Friday, August 27, 2021

LEAVING AFTER BEING MIA
Florida Surgeon General leaving Ron DeSantis’ administration amid coronavirus surge: report
Bob Brigham
August 26, 2021

Screengrab.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis will be battling the coronavirus pandemic without the aid of his current surgeon general.

"Surgeon General Scott Rivkees, the state's top medical official, is exiting Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration in September," Florida Politics reported and WFLA-TV confirmed. "Rivkees, whose time in government has been marked by his absence from public view throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, will exit the administration when his contract expires Sept. 20. The news comes as Florida continues trudging through the pandemic with peak cases and hospitalizations on account of the delta variant,."


Following the news breaking, DeSantis Press Secretary Christina Pushaw issued a statement.

"We thank Dr. Rivkees for his meaningful work during the most challenging pandemic of our lifetime. We appreciate his service to the people of Florida and wish him the best in his future endeavors," the administration said.

Ana Ceballos, a state government reporter for the Miami Herald, remembered one of the last times Dr. Rivkees was seen with DeSantis.




Florida Surgeon General leaving Ron DeSantis’ administration amid coronavirus surgeyoutu.be

"Floridians will be keeping their distance and wearing face masks for up to a year until a COVID-19 vaccine exists, Florida Surgeon General Scott Rivkees said Monday before being whisked away by the governor's spokeswoman," the Tampa Bay Times reported in April of 2020. "The surgeon general's comments appear to conflict with what Gov. Ron DeSantis and his political ally, President Donald Trump, have said about returning to pre-coronavirus life."



What are the Prospects For Peace: an Interview With Noam Chomsky

  AUGUST 27, 2021
Facebook

Events are unfolding at a quickening pace. Facing an alarming escalation in tensions around the world, we are looking to our most respected and renowned thought leaders for an honest assessment of both U.S. foreign and military policy to offer their most current thoughts and insights. We know they have some ideas for improving the prospects for peace.

Noam Chomsky needs no introduction. He has devoted his whole life to calling out the abuses of power and the excesses of U.S. empire. At 92, he still is actively engaged in the national conversation. We are of course honored that he took the time to talk to us and share his views.

The questions here are not philosophical or abstract. They focus on the realities of the international power struggle unfolding in real time. They directly address the role of the U.S. in the escalating tensions and its capacity to reduce them. We also probe the role of everyday citizens in affecting the relationship the U.S. now has and will have with the rest of the world community.

Here is what Noam Chomsky had to say.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has recently put the hands of the doomsday clock to 100 seconds before midnight. Midnight means all out war, probably nuclear holocaust. This is the closest it has every been. Do you agree with this dire assessment?

A fair assessment, unfortunately.The BAS analysts cited three major increasing threats: nuclear war, environmental destruction, and what some have called an “infodemic,” the sharp decline in rational discourse — the only hope for addressing the existential crises.

Every year that Trump was in office, the minute hand moved closer to midnight.  Two year ago the analysts abandoned minutes and turned to seconds.  Trump steadily escalated all three threats.  It’s worth reflecting on how close the world came to indescribable catastrophe last November.  Another 4 years of Trump’s race to the abyss might have had incalculable consequences.  His worshippers of course don’t see it this way, but, remarkably, the same is true of segments of the left.  In fact, liberal litanies of his abuses also largely skirt his major crimes. Worth consideration when we recognize that he or some clone might soon regain the levers of power.  Also worth consideration are the warnings by thousands of scientists that we are approaching irreversible tipping points in environmental destruction.  We can read all about it in Aljazeera.

The U.S. always portrays itself as the greatest force on the planet for peace, justice, human rights, racial equality, etc. Polls tell us that most other nations actually regard the U.S. as the greatest threat to stability. What in your view is the truth here?

Even during the Obama years international polls showed that world opinion regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, no other country even close. Americans were protected from the news, though one could learn about it from foreign media and dissident sources.  Sometimes illustrations are reported.  Thus there has been some mention of the recent UN vote condemning the savage Cuba sanctions, virtually a blockade: 180-2 (US-Israel).  The NY Times dismissed it as a chance for critics of the US to blow off steam.  That’s quite normal.  When there are reports of how the world is out of step, the usual framework is curiosity about the psychic maladies that lead to such pathological failure to recognize our nobility.

There’s nothing new about that stance.  It’s typical of imperial cultures.  Even such an outstanding figure as John Stuart Mill wondered about the world’s failure to comprehend that Britain was an angelic power, sacrificing itself for the benefit of the world – at a moment when Britain was carrying out some of its most horrifying crimes, as he knew very well.

Here’s a chicken-or-egg question: The U.S. accuses both Russia and China of rapidly expanding their military capabilities, claiming its own posturing and increase in weaponry is a response to its hostile adversaries, Russia and China. Both Russia and China claim they are merely responding to intimidation and military threats posed by the U.S. What’s your view? Do Russia and China have imperial ambitions or are they just trying to defend themselves against what they see as an increasingly aggressive U.S. military?

Some background facts may be useful. According to the major international monitor, SIPRI, “The growth in total [military] spending in 2020 was largely influenced by expenditure patterns in the United States and China. The USA increased its military spending for the third straight year to reach $778 billion in 2020,” as compared with China’s increase to $252 billion (far less per capita of course).  In fourth place, below India, is Russia: $61.7 billion.

The US is alone in facing no credible security threats, apart from alleged threats at the borders of adversaries, who are ringed with US nuclear-armed missiles in some of the 800 US military bases around the world (China has one, Djibouti).  There have been international efforts to prevent militarization of outer space, a major threat to survival.  They have been initiated primarily by China and Russia, blocked for many years by Washington.

The number of spy missions, nuclear-armed bomber flights, and war games near Russia’s borders have vastly increased over the past year. Same with China. Is all of this just business-as-usual geopolitical posturing? Or does it represent a dangerous escalation and a new ominous direction in U.S. strategic positioning? What is the justification for what Russia and China see as provocations and aggressiveness, if not actual preparation for a war?

It’s extremely dangerous.Strategic planning has been redesigned to focus on war with China and Russia.  Provocative actions have been taken on their borders, already bristling with US offensive weapons.  China is violating international law in the South China Sea – though the US, the only maritime power not to have ratified the UN Law of the Sea, is not in a strong position to object.  The right response to China’s violations is not a dangerous show of force but diplomacy and negotiations, led by the regional states most directly involved.  The major threat is over Taiwan.  Again thoughtful diplomacy, not provocative actions, can avert would could be disastrous.

In a democracy, at least in theory citizens have a say in all matters of public policy. Yet, in the end none of the recent military campaigns and undeclared wars seem to achieve much popular favor or support. What is and what should be the role of everyday citizens in determining the foreign policy and military priorities of the country? Or are such matters better left to the “experts”?

According to the Constitution, Article I, Congress has the sole right to declare war.But that provision has long been dispatched to the ashcan, along with other inconvenient provisions of the document that we are taught to revere.

In a functioning democracy, citizens should have the primary role in affairs of state.  Not here.   And they should be informed citizens.  Not here.  World War I is a classic example.  In 1916, Wilson won on a platform of “peace without victory.” He then launched an impressive propaganda campaign to inflame a pacifist population with bitter hatred of all things German, fortified with fabrications about Hun atrocities concocted by the British “Ministry of Information”; Orwellism was alive and well long before Orwell.  It was highly successful.  It wasn’t the first such occasion, nor the last.  State propaganda remains highly effective, everywhere we turn, reinforced by the loyal media and intellectual class.

A striking example, with considerable import, was just released a few hours before I sat down to write: “more Americans think Iran possesses nuclear weapons than think Israel does. While Israel has been known to possess nuclear weapons for decades (without officially acknowledging it) and Iran is not known to have ever possessed any, the American public perception presumes a different reality: 60.5%, including 70.6% of Republicans and 52.6% of Democrats, say Iran possesses nuclear weapons — compared to 51.7% who say Israel does, including 51.7% of Republicans and 51.9% of Democrats.”.

The achievements of unremitting propaganda can be quite stunning.

Again, the media help in a variety of ways.  To take one highly relevant case, the NY Times editors recently joined virtually the entire world, including Iran, in calling for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.  That would end the alleged threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and radically reduce severe and very dangerous regional tensions.  One small matter was omitted in the editors’ proposal: Israel, the one regional power with nuclear weapons, in fact a formidable supply.  Also omitted was why this critically important proposal is not implemented: the US blocks it, to ensure that Israel’s massive armaments will not be inspected. In fact, the US government refuses to recognize officially that Israel has nuclear weapons, though it is not in doubt.  If it were to do so, US law might become applicable, arguably banning all aid to Israel.

Best for the rabble not to know that their lives are being threatened in order to protect Israel’s malfeasance and US participation in it.

Related to that, the citizenry and most of Congress are kept in the dark with respect to special missions, proxy funding, CIA operations, and swaths of unknown unknowns constituting psyops, cyber ops, and regime change ops, all done in our name as U.S. citizens. The funds to support this sprawling “dark world” of sabotage and terror being inflicted on the rest of the planet, is also a secret.  Now there’s pervasive spying on U.S. citizens right here at home.  What place does any of this have in “the land of the free”? Does this mean government of the people, by the people, for the people is just a sham?

If we let it be a scam.In the opening passage of one of the first major modern works of political science, a wise man – David Hume – pointed out that “power is in the hands of the governed.” If they choose to exercise it.  And if they go on to take the reins of government into their own hands in a “cooperative commonwealth,” the aspiration of American workers and farmers in the late 19th century.  Crushed by state-business violence.

We are grateful to Noam Chomsky for his thought-provoking views. The interview was arranged by John Rachel, Director of the Peace Dividend Project. This initiative embraces a powerful, unprecedented, end-to-end strategy for challenging the tyranny of neocon warmongers in Washington DC, ending the endless wars, and reversing the self-destructive foreign policy and military paradigm which now poisons U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Professor Chomsky has also agreed to be interviewed for the full-length Peace Dividend documentary film, a devastating indictment of the corruption and fraud built into our excessive military budgets and imperial overreach. This movie will inform, unite and empower everyday citizens to have a voice in determining the future they want for themselves and their children.  

Why Noam Chomsky has some optimism about American journalism

Alex Henderson, AlterNet
August 27, 2021

Noam Chomsky talks to teleSUR's Abby Martin
 (Screenshot/teleSUR English YouTube)

Over the years, author Noam Chomsky has often criticized the mainstream media from the left — and done so forcefully. Chomsky's 1988 book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media," written with colleague Edward S. Herman, not only disagreed with the right-wing claim that the mainstream media have a liberal bias — Chomsky and Herman argued that the mainstream media went easy on U.S. politicians, encouraging the status quo. But in an interview with The Nation this month, the 92-year-old Chomsky says he is pleasantly surprised by some of the reporting he is seeing these days — even in some of the mainstream publications he slammed in the past.

Victor Pickard, writing in The Nation, explains, "For anyone critical of the media and politics…. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' was essential reading. The book's 'propaganda model' provided a useful framework for understanding how typical news coverage filters out some types of evidence while emphasizing others, ultimately privileging dominant narratives. One key lesson from this analysis was clear: To change the world, we must first change our media."

Pickard notes that during his interview with Chomsky, he wanted to see what the veteran author thought of media reporting in 2021 compared to when he wrote "Manufacturing Consent" with Herman in 1988. Chomsky, Pickard observes, is "still leveling sharp critique and astute analysis" at 92.

Chomsky told Pickard, "Ed (Herman) and I updated the book to consider the rise of the internet, but we basically concluded that nothing much had changed. The sources of information are still the same. If you want to know what's happening in Karachi, you can't find reliable information on Facebook or Instagram other than what's being filtered from mainstream media. So, the first thing I do in the morning is read The New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, and so on. That's where the information is coming from."

Chomsky noted that "the internet's main effect is to narrow the range of information that most people access by driving them into social media bubbles," although "the propaganda model is basically the same" as when he wrote "Manufacturing Consent" 33 years ago.

But despite his ongoing complaints about the "propaganda model," Chomsky likes some of what he's seeing. For example, Chomsky — who was born in Philadelphia on December 7, 1928 when Calvin Coolidge was still president — praised the New York Times' 1619 Project as a "real breakthrough," telling Pickard that such reporting in a "mainstream newspaper" would have been "inconceivable" during the 1960s.

Nonetheless, one of the most important points that Chomsky made during their interview was how far to the right the overall political conversation in the U.S. continues to be. Chomsky noted that what is considered "liberal" in U.S. media and U.S. academia would be considered "centrist" in other countries. And Pickard pointed out that contrary to claims on the right, U.S. academia is far from "overrun with raging leftists."

"The academic world is basically centrist," Chomsky told Pickard. "It's called liberal, which would mean by international standards, more or less centrist. It might be aligned with the Democratic Party, but it's not even social democratic. If you try to break out of it by being more radical, you face difficulties."
GOOD FOR HER #BDS IS NOT ANTISEMITISM
Doctor fired from Phoenix Children's Hospital after anti-Israel posts files discrimination complaint

BrieAnna J. Frank
Arizona Republic


A doctor fired from Phoenix Children's Hospital for social media posts in which she condemned Israel and accused Zionists of having a "thirst to kill our Palestinian children" has filed a job discrimination complaint with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, according to documents obtained by The Arizona Republic.

In late June, screenshots circulated online of Dr. Fidaa Wishah's Facebook post in which she said Palestinians would "expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of."

"A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never lasts long," Wishah continued. "Hey #israel ... your end is coming sooner than you think."

Liora Rez, executive director of StopAntisemitism.org, issued a statement to The Republic on Wednesday congratulating the hospital for "taking a brave step in fighting antisemitism and making sure their patients are protected from hatred and bigotry."

StopAntisemitism.org tweeted about Wishah's posts on June 21, prompting a response from Phoenix Children's Hospital on June 23 that said children in its care "receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin."

"After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children's," the hospital said.

Rez said medical providers are obligated to provide care "free of prejudice" and added that her organization calls on all companies to "take a similar strong stance against antisemitism."

"When scrolling through Fidaa Wishah's social media posts her disdain for the Jewish people and their homeland, Israel, becomes clear and undeniable," Rez wrote.

In a written statement to The Republic, Wishah said her posts stemmed from her experiences as a Palestinian woman who grew up in a refugee camp in Gaza. She said she "witnessed the death, destruction and suffering of so many members of my community" before leaving Gaza when she was 17, determined to make a difference in the world by becoming a doctor.

Wishah said despite her experiences and positions on the conflict, she has "never discriminated against a Jewish person in my personal or professional life." She added that a "plain and honest reading" of her posts make it "abundantly clear" that her criticism is directed toward the State of Israel and not Jewish people.

"I am an activist," she wrote. "I do not just pay lip service to social justice issues. It is part of my being."

Phoenix Children's Hospital did not respond to The Republic's repeated requests for comment.

Wishah says she was 'singled out' for social media posts

The complaint, provided to The Republic by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Arizona chapter, indicates it was filed with the Arizona Attorney General's Office's Civil Rights Division in late July. It alleges that Wishah was subjected to "discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment and unlawful termination" based on her sex, race, color, religion and national origin.

Attorney General's Office spokesperson Katie Conner told The Republic that complaints filed with the Civil Rights Division are confidential pursuant to Arizona law and that the office therefore "cannot confirm or deny if a complaint was filed or if there is or was any investigation."

Wishah wrote in the complaint that she was "singled out" for her social media posts regarding the "atrocities committed by the State of Israel against Palestinian people."

She went on to say that in the time since she began working at the hospital two years prior, she and other co-workers were encouraged to attend a solidarity gathering during work hours in support of Black Lives Matter and in opposition to systemic racism.

On June 21, Wishah said her supervisor informed her about complaints the hospital received because of her social media posts from the month prior. She said her supervisor, who was not named in the complaint, told her that he "supported my cause and ... knew I was not anti-Semitic."

During a human resources meeting later in the day, Wishah said she was shown the complaints and told that the hospital's social media policy was "vague and that I had not violated any policies" but that they would be reviewing the situation because of the volume of complaints.



Wishah was suspended with pay on June 22 and terminated the next day "under the pretext that I lacked professional judgement, inconsistent with the Hospital's mission and allegedly diverted resources away from the hospital's patients," she wrote in the complaint.

She went on to allege that the hospital acted on "racially and religiously-motivated criticism" in firing her but that it hadn't fired other employees who commented publicly about "civil and human rights abuses."

Azza Abuseif, executive director of CAIR's Arizona chapter, issued a statement to The Republic on Aug. 20 in which she claimed that the hospital "jumped at the opportunity to destroy the livelihood of a Palestinian woman."

Abuseif said there was a "willful misrepresentation" of Wishah's statements and that the hospital's response was "bigoted" and retaliatory. She called the complaint the "first step in remedying this injustice."
FORWARD TO THE PAST
Conservative leader rejects Canada's new emissions target, favours previous goal

Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole is rejecting Canada’s new target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in favour of a lower one first set by Stephen Harper.


The Canadian Press
Aug 27 2021,

Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press

It comes as Canada prepares to attend the United Nations Climate Change conference this fall, where countries are expected to commit more ways to tackle the issue.

In anticipation of the meeting, the Liberal government recently increased its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to between 40% and 45% below 2005 levels by 2030, up from 30%.

The 30% goal was set by former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and was the commitment the country was held to under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

O’Toole says the Conservatives’ climate change plan “will meet the Paris objectives” of 30%, despite the United Nations specifying the agreement works by countries coming up with “increasingly ambitious climate action” every five years.

“In the 10 days after I launched our plan in April, [Trudeau] changed his targets three times with no plan,” O’Toole said at a campaign stop in Corner Brook, NL.

The Conservative leader touted his plan, which proposes charging a carbon price on fuel and putting more electric vehicles on the road, as one that strikes a balance between combating climate change and protecting jobs and economic growth.

“If people want to get the country working again, there’s only one option in this election: the Conservative party,” said O’Toole.

But Michael Bernstein, executive director of Clean Prosperity, which advocated for the party to adopt carbon pricing, said O’Toole’s planned cut of 30% “would be a step backwards” compared to the commitments made by other G7 allies.

“If O’Toole sticks to the 30% target he will be forced to revise the climate target that the current federal government has already submitted to the UN as part of the Paris treaty,” he wrote in a statement to The Canadian Press.

“This would be a violation of the Paris treaty and, while there’d be no legal impact, it would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world, including potential investors, about our commitment to climate action.”

Caroline Brouillette, a policy manager at Climate Action Network Canada, said in a statement that weakening Canada’s target submitted to the UN “would not only be a diplomatic disaster, but a failure to recognize that Canada should do its fair share of the global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C.”

“Raising ambition is at the heart of the Paris Agreement. Levelling down would violate its spirit,” she said.

O’Toole says Canada “should be proud to put our flag back up”

Trudeau announced a higher emissions-reduction target for Canada earlier this year while attending a virtual climate summit convened by US President Joe Biden, who pledged to slash his country’s greenhouse gas pollution levels by 50 to 52%.

The Liberal government recently inked the new goal into legislation committing Canada to hit net-zero emissions by 2050. Parliament passed the bill before its summer break despite the Conservatives voting against it.

The government, however, has yet to detail how it plans to meet its strengthened goals.

O’Toole entered the 13th day of the campaign by making a swing along the East Coast, stopping first in western Newfoundland, where the party hopes to win its first seat on the island in years.

The last time Newfoundland and Labrador was home to a Conservative MP was in Harper’s final term.

During an announcement in Corner Brook, where O’Toole promised to increase EI benefits for sick workers, he sidestepped questions about whether he would uphold a $5.2 million deal Ottawa struck with the province ahead of the election call over the long-troubled Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

The leader later clarified that he would.

“A Conservative government under my leadership will honour the deal in place with the provincial government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project,” O’Toole said in a statement afterwards.

“We will also create jobs and boost the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador by supporting the offshore industry – a sharp contrast with the other parties who have been clear they want to shut that industry down.”
Economists Are Vastly Underestimating the Economic Impact of Climate Change

Economists are expecting a tiny reduction in GDP despite climate science suggesting far more dramatic consequences, according to a new study.
Aug 26, 2021 2:18 PM


(Credit: okanozdemir/Shutterstock)

When it comes to the climate emergency, the scientific consensus is clear: human activity is heating Earth more rapidly now than at any point in the last 2,000 years. This is causing rapid, widespread changes to our oceans, our atmosphere and our biosphere.

The effects will continue for decades, possibly centuries, to come with dramatic increases in extreme weather events, such as heat waves, forest fires, hurricanes, flooding, ice melts and sea level rises. Indeed, this increase in extreme events is already upon us.

Parts of the planet are likely to become uninhabitable, where temperature increases will make it impossible to live or grow food. And that is likely to trigger patterns of migration with global consequences.

It’s easy to imagine that these changes will have a huge impact on the global economy and our ability to maintain the quality of life we enjoy today.

But according to economists, the economic impact of all this climate change is likely to be minimal. “Economists have predicted that damages from global warming will be as low as 2.1 percent of global economic production for a 3◦C rise in global average surface temperature, and 7.9 percent for a 6◦C rise,” say Steve Keen, at University College London and a group of colleagues.

Now, this team has examined the approach that economists have taken and say it is riddled with misconceptions and lacking in a basic understanding of climate science. And the predictions of economists have led to a number of significant missteps by policy makers, for example, in the pricing of carbon.
Evidence-Based Science

That needs to change. Instead, the team say predictions about the future of the global economy must be based on evidence-based science so that policy makers can best decide how to plan for the future.

First some background. Predicting the future of the global economy is notoriously difficult. Nevertheless, economists have developed a number of models to evaluate the potential impact of climate change. Perhaps the most influential is the Dynamic Integrated Climate Economy, or DICE, model developed by William Nordhaus, an economist at Yale University in New Haven.

The DICE model has hugely influenced thinking about the economic impact of climate change. In 2018, Nordhaus received the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on “integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis”.

But now Keen and colleagues say there are serious flaws in the way this and other models represent the impact of climate change. That’s why they predict such a small impact when the change to the climate and our way of life will be massive.

The team says that these models do not properly take scientific thinking into account. For example, climate scientists agree that an important property of Earth’s climate is the existence of tipping points in which climate subsystems switch from one state to another, often in ways that cannot easily be reversed.

These are important because they amplify the effects of warming, creating conditions in which other systems can flip in a tipping point cascade. Examples include the disappearance of summer ice cover in the Arctic Sea and the irreversible shrinkage of the Greenland ice sheet.

Tipping Points


The big fear is that we are much closer than expected to these tipping points. The team point to one influential paper that suggested “a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century.”

Curiously, tipping points do not feature in most economic analyses of the impact of climate change. Keen and co say that Nordhaus asserts that there are “no critical tipping elements with a time horizon less than 300 years until global temperatures have increased by at least 3◦C.”

Another problem is that the DICE model assumes that the economic effects of climate change will be small compared to other factors such as new technology, population changes and so on. This does not seem reasonable when some cities and regions are likely to become uninhabitable after an increase of just 4◦C.

Indeed, the model assumes that climate change will influence just a small part of the economy. Keen and co say this is because Nordhaus seems to consider only those industries affected by the weather, which make up just 13 percent of the economy. The rest will seemingly experience negligible effects.

However, Keen and co point out that confusing weather with climate in this way is a serious mistake. “This assumption that only economic activities that are exposed to the weather will be affected by climate change can be rejected on at least three grounds,” they say.

For example, wildfires can significantly impact the output from nearby factories, not least because many people will be unable to work there. And higher outdoor temperatures that make regions uninhabitable will certainly affect factory output. “Factories without workers produce zero output,” they say. And changes in biodiversity will influence the availability of resources and have significant economic impact.

If economic models do not consider these possibilities, they are bound to under-estimate the impact of climate change.

One line of thought is that when some regions become less productive, others will become more productive. For example, crops could be grown at higher latitudes.

But Keen and co say this is unlikely to make up the difference or come anywhere near to it. They give the example of a commodity such as grain and imagine a scenario in which America’s breadbasket regions such as Idaho become hotter and less productive for grain. But in that case, grain production “will not be replaced at higher latitudes due to the poorer topsoil,” they say.

In all these cases, the economic impact is likely to be huge and devastating.

The withering conclusion from this study is that economic models are not fit for purpose. “We conclude that there are fundamental and insurmountable weaknesses in estimates by economists of the damages from climate change, such that they should not be used to assess the risks from climate change,” says Keen and co.

That’s a damning assessment and one that policy makers would do well to consider in more detail before setting out their response to climate change. These are decisions we need to make now; we cannot afford to get them wrong.

Ref: Economists’ Erroneous Estimates Of Damages From Climate Change : arxiv.org/abs/2108.07847


This will stop you in your tracks’: Republican reveals the Taliban have seized $85bn worth of US military equipment


"The Taliban now has more black hawk helicopters than 85 per cent of the countries in the world."

 by Jack Peat
2021-08-27 
in News



Plymouth MP Johnny Mercer has shared his dismay at news that the Taliban have seized $85 billion worth of US military equipment.

In a press conference this week, Republican Jim Banks, who served in Afghanistan, launched a stinging attack on president Joe Biden and his administration.

“My job there was as a foreign military sales officer so I was on the front lines of acquiring the equipment that the Americans turned over to the Afghan army and the Afghan police,” Banks says in the video.


“I’m going to read to you what is so painful for me and so many other Afghan veterans who served in that capacity, others who served as part of the train, advise and assist equip effort as part of helping the Afghans.
Black hawk helicopters

“We now know that, due to the negligence of this administration, the Taliban now has access to over $85billion worth of US military equipment.

“That includes 75,000 vehicles, over 200 aeroplanes and helicopters, over 600,000 small arms and light weapons.


“The Taliban now has more black hawk helicopters than 85 per cent of the countries in the world.

“But they don’t just have weapons, they also have night-vision goggles, body armour and medical supplies.


“And unbelievably, unfathomably to me and so many others, is that the Taliban now has biometric devices which have the finger prints, eye scans and the biographical information of the Afghans who helped us over the last 20 years.

“And here’s what we just learned again in the briefing that we just walked out of. This administration still has no plan to get this military equipment or these supplies back.”
Reaction

Mercer tweeted on Thursday: “This will stop you in your tracks. Unbelievable.

“We gave them the names of those we trained to fight them. And some we will leave behind to the violence we see at the airport. An appalling day, verging from rage to tears.”

Reaction elsewhere has been similarly fierce.

Here’s what people had to say:


US STATE DEPARTMENT ABANDONS SEVEN CH-46ES IN KABUL

27th August 2021

Seven Boeing Vertol CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters operated by the US Department of State Air Wing (DoSAW) have been abandoned in Afghanistan. They had most recently been used on August 15 to ferry personnel evacuating the US Embassy in Kabul out to Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport to board outbound flights.

Following a request on their status, a background statement provided to Key.Aero by a State Department official on August 25 said: “We can confirm that the Department left seven CH-46 helicopters behind in Afghanistan which were rendered inoperable. These helicopters were already being phased out of the Department’s inventory and were slated for eventual destruction due to age and supportability issues. As of August 15, 2021, the Department no longer operates any aircraft in Afghanistan.”

US Department of State Air Wing CH-46E Sea Knight N431WR in the US Embassy compound in Kabul, Afghanistan, during then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit on March 23, 2020. Note the 7.62mm M240D machine gun in the forward cabin door and the decoy flare dispensers. This is most likely one of seven left behind after evacuating Embassy staff from that very same compound on August 15. US State Department/Ronny Przysucha

The elderly CH-46s are all former US Marine Corps (USMC) examples, which were extensively refurbished before entering DoSAW service from 2012. In 2018, there were 23 in the DoSAW inventory, but by August this year, only 11 were still officially registered to the Department of State, including those now left to their fate in Afghanistan. It is not known whether any of the other CH-46s remain operational, but it seems most likely that the majority are now out of service and the Kabul embassy evacuation could well have been their swansong.

The Sea Knight is the same type used by the USMC in the evacuation of the US Embassy following the fall of Saigon in South Vietnam in 1975. Coincidentally, one of the DoSAW CH-46Es used in the recent Kabul evacuation was N38TU, which was formerly BuAer 154038 with the USMC. This was one of the helicopters deployed on the USS Hancock (CV-19) in 1975 to support evacuation of Saigon in Operation Frequent Wind.

By Dave Allport

Afghanistan: US ‘blew up military equipment’ after Kabul bomb attack to stop it falling into wrong hands

There are fears that billions of pounds worth of weapons, aircraft and vehicles, meant to aid the Afghan National Army, could now be used by the Taliban

A US soldier fires a pistol into the air as Afghans hoping to flee sit on a roadside near Kabul airport (Photo: Wakil Kohsar/AFP via Getty)

By Zaina Alibhai
August 27, 2021 

American soldiers have reportedly blown up US military equipment in Afghanistan in order to avoid it falling into the wrong hands as evacuation flights draw to a close.

Blasts heard shortly after two suicide bombers and gunmen targeted crowds of Afghans outside Kabul airport were US forces attempting to destroy weapons and ammunition, the Taliban said.

Isis-K has claimed responsibility for the terror attacks, which have so far killed killed at least 95 Afghans and 13 American troops, according to Afghan and US officials. At least 150 people were injured.

Two explosions tore through crowds of people desperately trying to make it onto the final flights out of Afghanistan, one at the Abbey Gate entrance to Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport, and another at the nearby Baron Hotel, which British officials had been using as a processing centre for those wanting to flee.

Shortly after the two attacks, other explosions could be heard some miles away from the airport, causing confusion among witnesses.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said the blasts were carried out by US forces attempting to destroy their equipment amid the chaotic exit.

According to the Associated Press, the US had left behind small weapons and ammunition for the Afghan military in the lead up to the Taliban takeover as the troop withdrawal began. US forces took heavy weapons with them, but any ammunition for arms not being left behind was blown up before troops left.


With the 31 August deadline set by Joe Biden giving troops in the country just hours before evacuations end, there are fears that billions of pounds worth of US military equipment, used to aid the Afghan National Army, could now land in the hands of Taliban militants.

It includes 75,000 vehicles, 200 aeroplanes and helicopters, and 600,000 small arms, according to former US Navy reservist Jim Banks.


Read More
Afghanistan: How US and UK security failings jeopardised the lives of Afghan embassy workers in Kabul

“The Taliban now has more Black Hawk helicopters than 85 per cent of the countries in the world,” he told The Telegraph.

“Unfathomable to me and so many others, the Taliban now has biometric devices which have the fingerprints, eye scans and biographical information of all the Afghans who helped us and were on our side in the last 20 years.”

President Joe Biden condemned the terror attacks in Kabul and said they would not drive US troops out of Afghanistan earlier than the deadline date.

Evacuation efforts will run until August 31, prioritising the removal of US troops and military equipment in the last days.

The President vowed to avenge the 13 US service members killed in attacks, saying: “We will not forgive, we will not forget, we will hunt you down and make you pay.”


The Pentagon confirmed that the US losses included 11 Marines, one Navy medic and another service member who was providing support to evacuating Americans.

After taking over Kabul, Taliban take US Black Hawk chopper for a joyride
(VIDEO)


Friday, 27 Aug 2021
BY SYLVIA LOOI
A clip showing the members of the Taliban taking a US Blackhawk for a joyride has gone viral on social media. — Screencapture from Twitter/ @JosephHDempsey



Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates.

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 27 — A video has been going around social media showing the Taliban taking a US Black Hawk helicopter for a joyride.

They, however, failed to get the aircraft off the ground, The Sun reported.

The footage is said to have been taken at Kandahar Airport showing the chopper taxied on the tarmac.

According to the portal, the Taliban are now parading in their captured equipment and uniforms after making off with some £13 billion (RM74 billion) worth of abandoned weapons and vehicles, including 200,000 firearms and 20,000 Humvees seized from the Afghan army.

Fox News reported that the footage came about after President Joe Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan reportedly said the Taliban had seized a “fair amount” of US weaponry after it took over the country earlier this month.

“We don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defence material has gone,” Sullivan said.

“But certainly, a fair amount of it has fallen into the hands of the Taliban, and, obviously, we don’t have a sense that they are going to readily hand it over to us at the airport.”

The station added that the US had spent about US$83 billion (RM347.8 billion) since 2001 on training and equipment for Afghan forces, including US$147 million (RM615.9 million) on Black Hawk helicopters and US$2 billion (RM8.4 billion) on Humvees.

Other photos and videos show Taliban soldiers carrying US and US ally-made weapons and gear that appear to be stolen from allied militaries while patrolling parts of Kabul.


Biden urged to scrap Trump ‘Remain in Mexico’ migrant policy after court ruling

Leading Democratic senator calls for end of ‘disgraceful policy’

Supreme court ruled Biden must revive MPP program


Migrants camp at El Chaparral shelter in the city of Tijuana, Mexico, this week. Photograph: Joebeth Terríquez/EPA


Guardian staff and agencies
Thu 26 Aug 2021 

Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates are pressing Joe Biden to take new steps to end an immigration policy begun by his predecessor, Donald Trump, after the US supreme court ordered that the controversial “Remain in Mexico” program be reinstated.

The policy put in place by Trump, forced thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexico to await US hearings, instead of being allowed to cross the US-Mexico border and follow their legal process, which can take years to play out, on American soil.

In one of his first acts as president in January, Biden ended the policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP).


Parents of 337 children separated at border under Trump still not found

Read more


The conservative-majority supreme court on Tuesday ordered that Biden must comply with a Texas-based federal judge’s ruling to revive the program, although federal officials retain some discretion on how to do that.

Authorities in the Republican-led states of Texas and Missouri had challenged Biden’s ending of the program, saying his administration failed to follow the correct legal process.

The MPP was a cornerstone of Trump’s hardline immigration policies. Biden promised what he called a more humane approach to immigration.

The US Senate foreign relations committee chairman, Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, called on Biden’s administration “to curtail and put a lawful end to the implementation of this disgraceful policy”.

Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democratic US Representative for California, also urged the administration to roll back “an inhumane policy that forced asylum seekers, including women and children, to wait in dangerous border cities, placing them in greater risk of exploitation by cartels and criminal organizations”.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the Los Angeles-based National Immigration Law Center, said the administration should determine how to comply with the court’s order while still trying to end the program.

“We continue to believe that it was unlawful,” Hincapié said. “It caused severe damage and chaos and disorder.”

The US government has already been in touch with Mexico over the issue, a senior Mexican foreign ministry official, Roberto Velasco, said on Twitter, calling the judicial process a “unilateral measure” by the US.

Mexico is not bound by the court’s decision and will exercise sovereignty over its migration policies, the Mexican foreign ministry said in a statement.

Mexican officials have privately expressed concern that the policy strains Mexico’s ability to shelter migrants.

Economic benefits of Tokyo Games estimated at over $55 billion

Fireworks are set off during the Paralympic Opening Ceremony over Japan National Stadium for the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games, on Aug. 24, 2021. (Bob Martin for OIS via AP)

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- The economic benefits of the Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics will be about 6.14 trillion yen ($55.75 billion) but Japanese organizers will incur a loss of more than 2 trillion yen, a scholar's estimates showed Thursday.

    Of the benefits, about 3.27 trillion yen from spending on the construction of facilities, including the National Stadium and the athletes' village, have already spilled over into society, according to Katsuhiro Miyamoto, a professor emeritus of theoretical economics at Kansai University, who released the projections.

    The remainder will come from consumption during the Tokyo Games and positive "legacy-related" effects expected to be seen after the end of the games early next month, Miyamoto said.

    Miyamoto also looked into the organizers' revenues since Tokyo won the bid to host the Olympics and Paralympics in 2013 and expenditures associated with the games. He found that their total deficit is expected to be 2.37 trillion yen.

    Of the deficit, the Tokyo metropolitan government's loss stands at 1.41 trillion yen and the central government's at 874 billion yen, with the rest incurred by the organizing committee.

    "Based on figures publicly announced by responsible institutions, I objectively calculated them," he said.

    The professor said his estimates do not include adverse effects stemming from the spread of the coronavirus.

    As a precaution against the virus, the Olympics were held behind closed doors at almost all venues for 17 days until they ended on Aug. 8.

    The Paralympics, which started Tuesday and will run through Sept. 5, have become a largely TV-only event as well, with spectators barred from attending due to an alarming rise of COVID-19 cases in recent weeks.

    CAN BEING BOURGEOIS BE BAD
    Beyoncé Responds After Being Slammed For Wearing $30 Million ‘Blood Diamond’

    BY : HANNAH SMITH ON : 27 AUG 2021
    PA Images/@beyonce/Instagram

    Beyoncé is said to be ‘disappointed and angry’ following backlash over her new Tiffany campaign.

    The star and her husband, Jay-Z, were revealed as the new faces of the jewellery brand earlier this week, but have found themselves the subject of controversy after fans claimed Beyoncé was wearing a ‘blood diamond.’
    Tiffany & Co

    Now, after a significant social media outcry, the star has reportedly responded, with a source telling The Sun the singer is ‘aware of the criticism and is disappointed and angry that she wasn’t made aware of questions about its history.’

    The iconic 128.54 carat $30 million canary yellow Tiffany Diamond was ‘discovered’ in South Africa in the 19th century, and has been the subject of criticism for many years over its less-than-transparent origins. The term ‘blood diamond’ refers to gems that are mined in conflict zones and sold to fund military action.

    Many diamond mines in Africa have historically been run by colonialists and warlords who often relied on slaves and child labourers, with the Kimberly mine in which the Tiffany Diamond was discovered known to have forced its workers to live in abject conditions.

    Beyoncé has not publicly commented on the campaign, which saw her and Jay-Z pay tribute to Audrey Hepburn and Jean Michel Basquiat, but her mother, Tina Knowles, took to Instagram earlier this week to defend her daughter from the accusations.


    Tiffany & Co

    ‘How many of you socially conscious activist[s] own diamonds? I thought so! Well guess what did you go to try to check to see where the diamond came from? Probably not,’ Knowles wrote.

    ‘So when you guys get engaged you won’t have a diamond you gonna put on a sterling silver band And you better check out where it came from and the origin of where came from and why you add it check out the calls for the Leather that you weird (sic) because they made it came from another country to ban and not buy diamonds right because your (sic) righteous!’ she continued