spreadsheets and rigid models, some economists say about their own kind.

The world “has changed a little bit”, Peter Vanden Houte, chief eurozone economist at ING bank, said sarcastically.

– Inflation miss –

After years of low inflation, the post-Covid reopening of economies sent prices rising and they soared further after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, belying assurances from Lagarde and US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell that the increases would only be “transitory”.

The central banks had to launch into a series of interest rate hikes to combat inflation. While price rises have cooled in recent months, policymakers have kept the rates elevated as they wait to see whether they can be cut later this year.

Lagarde has admitted that the forecasts used as a basis for ECB policy decisions were not always right and that factors linked to the crises were not taken into account in its models.

“The models we currently use are less reliable because there are many factors that are difficult to integrate,” Vanden Houte said.

He cited the supply chain bottlenecks following the pandemic, labour shortages and geopolitical tensions.

Economists dropped the ball by looking through the prism of the past.

“It’s not economic models that failed. It’s the lack of imagination of economists,” said Maxime Darmet, economist at Allianz Trade.

“They rested on their laurels” after 30 years of globalisation during which “everything went well”, Darmet said.

– The recession that never was –

With central banks using rate hikes to stop economies from overheating, economists warned that growth in the developed world would fall sharply or even contract in 2023.

Instead, US economic growth accelerated last year while the eurozone — Germany excepted — stayed in the green.

Earlier this week, the IMF raised its 2024 global growth forecast to 3.1 percent, citing unexpected resilience in major advanced and emerging market economies, including the United States and China.

“There is a puzzle in all that immaculate disinflation,” Princeton University economics professor Alan Blinder told AFP.

All the signs were there: interest rates signalled a US recession and indicators were pessimistic. In the 1970s, recession was the only way out of hyperinflation.

Once again economists were accused of having been too narrow-minded.

Vanden Houte said the weak quality of data and a falling rate of responses to surveys were partly to blame.

New phenomena also threw a curveball: Savings have helped to fuel consumption while companies have “much better managed” high rates than in the past, said Christophe Barraud, director general at Market Securities Monaco SAM.

– New year, new chance –


Nobel economics prize winner Esther Duflo told AFP in a recent interview that economists have fallen to “last place” on the list of most trusted professions, less popular than weather forecasters.

Some are trying to change.

In July, the Bank of England hired former US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke to lead a review of its forecasting process after it was criticised for failing to anticipate soaring inflation.

The Bank of Canada has decided to replace its old models with more forward-looking methodologies.

“Everyone knows that the current models are no longer satisfactory to make good forecasts,” Vanden Houte said. “We need to think differently or at least expand the models by integrating other components.”

Deep Seabed Mining in the Arctic




Bipandeep Sharma
February 02, 2024

Summary

While seabed mining companies have hailed Norway’s decision to open up the Arctic for seabed mining, the decision is being criticised by scientific communities, NGOs, environmental and civil society groups. Arctic states need to adopt approaches of cooperation to regulate/restrict deep seabed mining activities in the region.
Introduction

Norway’s decision to open up 2,80,000 square km (1,08,000 square miles) of ocean areas between Jan Mayen Island and the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic for exploitation of deep seabed resources has started a debate amongst global stakeholders. The decision is being hailed by seabed mining companies while global scientific communities, NGOs, environmental and civil society groups are critical. There are those who highlight that deep seabed mining will enable the growth of new industries and provide new job opportunities for the local population. This step is also being seen as a positive step to enable ‘green transition’.

Rare Earth Elements (REEs) and critical minerals such as copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese play an important role in the manufacturing of wind turbines, solar panels, mobile phones, electric vehicles batteries and other related technology that enable global green transitions. Therefore, abundant availability of these resources on and beneath the Arctic seabed is seen as an opportunity from both commercial and sustainable development perspectives. Norway visualises that exploitation of these rare earth resources from the Arctic seabed would reduce its dependency on imports and open avenues for export opportunities.

Those critical of the decision note that seabed mining activity in an already fragile environment such as that of the Arctic is disastrous for the entire ecosystem.
Regulatory Mechanisms

Deep seabed resource exploration and exploitation in the high seas is regulated by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) which comprises State Parties to UNCLOS. ISA to date has approved 31 applications submitted by 22 countries and companies to undertake exploration activities in deep seabed minerals in various parts of high seas.1 The majority of these deep-sea mineral exploration activities are occurring in an area of around 4.5 million square kilometres in the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Mexico, which is also known as the ‘Clarion-Clipperton Zone’ (CCZ).2 Though these countries/companies are undertaking deep seabed exploration activities, no licensing of any kind for exploitation of these deep seabed minerals in the high seas have been granted so far.3 This is because there is no existing draft resolution to regulate deep seabed mineral exploitation activities in the high seas and ISA is in a process of formalising such a regulatory mechanism.4

States on the other hand can undertake or allow companies to undertake seabed exploitation activities in their own respective EEZs and designated limits of continental shelfs, through conditions and procedures defined by their own state legislations. Despite this, the states granting or undertaking such activities need to comply with various ocean environmental protection measures as per Article 145 of UNCLOS and ensure that their activities do not impact the ocean ecosystem or the ecosystem of the neighbouring state. Therefore, as per this provision, some countries are undertaking and have been granting licenses to private companies to undertake seabed mineral exploitation activities within their maritime jurisdictional limits.5
Resource Geopolitics vs Scientific and Environmental Arguments

Proponents of deep seabed mining argue that RREs will play a significant role in bringing global energy transitions by acting as key components for the manufacturing of gadgets, devices and infrastructure to sustain this transition. Use of REEs in the batteries of electric vehicle (EV) batteries, cell phones, solar panels and other electronic devices shows that the global demand for these resources is bound to multiply manifold in near future as these have the potential to reduce global net carbon emissions.6 REEs exist beneath the surface of earth on land as well as on or beneath the seabed. Estimates suggest that land-based REEs remain highly concentrated in only a few countries and their supply chains remain highly vulnerable to global geopolitical and geo-economic challenges.7 Therefore, in order to become self-sufficient and ensure consistent future supplies of these resources, states are turning their focus towards the abundant quantities of REEs available under the deep seabed.

As per the estimates of Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI), which is a subsidiary of Canada based ‘The Metals Company’, the Clipperton Zone contains a “combined seafloor inferred resource estimate of 909 million tonnes of wet polymetallic nodules”.8 Assessments point that CCZ accounts for over three times the amount of cobalt, almost two times the amount of nickel and as much manganese as all global land-based reserves, combined.9 As the global demands for nickel and cobalt due to their increasing role in the manufacture of batteries to sustain electric transitions is expected to rise, states are eager to harness the vast potential of these polymetallic nodules lying on or beneath the ocean sea-floor.

To support deep seabed mining, some peer-reviewed research publications even highlight that the solid waste generation from land-based ores is much higher whereas the extraction of minerals from seafloor polymetallic nodules is environmentally more sustainable and can significantly reduce harmful impacts of mining on land.10 Similar research papers further points out that extraction of metals required for batteries from seafloor nodules could reduce the lifecycle climate change impacts by up to 90 per cent, compared to extraction of these metals from land ores.11

On the other hand, scientific and environmental communities opposing deep seabed mining refute these studies by labelling these as ‘false dichotomies’ aimed to justify the vested interest of selective states and companies that seek to dominate seabed mining. Scientific research published in other peer-reviewed journals warns that seabed mining can cause ‘serious and irreversible environmental damages’ to ocean ecosystems. These studies warn that seabed mining would result in the removal and destruction of sensitive and poorly known seafloor habitats and species.12

Researches argue that the processes involved in undertaking seabed mining would result in the generation of large quantities of seafloor dust and toxic sediment plumes that would damage or have severe impact on known/unknown deep-sea flora and fauna.13 Further, increase in the limits of ‘noise’ and ‘light’ as a result of increased industrial activity would severely impact the behavioural, communication and migration pattern of aquatic species and have implications for deep seabed microbial activity that could impact the growth of deep-sea fauna, thus disturbing the entire ocean ecosystem.14

It is further important to highlight that there exist serious research gaps from multiple perspectives in understanding the possible impacts of deep seabed mining. Scientific research highlights that out of the vast majority of the global deep seabed area, only a fraction of it has been scientifically studied so far.15 Due to this, a vast number of species or organisms present in this region remain undiscovered and completely unknown to mankind. Scientific research published in March 2023 found 5,142 new unnamed species in the CCZ.16 Their findings further demonstrate that out of the known species, only six have been found in other parts of the ocean. Therefore, strong scientific arguments prevail that if states/companies go ahead with deep seabed mining activities without undertaking adequate scientific research and biological discoveries at these ocean depths, many of the unknown species and organisms could be permanently lost without their discoveries.
Seabed Mining in the Arctic

The Arctic region presents one of the most fragile ecosystems of the globe and is already witnessing the severe impacts of global warming at a rate four times the average normal. Norway’s parliamentary decision in support of allowing Arctic seabed mining,17 could open a new ‘Pandora Box’ in the Arctic from not only environmental but also geopolitical perspectives.

First, as discussed above, there remains a serious research gap in terms of scientifically studying the deep seabed spaces from biological, geological and anthropogenic perspectives. Scope for undertaking such scientific research activities in the ‘Arctic’s deep seabed spaces’ was negligible in the past18 Ongoing and emerging extreme climatic conditions, high financial cost factors associated in undertaking scientific activities in Arctic seabed, limited cooperation between states and the geopolitical challenges in the region makes it further difficult for regional and global states to undertake large joint scientific research projects on Arctic seabed. Therefore, Norway’s decision to mine Arctic deep seabed without undertaking these considerations into account could be extremely disastrous for the entire Arctic Ocean ecosystem.

Second, Norway’s ‘proposed Arctic deep seabed area’ could trigger ecological and geopolitical challenges. It is important to note that the part of the area approved by Norwegian parliament for seabed mining falls under Norway’s extended continental shelfs granted to it as per the 2009 recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf (CLCS). The other major chunk of this proposed area overlaps with Norway’s own established Jay Mayen and Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zones (refer Figure 1).19 Arctic deep seabed mining activity in these regions would have severe environmental implications on regional fisheries and marine life. These activities in the region would not only have implications for Norway’s designated fisheries protection areas, but also in the large adjoining Arctic Sea areas.

Third, as per the 1920 Spitsbergen Treaty, Norway and other State Parties to the treaty are in disagreement regarding maritime rights in areas beyond territorial waters around Svalbard. The treaty though recognises Norway’s sovereignty over Svalbard while it simultaneously provides equal rights and opportunities to high contracting parties to carry out economic activities, fishing, mining, hunting, shipping, and scientific installations.20 The Norwegian government argues that the equal rights of clause of fishing and mining for state parties do not apply in the areas beyond the territorial waters of Svalbard, whereas states like Iceland, UK and several EU countries strongly object and disagree to this Norwegian position.21

Norway’s decision to undertake deep seabed mining in these areas could ignite geopolitical differences amongst allied partners and other states in the region that could further escalate geopolitical tensions in the Arctic. Further, there remain equal possibilities that other State Parties to the treaty in the future could consider undertaking similar activities within the territorial waters of Svalbard. Any such move would be difficult to counter and could lead to geopolitical competition amongst states.

Figure 1: Map showing deep seabed mining activity area approved by Norwegian parliament in the Arctic

Fourth, most of the Arctic states have made their formal submissions before CLCS for claiming extended continental shelfs in the Arctic. Some of these claims have been granted by CLCS to the respective states while the decision on others remains pending. Despite CLCS decision making, there exists challenges with regard to overlapping claims of states of their extended continental shelf in the Arctic. Norway’s call for exploiting REEs in its extended continental shelf would make the competition between these states over their extended continental shelf claims fiercer. Further, any new discoveries of REEs in these overlapping areas would leave little scope for cooperation between states and would rather result in competition among states to dominate these resources.

Fifth, deliberate acts of states for unilaterally claiming areas in international waters beyond their designated continental shelfs, to harness the potentials of REE and other critical minerals could raise complexities of greater future geopolitical risks in the Arctic. The recent United States unilateral claim over an area in the Arctic near the Bearing Sea22 (without even ratifying UNCLOS and without making any scientific submission to prove its claims before CLCS) depicts future aggressive behaviours of state to dominate new potential spaces of geo-economic importance. Similar measures from other dominant players in the region could challenge existing international rules-based order that might have repercussions in other parts of the world.

Finally, the human dimension and the future socio-ecological impact of undertaking seabed mining activities in the Arctic deep seabed remain unknown. Apart from the existing knowledge gaps in scientific research, there also exist significant research gaps in studying the social-ecological impacts of Arctic seabed mining activities on indigenous communities and known/unknown polar species. Though the Norwegian parliament has called for enforcing strict environmental procedures and practices while granting access to companies for engaging in deep seabed mining activities in the Arctic, how seriously such measures would be followed in the future preview of larger geo-economic interests’ states/companies remains debatable.
A Way Forward



Deep Seabed Mining has serious implications for global ocean ecosystems. Undertaking deep seabed mining in the Arctic region could further intensify its impact since the region remains scientifically unexplored and is already witnessing severe impacts of climate change. Despite global resistance,23 Norway’s decision to proceed forward with deep sea mining activities in the Arctic demonstrates future realities of state’s decision-making on these issues. As global states call for transitioning towards cleaner and greener technologies, a race to dominate REEs that lie on or beneath deep seabed is inevitable in the near future.

It is important for the states and global civil societies to critically analyse if moving forward with deep seabed mining activities in the Arctic remains a viable option for making the planet actually greener, or this could further unleash irreversible damages to entire global ecosystems. In the Arctic region, where global scientific cooperation is already facing severe strains of regional geopolitics, the possibilities of undertaking combined scientific research to study the possible implications of seabed mining activities from multiple perspectives seem bleak.

The ISA in 2023 has already surpassed its ‘two-year countdown’ timeline, triggered by Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (subsidiary of ‘The Metals Company’ of Canada) for finalising the exploitation framework for deep seabed mining.24 As the pressure mounts further and the Metals Company prepares to submit its formal application for the exploitation contracts in CCZ before ISA post ISA’s 29th Session in March 2024, hopes still remain high that the seabed authority comes up with stricter regulatory mechanisms for undertaking deep seabed exploitation in international waters. Similarly, the Arctic states need to adopt regional approaches of cooperation to strictly regulate/restrict deep seabed mining activities in the region. Such approaches could only be configured through mutual consensus for which despite geopolitical rivalries, impartial revival of scientific and academic cooperation either directly or via existing mechanisms such as the Arctic Council could be possible ways forward.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Manohar Parrrikar IDSA or of the Government of India.1.“Exploration Contracts”, International Seabed Authority, 31 January 2024.
2.Catherine Blanchard et al, “The Current Status of Deep-sea Mining Governance at the International Seabed Authority”, Marine Policy, Vol. 147, January 2023.
3.Dánica Coto, “Negotiations Over Proposed Regulations for Deep-sea Mining Plod Along as Pressure Mounts”, The Associated Press, 9 November 2023.
4.Ryan Murdock, “Deep Sea Mining and the Green Transition”, Harvard International Review, 16 October 2023.
5.Kathryn A. Miller et Al, “An Overview of Seabed Mining Including the Current State of Development, Environmental Impacts, and Knowledge Gaps”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 4, 10 January 2018, p. 9.
6.Daisy Chung, Ernest Scheyder and Clare Trainor, “The Promise and Risks of Deep-sea Mining”, Reuters, 16 November 2023.
7.Manoranjan Srivastava, “India’s Deep Sea Mining Endeavours: A Search for Climate Solutions in Deep Waters”, Issue Brief, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), 27 September 2023.
8.“43-101 Technical Report for the NORI Clarion – Clipperton Zone Project, Pacific Ocean”, Deep Green, The Metals Company, 24 September 2018.
9.“Inflation Reduction Act Clean Vehicle Credit”, The Metals Company, August 2022.
10.Daina Paulikas et al., “Deep-sea Nodules Versus Land Ores”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 26, No. 6, December 2022.
11.Daina Paulikas et al., “Life Cycle Climate Change Impacts of Producing Battery Metals from Land Ores Versus Deep-sea Polymetallic Nodules”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 275, 1 December 2020.
12.Aline Jaeckel et Al, “Deep Seabed Mining Lacks Social Legitimacy”, npj Ocean Sustainability, Vol. 2, 9 February 2023; Bernd Christiansen, Anneke Denda and Sabine Christiansen, “Potential Effects of Deep Seabed Mining on Pelagic and Benthopelagic Biota”, Marine Policy, Vol. 114, April 2020.
13.Daisy Chung, Ernest Scheyder and Clare Trainor, “The Promise and Risks of Deep-sea Mining”, n. 6.
14.Lisa A. Levin et al., “Defining ‘Serious Harm’ to the Marine Environment in the Context of Deep-seabed Mining”, Marine Policy, Vol. 74, December 2016.
15.Kathryn A. Miller et al, “An Overview of Seabed Mining Including the Current State of Development, Environmental Impacts, and Knowledge Gaps”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 4, 10 January 2018.
16.Muriel Rabone et al, “How Many Metazoan Species Live in the World’s Lrgest Mineral Exploration Region?”, Current Biology, Vol. 33, No. 2, 25 May 2023.
17.Victoria Klesty, “Norway Parliament Votes in Favour of Seabed Mining, As Expected”, Reuters, 9 January 2024.
18.Song-Can Chen et al, “Microbial Diversity and Oil Biodegradation Potential of Northern Barents Sea Sediments”, Journal of Environmental Sciences, 26 December 2023.
19. “Norway’s Decision to Move Forward With Commercial Deep-Sea Mining Must Be Opposed to Avoid ‘Irrevocable Damage’”, Environmental Justice Foundation, 5 December 2023.
20.“The Svalbard Treaty”, 9 February 1920.
21.Robin Churchill and Geir Ulfstein, “The Disputed Maritime Zones Around Svalbard”, Changes in the Arctic Environment and the Law of the Sea, Panel IX, Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, 3 October 2011.
22.Liam Denning, “US Joins the Arctic Race to the Bottom (of the Sea)”, Bloomberg, 4 January 2024.
23.Catherine Hercus, “Deep Sea Mining Faces a Sea of Opposition”, Canadian Mining Journal, 9 November 2023.
24.Elizabeth Claire Alberts, “Deep-sea Mining Rules Delayed Two More Years; Mining Start Remains Unclear”, Mongabay, 25 July 2023.

Mr Bipandeep Sharma is a Research Analyst at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. Click here for detailed profile.

Around 200,000 gather across Germany in latest protests against far-right

Children play with soap bubbles as people gather outside the Reichstag building, during a rally of the broad alliance "Hand in Hand" under the slogan "Wir sind die Brandmauer" ("We are the Firewall") to protest against right-wing extremism and for the protection of democracy, in Berlin, Germany, on Feb 3, 2024.

PHOTO: Reuters

PUBLISHED ONFEBRUARY 03, 2024 8


BERLIN/FRANKFURT - Around 200,000 people took to the streets in Germany on Saturday (Feb 3), most of them in the capital Berlin, as nationwide protests against the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party entered their fourth week.

Protests were also taking place in cities such as Mainz, Dresden and Hanover, in a sign of growing alarm at strong public support for the AfD.

Roughly 150,000 people flocked to the Reichstag parliament building in Berlin, where protesters gathered under the slogan "We are the Firewall" to protest against right-wing extremism and to show support for democracy.


"Whether in Eisenach, Homburg or Berlin: In small and large cities across the country, many citizens are coming together to demonstrate against forgetting, against hatred and hate speech," Chancellor Olaf Scholz wrote on X.

He said the protests were "a strong sign in favour of democracy and our constitution".

The AfD's success has stoked concern among Germany's mainstream parties, who fear it could sweep three state elections in eastern Germany in September, even though recent polls have shown a slight decline in AfD support.


Jakob Springfeld, who speaks for the NGO Solidarity Network Saxony, said he was shocked that it had taken such a long time for mass demonstrations against the far-right, given the AfD had been successful in many smaller communities already.

"But there's a jolt now. And the fact that the jolt is coming provides hope I believe."

Earlier this week, a Forsa poll showed that backing for the AfD dropped below 20 per cent for the first time since July, with voters citing nationwide demonstrations against the far-right as the most important issue.

According to the poll, the AfD remains in second place behind the main opposition conservatives on 32 per cent, while Scholz's centre-left Social Democrats polled third at 15 per cent.

The protests followed a report last month that two senior AfD members had attended a meeting to discuss plans for the mass deportation of citizens of foreign origin. The AfD has denied that the proposal represented party policy.

AfD co-leader Tino Chrupalla told broadcaster Deutschlanfunk that while it was "legitimate to take to the streets with the government" protesters should not allow themselves to be used to distract parties from the country's actual problems.

Chrupalla said Germany included Germans with a migrant background and that his party was not planning to expel them.

UK 

Rishi Sunak remains less popular than Liz Truss when she was PM, poll suggests

EXCLUSIVE

A poll for i is disappointing reading for the Prime Minister, revealing a relatively popular Labour leader and trust in the opposition

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speaks against a stormy backdrop. Storm clouds are gathering among his parliamentary colleagues as well. (Richard Pohle/The Times/PA)

By Arj Singh

Deputy Political Editor

February 3, 2024 

Rishi Sunak remains less popular than Liz Truss was during her disastrous stint as prime minister, an exclusive poll suggests.

While the Prime Minister’s net satisfaction rating improved by three points to -30, it still remains worse than Ms Truss’s -29, recorded amid the disaster of the mini-Budget in 2022 that ultimately cost her the job, the BMG Research survey for i reveals.

The findings will ramp up pressure on Mr Sunak amid a Conservative plot to try and oust him from office over fears he will lead the party into election disaster.

It will also be disappointing for the Prime Minister, showing he is making little headway with voters despite managing to steer his flagship Rwanda Safety Bill through parliament and an improving economy.

Both however enjoyed better overall ratings than Boris Johnson, who was on -35 in the wake of the Partygate scandal in summer 2022.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, meanwhile enjoyed a net positive rating (+1) for the first time since February 2023, driven by a simultaneous decline in dissatisfaction (35 per cent to 31 per cent) and increase in satisfaction (29 per cent to 32 per cent).

Labour meanwhile continued to enjoy a double digit lead over the Tories, with 44 per cent of voters saying they would back the Opposition party in a general election over 29 per cent for Mr Sunak’s party.

Labour’s lead decreased from 17 per cent to 15 per cent since November, but the party remains on course for a dominant election victory as it still increased its own rating by a point, according to the survey.

Meanwhile, the Tories gained two points as Reform’s vote share declined from an 11 per cent high in November to 8 per cent this month, in what will help calm fears among Conservatives about the threat posed by Nigel Farage’s party.

Labour is 15 points ahead in the first poll of the year for i by BMG Research

Labour is trusted by a higher share of voters on every single tracked issue, enjoying the strongest leads over the Tories for health and the NHS (21 per cent), social care (20 per cent), welfare and benefits (20 per cent) and housing (20 per cent).

The only issue where Labour previously did not have a lead was the war in Ukraine, but, for the first time, it now polls better than the Conservatives, if only slenderly (1 per cent).

Robert Struthers, research director at BMG Research, told i: “In what is our first poll of this likely election year, the findings are very familiar. If the election were held tomorrow, Labour would win a landslide victory.

“Remarkably, our 15-point lead looks relatively small by comparison to some pollsters.

“Our method includes an adjustment for undecided voters, who we presume in part will revert to their previous voting patterns.

“This means our calculations account for some undecided 2019 Conservatives voting Conservative again, meaning Labour’s 15-point lead looks all the more assured.

“Behind the voting intention numbers is an equally worrying picture for the Conservatives.

“We’ve seen for a long time that Labour is more trusted on key issues like the cost of living, the economy, and even immigration.

“But we now see Labour sweep the board – being level or ahead on every issue, even on previous Conservative strong points such as foreign affairs and defence issues, including the Ukraine and the Israel-Gaza conflict.

“The Conservatives, historically seen as the guardians of national security and economic leadership, now find themselves adrift in a political landscape where they lack a clear stronghold.

“This uncertainty complicates their strategy, making the task of selecting focal points for their upcoming election campaign all the more challenging.”

:: BMG Research interviewed a representative sample of 1,505 GB adults online between 30 and 31 January. BMG are members of the British Polling Council and abide by their rules.

More Misery For Rishi Sunak As Poll

Suggests Tories Could Win Fewer Than 100 

Seats

Labour's lead is widening as the general election gets closer.

By Kevin Schofield
02/02/2024

Sunak arrives for the Help To Grow campaign launch
WPA POOL VIA GETTY IMAGES


The Tories could end up with fewer than 100 seats at the general election, a new poll has suggested.


The Techne survey showed support for the Conservatives has fallen again to just 23%, while Labour has gone up by one point to 45%.


According to the Electoral Calculus website, that would put Rishi Sunak’s party on just 93 seats - a staggering 283 fewer than they won at the 2019 election.


Labour would win 484, up 287 on four years ago.


The Lib Dems - who are on 10% in the poll - would see their number of seats quadruple from 8 to 34, while the SNP would fall from 48 to 18.


That would hand Labour an overall majority of more than 200 seats.

The prediction makes grim reading for the Tories.

ELECTORAL CALCULUS


It follows a series of polls since the start of 2024 which have shown Labour stretching their lead as the general election draws closer.


A mega-poll of 14,000 voters last week predicted Keir Starmer is on course to become prime minister with a 120-seat majority.


That prompted speculation that Sunak could be ousted by his panicking MPs.


Former cabinet minister Simon Clarke said the Tories would be “massacred” unless they change leader yet again.


Sunak will come under fresh pressure if, as expected, the Conservatives lose the two upcoming by-elections in Wellingborough and Kingswood.


The Tories are also expected to lose hundreds of seats in May’s local elections, another potential flashpoint for the prime minister.

Houthis threaten to cut intercontinental internet cables running along Red Sea bottom

3 February 2024 

Yemen's AnsarAlla threatens to cut fibre optic cable in the Red Sea and the region, Azernews reports, citing foreign media.

This will happen if the US and UK strike Yemen's airports again.

Internet cables serve as communication channels between Europe, Africa and the Middle East. Taking them out of service would disrupt international lines of communication and hit global financial markets.

On December 24th, 2023, a Telegram channel linked to the Husis published a map showing the networks of submarine communications cables in the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, and the Persian Gulf. The image was accompanied by an ominous message: “There are maps of international cables connecting all regions of the world through the sea. It seems that Yemen is in a strategic location, as internet lines that connect entire continents — not only countries—pass near it.”

While the statement did not specify a target, the threat coincides with perhaps the Husis most aggressive military campaign against ships in the Red Sea. Since mid-October 2023, the group has launched more than 100 drones and missiles at ships passing through the Bab el-Mandeb, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. The attacks so disrupted ship operations that at least one major shipping company, Maersk, announced it was suspending shipping through the Red Sea and Suez Canal "until further notice."

Instead, the diverted ships are forced to sail around Africa, significantly increasing transit time and shipping costs; these costs will almost certainly be passed on to consumers, driving up the prices of various goods around the world. While senior U.S. officials have emphasised that they have not yet noticed any price increases due to the blockade, the crisis eventually prompted the U.S. to create a new international maritime task force aimed at stopping the group's attacks.

Technical information about a cable that AnsarAlla terrorists are threatening to blow up.



It is about the Asia Africa Europe-1 (AAE-1) system. It runs from Hong Kong to Marseille. Its total length is 25 thousand kilometres. The total capacity of AAE-1 is 40 terabits per second.

At the same time, AAE-1 is only one of 16 submarine cables running close to the Yemeni coast. The total capacity of all these cables is 180 terabits per second. These 16 cables carry 17 per cent of the world's traffic.

AAE-1 is owned by a consortium of 17 telecom operators, each of which controls and is responsible for a different section of the route. The regional route in the Red Sea is assigned to Egyptian operator Telecom Egypt (EGX:ETEL) With China Unicom (SEHK:762) playing the coordinating role in the consortium

In 2022, the terrestrial section in Egypt had an accident, causing traffic to collapse by more than 90 per cent in Ethiopia, for example.

The problem with the Yemeni section is the shallow depth and the high concentration of submarine cables in one place. In fact, the threat of the Houthis is very real - they are capable of damaging most of all the cables in transit with a few explosions at shallow depths.

Repairing a blown up section looks problematic due to the fact that any repair expedition could be attacked by terrorists at any time. In addition, this does not preclude a second detonation at the same location or any other. In the case of a combined detonation, preliminary estimates suggest that repairs could take several months to several years.

---

 

Scientists Say They've Found The Trigger For Ancient Maya's Collapse, And It Reads Like a Warning

HUMANS04 February 2024

ByDAVID NIELD

The temples of central Mayapan today. (Bradley Russell)

Researchers peering back through 800 years of history have concluded that Mayapan – the capital of culture and politics for the Maya people of the Yucatán Peninsula in the 13th and 14th century CE – may well have been undone by drought.

That drought would have led to civil conflict, which would, in turn, have brought about political collapse, according to the researchers.

People would then have retreated to smaller and safer settlements.

As well as giving us a useful insight into the history of this ancient people, the 2022 study served as a warning as well: about how shifts in climate can quickly put pressures on even the most well-established and prosperous civilizations.

"Multiple data sources indicate that civil conflict increased significantly, and generalized linear modeling correlates strife in the city with drought conditions between 1400 and 1450 CE," wrote the researchers in their paper, published in July 2022.

"We argue that prolonged drought escalated rival factional tensions, but subsequent adaptations reveal region-scale resiliency, ensuring that Maya political and economic structures endured until European contact in the early 16th century CE."

The team already had a lot of historical records to work with, covering population change, contemporary diets, and climate conditions.

These records were augmented with a new analysis of human remains for signs of traumatic injury (pointing to conflict).

Correlations emerged between increased rainfall and an increased population in the area, and between subsequent decreases in rainfall and increased conflict. Prolonged drought during 1400-1450 CE most likely led to the abandonment of Mayapan, the researchers say.

The lack of water would have affected agricultural practices and trade routes, putting strain on the people of Mayapan, the study suggests. As food got scarcer and the situation got more dangerous, people either died or dispersed.

In the final mass grave dug before the city was abandoned, the researchers report that many of the remains probably belonged to the family members of the Cocoms (the heads of state) – a bloody end brought on by competing factions and social unrest.

"Our findings support Mayapan's storied institutional collapse between 1441 and 1461 CE, a consequence of civil conflict driven by political rivalry and ambition, which was embedded in the social memory of Yucatecan peoples whose testimonies entered the written record of the early Colonial Period," wrote the researchers.

Human responses to environmental pressures such as drought are clearly complex, varying by region and by era – there are so many factors to weigh up and balance when it comes to considering why a historical population acted in the way that it did.

The movement of people to other parts of the Yucatán Peninsula, including prosperous coastal towns and politically independent settlements, helped the Maya culture continue to thrive after the fall of Mayapan – and there was little evidence of any conflict between these regions before Spanish rule started.

That's testament to a "resilient system of human-environmental adaptations," the researchers say, but adaptations can only get you so far. These same regions, along with the rest of the world, are once again facing up to a climate crisis.

"Archaeological and historical records are well suited for examining past societal effects of climate crises over long-term cycles," wrote the researchers.

"The Maya region offers the breadth and depth of archaeological, historical, and climate records essential for studying correlations between social change and fluctuating climate conditions."

The research has been published in Nature Communications.