Youth-led survey suggests teenage Albertans want more environmental education
CBC/Radio-Canada 

© Sam Martin/CBC Members of the Alberta Youth Leaders for Environmental Education surveyed hundreds of junior high and high school students about climate change education in the spring of 2021. Most respondents were students in Edmonton…

Results from a student-run survey suggest teenagers in Alberta want to learn more about climate change in school.

In the spring of 2021, the Alberta Youth Leaders for Environmental Education (AYLEE) — a group of students in Grades 7-12 that works to advance environmental education and climate action in the province — surveyed 318 young Albertans, most of whom were in Grades 6-12.

More than 80 per cent of respondents said they believed there should be more environmental education in Alberta and 53 per cent of respondents said they strongly believed the provincial government should implement more environmental, energy and climate change education in the curriculum.

Three students who were involved in creating, conducting and analyzing the survey told CBC News they were surprised by the survey results and hope those in positions of power take note.

"It's encouraging to see the numbers as high as they are, and it gives us a lot of hope — to have that concrete evidence that this is something people care about," said Avry Krywolt, a Grade 12 student at St. Martin de Porres High School in Airdrie.

The group's recent report on the survey results calls for curriculum updates and support from all Albertans to increase environmental education.

Concern and hope

The online survey, which was distributed in March and April via social media, clubs and school administration groups, asked questions about students' knowledge and perspectives on climate change, the environment, energy, the economy and environmental education.

Most students who filled out the survey lived in Fort McMurray, Edmonton and Calgary, but others were from Lacombe, Lethbridge, Leduc, Nanton, Okotoks, Sherwood Park and Cochrane.

It is hard to determine a margin of error for online surveys, but for comparison purposes, AYLEE said that based on Alberta student population statistics, a probability sample with the same sample size of students would yield a margin of error of plus or minus six per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Seventy-three per cent of survey respondents said they were at least somewhat worried about the impact of climate change and only 10 per cent said they were not concerned about their future in connection with the economy and the environment.

Though the survey captured some of students' climate concerns, the results suggest many are optimistic about the future. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents said they thought Alberta's economy could excel while the environment is protected.
Climate and the curriculum

When asked where they learn about environmental topics, students ranked school classes third, after social media and news sources.

"I have had little to no environmental education in school," said Lauren Laplante, an AYLEE member and Grade 12 student at Ross Sheppard High School in Edmonton.

She estimates that between science and social studies, she has spent about 10 school days grappling with the topic but she believes more time should be devoted to it.

Currently, most learning outcomes related to energy and climate change are included in science courses.

Subashini Thangadurai, an AYLEE member and Grade 10 student at Sir Winston Churchill High School in Calgary, contributed to a white paper that called for climate change education and climate action to be integrated into all subjects.

Thangadurai was also part of a working group that reviewed the K-6 draft curriculum and recommended more content on environment, energy and climate topics.

Nicole Sparrow, press secretary for Education Minister Adriana LaGrange, said the government recognizes that current curriculum needs updating to ensure students learn about climate change.

She said more than 1300 Albertans provided feedback on the draft science K-6 curriculum and the government is committed to listening to and working with environmental organizations, partners, parents and Albertans to strengthen it.

Curriculum for other grades will be updated after the K-6 curriculum is finished.

Beavers are now living as far north as the Arctic, researchers find
Alexandra Larkin 

North American beavers are colonizing much further north than they used to, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's annual Arctic Report Card. Using satellite imagery, researchers found ponds with beaver engineering in northern Alaska and Canada.

The study concluded that the number of ponds created from beavers foraging and building dams has doubled in western Alaska in the last 20 years, with over 12,000 mapped. In contrast, researchers looked at decades-old aerial photography of the region and found no beaver ponds in the area prior to 1955.

 Provided by CBS News Beaver engineering dramatically altered a tundra stream on the Seward Peninsula in western Alaska between 2003 and 2016. The enlarged black areas are new beaver ponds, the blue arrow shows flow direction, and magenta arrows denote dams. Ikonos satellite image: 6 Aug 2003, Worldview satellite image: 10 June 2016, 64° 33.52'N, 165° 50.12'W / 

Credit: Imagery © 2021 Maxar

The area has seen a drastic rise in surface water, and beavers were the dominant factor in almost 66% of such cases, researchers said. In such instances, beavers' dams made rivers more shallow and created inlets. As a result, new ponds are forming and the underlying permafrost is melting, which could affect fish populations and aquatic food webs, but researchers don't have all of the answers yet.

"The true impact of the spread of beavers into the Arctic on the environment and the Indigenous communities who live there, is not yet fully known," lead author Dr. Helen Wheeler of Anglia Ruskin University said in a press release.

© Provided by CBS News A North American beaver chewing on a branch at Horseshoe Lake in Denali National Park. / Credit: L.Scaddan / Getty Images

"However, we do know that that people are concerned about the impact beaver dams are having on water quality, the numbers of fish downstream of the dams, and access for their boats."

Beavers were able to expand their range into the tundra due to an increase in trees and woody shrubs that they use to make lodges — even above the tree line, which was previously inhospitable to the large rodents. 

© Provided by CBS News Beaver lodge (center), dam (bottom center), and pond on the Seward Peninsula in western Alaska. / Credit: Ken Tape, Aug 2021

The team isn't sure if beavers' northward expansion is due to climate change or a reduction in beaver trapping, but they "do know that beavers are having a significant impact on the ecosystems they are colonizing," Wheeler said.

For next year's report, the team hopes to focus more on the Canadian expansion and continue to document the changes beavers bring to the tundra.

New megadams threaten world’s biggest fish

Stefan Lovgren 

There was a time when scores of some of the world’s largest freshwater fishes swam up the Mekong River, past the Laotian town of Luang Prabang, now a UNESCO World Heritage site

.

© Photograph by LILLIAN SUWANRUMPHA/AFP via Getty Images This aerial photo taken on October 31, 2019 shows a fisherman on a boat in Mekong River in Pak Chom district in the northeastern Thai province of Loei. - The once mighty Mekong river has been reduced to a thin, grubby neck of water across northern Thailand - record lows blamed on drought and a recently opened dam hundreds of kilometres upstream in Laos.

Giant catfish the size of grizzly bears, seven-striped barb, giant pangasius, and other huge fish once made their way past the city’s historic Buddhist temples, French colonial villas, and traditional wooden buildings on their way north to their spawning grounds. Following decades of overfishing in the Mekong River, it’s a rarity to see such river titans today. (Read how the giant freshwater stingray is likely the world’s biggest freshwater fish.)

© Photograph by Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

 Huge catfish hauled from Mekong River being admired by locals.

Still, many scientists held out hope for their recovery: As long as the Mekong River south of China remained undammed, smaller scale fishing and other conservation efforts could eventually lead to the recovery of these critically endangered species.

But now that hope appears to be dimming, with Laos planning to construct at least 10 new dams on the Mekong’s main stem in the next decade. Among the first projects is Nam Sang, a massive hydropower plant to be constructed just upstream of Luang Prabang.

Laos’ Communist regime, which promotes hydropower as part of its bid to become the battery of Southeast Asia, has built dozens of dams on Mekong tributaries. The government hopes new dams, such as Nam Sang—to be completed by 2027—will generate government revenue by selling electricity to neighboring countries, such as Thailand.

“If these dam projects go ahead, the stretch of the Mekong that was once core habitat and spawning grounds for several giant fish species is going to be chopped into ever-smaller pieces,” says National Geographic Explorer Zeb Hogan, a fish biologist at the University of Nevada, Reno, who has studied Mekong megafishes for more than two decades. “For fish that need free-flowing rivers to survive, this may be the death blow.”

Nam Sang’s Vietnamese developer, PetroVietnam, did not respond to National Geographic’s requests for comment about the project and its potential effects on wildlife. Satellite images show housing has been set up for work crews, but construction of the dam has not begun. (Learn more about how dams are constructed.)

Beyond the Mekong, large fish, dolphins, crocodiles, and other big freshwater animals are also threatened by new dams. Around the world, more than 3,400 major hydropower projects are either planned or under construction, and a big share of those are in biodiverse rivers in tropical regions, according to a recent study in the journal Biological Conservation led by Fengzhi He, a freshwater ecologist at the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Germany. It finds that the dams there will disproportionately affect the largest river animals.

If they’re built, says He, the dams “will add great uncertainties to the survival” of many freshwater species.

Adds Hogan, a study co-author, “it’s a pattern we’re seeing in other tropical rivers as well, like the Amazon and the Congo, but the Mekong is the poster child for this problem, with accelerating hydropower development driving extinction risk of some of the world’s most iconic animals.”

Mekong ghosts

Freshwater megafauna, loosely defined as species that weigh over 66 pounds on average, are among the most endangered animals on Earth. Global populations have declined by almost 90 percent since 1970—twice as much as the loss of vertebrate populations on land or in the oceans, according to a 2019 study in Global Change Biology.

Large fish, such as sturgeons, salmons, and giant catfishes, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, have experienced even higher declines, because of overfishing, pollution, and dams.

The Mekong River, which runs through six countries, has historically been home to more species of extremely large fish than any other river system in the world. But of the biggest found here, almost all are now critically endangered. Hogan, for example, hasn’t seen a Mekong giant catfish since 2015.

While China operates a cascade of dams in the Mekong River’s upper reaches—beyond the spawning grounds for many of the region’s megafishes—entangled politics in the Lower Mekong Basin and pressure from conservationists have helped stave off plans for mainstream developments to the south. (Read more about the controversies surrounding dams on the Mekong.)

Conservationists hoped new dams would follow the less-destructive model of two megadams that are already up and running on the Mekong’s main stem.

One, Don Sahong, was built where the Mekong branches into different channels, giving fish other passageways around the dam. At the other, the Thai-financed and constructed Xayaburi Dam, more than $300 million has been spent on efforts to help fish bypass it, including the installment of sophisticated fish ladders.

Conservationists had hoped “the investment at Xayaburi would be the gold standard, and all future dams would either meet, or exceed, the investment in facilities,” says Lee Baumgartner, a freshwater fish ecologist at Charles Sturt University in Sydney, who studies dam impacts in the Mekong. “But this is not the case. Not even close.”
Interrupted migration

Perhaps the best example of how dams can harm large fish is in China, where researchers declared in 2019 that the Chinese paddlefish, an ancient species capable of growing up to 23 feet long, had gone extinct. While overfishing of the paddlefish had been a problem, scientists concluded it was the Gezhouba Dam, built in the 1980s on the Yangtze River, that ultimately had caused its demise, by cutting the fish off from their only spawning grounds upstream.

“Typical impact assessments still focus on analyzing a small buffer around the construction site itself,” says Günther Grill, a geographer at Canada’s McGill University and a co-author on the recent study. What’s missing, he says, is bigger efforts by governments to find a location for a dam that won’t harm megafauna on a regional scale.

In addition to blocking fish movement, dams also alter the hydrological conditions from which migratory fish take their cues to feed and spawn. The Mekong River system is governed by a giant flood pulse that in the wet season can raise the river by as much as 40 feet. In recent years, however, that flood pulse has been disrupted by regional drought exacerbated by climate change and by China withholding water from its dams in the upper watershed, according to satellite data from the Stimson Center.

That data also show that in the past three years, water levels throughout the Mekong River system have reached historic lows. (Learn why Southeast Asia is building dams so quickly.)

“For fishes that have evolved to migrate at the onset of the flood pulse, this altered flow regime can create a timing mismatch between when fish actually migrate and the ideal environmental conditions for their offspring,” says National Geographic Explorer Aaron Koning, a University of Nevada, Reno, conservation ecologist who works with Hogan on a USAID project called Wonders of the Mekong to boost biodiversity and ecosystem health in the Lower Mekong.

“In this way,” he says, “dams not only affect the Mekong fish of today but affect the future of fish in the Mekong.”

Dolphin dilemma

If all the 3,400 proposed dams are built, more than 600 rivers longer than 60 miles would no longer be considered free-flowing, according to the study. Many large freshwater fish are highly migratory, and their ability to move along free-flowing rivers is essential to their survival. One of them is the Irrawaddy River in Myanmar, which is home to the endangered Irrawaddy dolphin and the critically endangered Ganges shark.

In the Amazon Basin, which is the most species-rich river in the world, there are more than 400 hydropower dams planned in various tributaries. Of particular concern are two river dolphin species, the tucuxi dolphin and the larger pink river dolphin, which were recently listed as endangered. (Read about Hogan’s search for the world’s megafishes.)

Although river dolphins don’t migrate the way many large fish do, they rely on migratory fish for food. Dams also threaten to box the dolphins into smaller populations, which can lead to inbreeding and a dilution of genetic diversity.

If all these dams are built, “we could be watching the same fate here as in Asia,” says Mariana Paschoalini, an ecologist with the Aqualie Institute in Juiz de Fora, Brazil, referring to the functional extinction of the baiji river dolphin in China’s Yangtze River in 2006.

For his part, Hogan says he hopes he won’t have to bear witness to the demise of the Mekong giant catfish and other river giants. There are some glimmers of hope. For instance, Cambodia recently announced a 10-year moratorium on the building of new dams on the main stem of the Mekong.

But, Hogan warns, “this is how extinctions play out. And if more dams are built in high biodiversity regions in the future, it’s likely to get worse.”

'It's time': Canadian women's soccer stars steadfast in pursuit of domestic league

John Molinaro

CBC SPORTS   

LONG READ

For Christine Sinclair, it was a day that was more than 21 years in the making.

Ever since debuting as a 16-year-old for the Canadian women's team in 2000, Sinclair aspired to lead her country to glory at the Olympics or the World Cup.

That dream was realized when teammate Julia Grosso's penalty kick sailed into the back of the net to seal Canada's victory over Sweden in the gold-medal match in Tokyo this summer. After winning back-to-back bronze medals, Sinclair had finally become an Olympic champion.

It was an amazing accomplishment for Canada's iconic captain, especially considering the path she took to ascend to the top of the medal podium.

Once a Canadian player makes her way through the youth ranks, she has no options to play professionally in her country, and must move abroad if she wants to pursue a professional career. Since 2013, Sinclair has played for the Portland Thorns of the U.S.-based National Women's Soccer League, which doesn't have any Canadian teams. Nearly half the members of the Olympic team played for European clubs. None of them earned a living at home.

Canada was ranked eighth in the world by FIFA ahead of the Tokyo Olympics, and rose to sixth after its gold medal win. But it is the only FIFA top 10-ranked country without a professional league.

Never one to make it all about herself or bask in self-adulation, Sinclair seized the moment in the immediate aftermath of Canada's victory over Sweden, using the platform granted her the opportunity to deliver her message as the entire country was watching.

"I hope we'll see some investment in the women's game. I think it's time Canada gets a professional league or some professional teams, and if a gold medal doesn't do that, nothing will. It's time for Canada to step up," Sinclair said in the post-match press conference.

More than 4.4 million viewers tuned into the Canada-Sweden match on CBC, making it the country's most-watched event of the Olympics.

Never before had the women's team garnered this level of attention. Several of Sinclair's teammates made the most of the opportunity and echoed her post-game sentiments, knowing full well that they had a captive audience who was eager to hear what they had to say after winning gold.

"We need to continue to push to have a professional league in Canada," goalkeeper Stephanie Labbé told The National's Ian Hanomansing. "The fact that we're Olympic champions and we don't have any professional teams in our home country is pretty unacceptable."

The complete lack of playing opportunities in Canada hits close to home for every member of the Canadian women's team, but especially Sinclair.

Except for a short stint with Vancouver Whitecaps FC, the 38-year-old native of Burnaby, B.C., has played the overwhelming majority of her professional career in the United States with FC Gold Pride, Western New York Flash and Portland Thorns of the NWSL after cutting her teeth at the NCAA level at the University of Portland.

Ever since Canada won the first of its back-to-back bronze Olympic medals in 2012, Sinclair has sought to inspire young girls across the country to become part of the next generation of players who will make up the Canadian national team.

"We're hoping that this platform will give us the opportunity to start that change and lead to Canadians who have the ability to make the difference to invest in women," Sinclair said upon her return home from Tokyo.

"The youngsters, the young little kids deserve to be able to go watch their heroes on a week-to-week basis, not just once every four years."

© Serena Morones/The Associated Press Christine Sinclair, seen playing for the Portland Thorns in May, hopes Canadian women's soccer's elevated platform following Olympic gold in Tokyo will further the conversation of a structured domestic league.

Retired midfielder Amy Walsh, who earned 102 caps for Canada from 1997 to 2009, feels a domestic league is long overdue in this country.

"We have to find a way to keep our players home, and keep the momentum going in terms of what's available to the grassroots players, both boys and girls," Walsh told CBC Sports. "That's how you grow interest in the game, and how you expand the player pool for the national team in the future."

While Sinclair and members of the current women's team have long advocated for a Canadian professional league, their tone has noticeably changed since bringing home the gold. Cognizant of their newfound leverage, the Canadian women have been more assertive in their messaging, and are no longer willing to passively hold out hope that things will soon change.

Katrina Galas, a women's sport strategy consultant at In Common Consulting, believes that's a good first step toward bringing a women's pro league to Canada.

"We need to change the narrative, whether it's through the media, through leadership, or through conversations, where it's evolving from what's deserved to what's possible," Galas said. "There's a lot of talk about the Canadian women's players deserving a league of their own, or that Canada deserves to have an NWSL club based on the success of our women's team. We're still in that space, and that's not the best value proposition to put out there.

"The narrative can't be about what's deserved, but rather what's possible based on the accomplishments of the women's team and the success they've had. Those things are very real and factual, so if the discussion is reframed and it becomes more about 'let's go get it' and less about 'we deserve it,' I think they can find more success in that."

Like Sinclair, Diana Matheson had to leave Canada to carve out a career as a pro soccer player. After playing at Princeton University, the diminutive midfielder went to Norway for a few years, and then turned out for the Washington Spirit and Utah Royals of the NWSL.

She retired earlier this year, calling time on a marvellous international career that saw her earn 206 career appearances for Canada (only Sinclair and Sophie Schmidt have more) and was highlighted by her winning goal in the bronze-medal game at the 2012 Olympics in London.

Although she is recognized as one of Canada's greatest players of all time, Matheson never had the chance to play professionally in her country.

"That part of my life story is not unique at all, and it is echoed by every single women's player in this country," Matheson said. "We've all had to go through it — after coming up through the youth ranks, we found out there's nothing there for us, and we had [to] go to school and play in the NCAA and then move on to play pro in Europe or the NWSL, and we only come back to Canada when we retire.

"But it shouldn't have to be that way. Let's build a Canadian league so that doesn't have to be the case anymore."

Laying groundwork for a domestic league

Since retiring, Matheson, a 37-year-old native of Oakville, Ont., has been pursuing an EMBA at Queen's University, and enrolled herself in the Executive Master for International Players program offered by UEFA, European soccer's governing body.

She's also been working closely with six other confidants, including former national team teammate Carmelina Moscato, to help bring a pro women's league to Canada.

On Dec. 9, Matheson and her working group met with Canada Soccer and tabled a proposal to work in partnership with the sport's governing body to help the advancement of the women's game in Canada.

"What we are working towards is creating a long-term plan for women's soccer in this country, and a long-term plan that builds towards a professional league," Matheson said. "Canada Soccer has done a good job supporting the women's team over the years, and now it's time to shift that focus on to the domestic game.

"It's not a question of whether a women's league could work. It can absolutely work. It's an exciting opportunity that we can build a league from scratch."

Matheson is hopeful that Canada Soccer will review her group's proposal and come back to them early next year and engage in more meaningful conversations to discuss working together, and then move things forward through 2022.

© Alex Goodlett/Getty Images Former national team midfielder Diana Matheson, who earned 206 career appearances for Canada, said the absence of a top domestic league has forced talented players to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Matheson's ultimate goal is to create a top-tier league that would attract members of the Canadian women's team, and serve as an alternative to the NWSL, although she admits it will take time for such a league to be a viable option for some of her former teammates to consider.

"We have to be realistic with where we are starting from and that it might take three to five years to be considered a top-tier league. Other leagues have been around a lot longer and built themselves up," she said. "But I'm confident we can get Canadian women's team players in from the beginning.

"There might be a point where players go to another league for more money or a bigger club in the world. So, are we going to get everybody? No. But I think we can certainly have national team talent in the league."

Launching a new professional sports league in Canada wouldn't be easy in the best of times, never mind when the country is still dealing with economic effects of the global pandemic. But such obstacles can be hurdled with the proper investment, something that Matheson firmly believes can happen if there is a plan and a commitment in place.

"There's so much data and research that's been done on women's professional soccer around the world, so we can use that data to inform what is going to be the governance and ownership model, and how to monetize the on-field product," Matheson said.

"The initial capital raise and the seed money to get this going for two or three years, I'm not concerned about it. I think we'll get investments and a few avenues there. The question around women's sport is year-over-year profitability. I think with a new league, we're talking about a five-to-seven or a seven-to-10-year horizon where you're making sure your clubs are independently financially stable."

Timing is the key, and the time has never appeared to be better, what with Canada winning gold in Tokyo.

"Let's capitalize on this momentum and start to build something at home. … Let's build something for Canadians by Canadians, and let's build something for women by women," Matheson said.

Canadian NWSL team the 1st step?

Nick Bontis, elected president of Canada Soccer a year ago, has said women's pro soccer in Canada is one of his top priorities. But he has also said a Canadian NWSL team is the first step.

"I'm willing to say I'll work my butt off to get an NWSL team in Canada," he said after his election win.

Sinclair, for one, agrees that should be the short-term goal.

"It seems like the easy logical step," she said in August. "It just takes some wealthy individuals within Canada willing to invest in women's soccer … Companies do that on the men's side all the time and are willing to lose millions of dollars."

Given the organizational structures already in place with the league, it seems more likely that Canada would get an NWSL expansion franchise before its own domestic, top-tier division.

Walsh, Matheson and others advocating for Canada to have its own pro league concede that point. But they also argue that having an NWSL team in Canada is only the first step.

"That might make sense because the infrastructure is there with the NWSL. … An NWSL team would be great for Canada. It's not a terrible idea. But I also think we can do better," Walsh said.

Matheson argues that "it's not an either-or situation" with regards to the NWSL putting a team in Canada vs. the country having its own pro league.

"Having an NWSL team in Canada would be a great addition to the sporting landscape, but it can't be the beginning and the end of the conversation," she said. "An NWSL club is only going to affect 12 Canadian players and few coaches. For us to build a system across the country, that's the job of a domestic league. So, I see room for both.

Matheson acknowledges that patience will be required. A new professional league in Canada simply isn't going to appear overnight.

"It's going to take a few years because we don't quite have all the systems and structures in place to start a new league next year. And even if we did, we'd probably be in trouble in five years because we'd be rushing into it," she said. "Let's plan this correctly, and driven by data and research, let's build it so it lasts.

"Measure three times and cut once.

ALBERTA

Level playing field? Coal miners, environmentalists wrangle over hearing costs


The battle over a coal mine in Alberta's southern Rocky Mountains continues to rage six months after the Grassy Mountain project was denied, as the company and its opponents wrangle over who pays costs for the hearing that turned the proposal down.

Benga Mining, on the hook for the costs, wants them trimmed drastically and claims some groups owe the company money.

Environmental groups say their costs finance essential public debate and add Benga's aggressive response makes it harder for those who question the claims of resource companies.

"Benga's attempt to impugn the motives of ... public interest interveners is wholly inaccurate, unfair and sets (a) nasty and confrontational tone," says a letter from the Timberwolf Conservation Society to the Alberta Energy Regulator, which rules on which costs Benga must pay.

Alberta law allows citizens appearing before regulators to apply to have their costs reimbursed by project proponents. The law is intended to make those who benefit from development pay the expense of ensuring it's done right.

In June, the regulator denied Benga Mining's application for the Grassy Mountain mine in Alberta's Crowsnest Pass, a rare refusal later echoed by the federal government, which was also involved in the review. Benga has appealed that decision.

Four environmental groups, a municipality, a First Nation and an individual have applied for a total of $1.3 million to try to recoup the costs of expert testimony, legal advice and research, the regulator says.

But Benga has the right to question the claims and is doing so. In a letter from lawyer Martin Ignasiak, the company suggests that those groups weren't constructive.

"Benga views the (assessment) procedure, and the (regulator's) costs regime, as processes intended to compliment (sic) a system that promotes collaborative efforts and constructive input, rather than one that encourages persistent intervention in opposition to any form of development," it says.

Benga says the groups are well-funded and used the Grassy hearings to raise more money. It throws doubt on the billings of lawyers and the value of reports filed by biologists, hydrologists and other environmental scientists. It points out some groups also received federal participant funding.

It asks the regulator to reduce the a claim from Livingstone Landowners Group — a coalition of local ranchers and landowners — by 61 per cent, to $150,000. It says the application from Timberwolf Conservation Society should be reduced 91 per cent to $8,200. It wants a claim from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society cut by 99 per cent, to $1,100.

Benga argues it shouldn't be charged for any of the Rural Municipality of Ranchlands' $185,000 claim. And its letter says, when advance funds granted to the Alberta Wilderness Association are taken into account, the group should pay the company back $2,300.

Ignasiak did not respond to a request for comment on his letter.

Normally, the regulator makes a decision on costs in about 90 days. Applicants in the Grassy Mountain hearing were still waiting after 250 days.

Delays make it harder for citizens to hire the expertise they need to study proposals, said Norma Dougall of the Livingstone landowners.

"The reimbursement program is designed to level the playing field, allowing small organizations like ours to participate in the hearing process vs. the large multinationals," she wrote in an email.

Other coal mine hearings are coming, she said.

"Our experts and lawyers need to get paid for their work and will be reluctant to engage with us again if they are not reimbursed."

Mike Sawyer, who appeared on behalf of Timberwolf, said delays and discounts on participant funding create an imbalance at public hearings.

"It creates a real disincentive for any professional to actually work for a member of the public because they know they're going to get screwed and they're going to have to wait for months before they get paid."

University of Calgary law professor Shaun Fluker, who has studied the regulator's history on cost awards, found that between 2004 and 2014 the Alberta Energy Regulator granted about 70 per cent of what was asked. Not all applicants were equal, he found.

"The amount that that cost claim was reduced by the regulator was significantly higher for folks I characterized as environmental scientists as opposed to an engineering report," he said.

Environmental scientists received about 60 per cent of what they asked for, Fluker found. Lawyers and engineers both got more than 80 per cent. Lawyers were the single largest expense, by far.

Alberta Energy Regulator spokeswoman Ottilie Coldbeck said in an email the Grassy Mountain hearings were unusually complex and it wasn't possible to meet the 90-day guideline.

"We do not know when a decision on the cost claims will be issued on the Benga Grassy Mountain hearing," she wrote.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 22, 2021

Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

Millionaire Manchin’s coal money behind his knifing of Build Back Better

December 21, 2021 

 BY JOHN WOJCIK

Coal baron: Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., killed the Build Back Bettter. | Andrew Harnik / AP

WASHINGTON—Joe Manchin has spewed reason after reason for killing President Biden’s signature Build Back Better plan on Fox News and elsewhere over the weekend, leaving out the real reason: Based on campaign contributions and on his personal millions of dollars in wealth, he is a creature of the dirty fossil fuel industry in the United States.

He has given, in the last two days, a host of other reasons behind his knifing of the bill.

Manchin says Democrats have refused to attach “work requirements” to social benefits in the bill. That explanation is particularly outrageous considering that the child tax credits in the current rescue package—which would be extended by the BBB bill—have allowed millions of women and men to return to work.

Melissa Parks, a resident in Chicago’s Wentworth Houses, has three children for each of whom she has been receiving $250, for a total of $750 each month since August. The money has allowed her to take care of her children and work full time since then for a local publishing company. The funds, under Biden’s recovery plan, would continue only if the BBB plan, now killed by Manchin, had passed. “I was able to buy clothing for the children to go back to school, she said, and to pay my rent and buy food. And then go to work full time.

“Now I simply will have not enough to pay rent and buy food. If I feed the children I have to go without. At best it will be packages of ramen noodles in my household.

Parks said she hasn’t fully figured out what to do but that she will try food banks at local churches.

Mancin cares nothing about people like Parks. What really bothers him about the bill is that it impacts his campaign contributors and his own personal wealth, is the section of the bill devoted to battling climate change. What Manchin really wants to kill the most is the bill’s provision to spend $555 billion to switch the country over to wind and solar power and away from fossil fuels, including and especially dirty coal.

His move confirms the fears of progressive congressional lawmakers that they would lose leverage if they approved the infrastructure bill before BBB. They were angry, but not surprised about Manchin’s announcement this past weekend. They point out that Manchin is the man who ran against President Obama’s climate change legislation in 2010 and got elected to the Senate on that platform.

Manchin pulled the typical Republican negotiating trick with the BBB plan. He forced the removal of parts of the bill that would impose penalties on electric utilities that continue to burn coal but, despite those concessions to him, killed the bill anyway.

Manchin has received more campaign money from oil, coal, and gas companies than any other member of the U.S. Senate. Democrats hoped that by substantially weakening penalties against those companies when they violate clean energy standards they could win Manchin’s support. He essentially told them where to go, however, as he announced his opposition to the bill despite those concessions.

Manchin’s talk that he was against penalties for fossil fuel companies but for incentives for clean energy turned out to be just another piece of what, from the beginning, has been bad faith negotiating on his part.

Other “moderate” Democrats who also opposed the bill but backed it in the House, figuring it would fail in the Senate anyway, are, of course, glad that Manchin is taking the beating that they too deserve. Nevertheless, the Biden administration and progressive lawmakers, under pressure from the mass movements in the country, are struggling to perhaps save certain pieces of the bill in smaller form.

Manchin reportedly met with Biden after the initial anger expressed by the White House, and some lawmakers are holding out hope that the $2 trillion bill could be further changed to meet Manchin’s demands.

So-called Democratic moderates are putting forward approaches that they actually preferred from the beginning, approaches far less sweeping than the BBB bill passed by the House and supported by the president. If a few of these elements end up becoming law, these moderates will no doubt try to claim credit for the popular ones when they face voters next year.

“At the start of these negotiations many months ago, we called for prioritizing doing a few things well for longer, and we believe that adopting such an approach could open a potential path forward for this legislation,” Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., the chair of the “moderate” New Democrat Coalition, said in a statement. “Failure is not an option.”

Despite having condemned Manchin for killing the bill, it is clear the White House would be happy to settle for compromises.

White House chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted DelBene’s statement with praise. Facing unanimous Republican opposition, Democrats need all 50 of their caucus members in the evenly split Senate to support the legislation, or it is certain to fail.

“Just as Senator Manchin reversed his position on Build Back Better this morning, we will continue to press him to see if he will reverse his position yet again, to honor his prior commitments and be true to his word,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said.

Despite all the speculation about compromises, it is clear that the bill is dead, at least for now.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the chamber will vote “very early in the new year” on a changed bill, indicating that he has not totally given up on some type of “compromise.”

“We are going to vote on a revised version of the House-passed Build Back Better Act—and we will keep voting on it until we get something done,” he said.

Democrats see passage of something as critical to their chances in the 2022 midterms.

Millions have just received their last checks of up to $300 per child in tax credits. Unless BBB is passed, there will be no January child aid checks, causing catastrophic results for families that have survived because of those credits. The child tax credit checks have lifted millions of children out of poverty and have allowed mothers and fathers to return to work.

Manchin has been vocal about his reservations about a large social safety net bill throughout the negotiations, prompting House progressives to insist on paring it with the bipartisan infrastructure law. The two bills were unlinked last month after Biden and party leaders pushed to pass the transportation measure.

As the initial anger at Manchin wore off, numerous Democrats sought to take the optimistic view, grabbing on to his hint that he could be open to a restructured package even as he continues lying by saying his chief concerns are, not his personal wealth, but inflation and adding to the national debt.

Progressive anger erupts after Manchin kills Build Back Better

CONTRIBUTOR
John Wojcik is Editor-in-Chief of People's World. He joined the staff as Labor Editor in May 2007 after working as a union meat cutter in northern New Jersey. There, he served as a shop steward, as a member of a UFCW contract negotiating committee, and as an activist in the union's campaign to win public support for Wal-Mart workers. In the 1970s and '80s, he was a political action reporter for the Daily World, this newspaper's predecessor, and was active in electoral politics in Brooklyn, New York.

We are in the ‘Hunger Games’-era of American history

John Stoehr

RAW STORY
December 21, 2021

Joe Manchin on Facebook.

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin said Sunday he opposes the president’s Build Back Better bill, the second of two infrastructure packages the Democrats have been negotiating for months. (The first one, focused on “traditional” infrastructure, was enacted last month.)



The news is moving fast. Negotiations appear to be ongoing. To get a better idea of what’s going on, I talked to Monique Judge. She was until recently the news editor for The Root. I asked Monique if Manchin’s surprise announcement made any sense, politically or practically.

Monique Judge: I think on some level, it was expected that Manchin would pull a stunt like this. When questioned about why he did it, his answers don't make sense. He said he was at his "wit's end" but when asked to elaborate, his responses trended on the "they know what they did" thing. NBC News asked if he felt there was still a place for him in the Democratic party. His response: “I would like to hope there are still Democrats who think like I do. I'm fiscally responsible and socially compassionate. Now, if there are no Democrats like that, then they’ll have to push me where they want me." LOL. Bye, Joe

JS: Rachel Bitecofer, the political scientist and data expert, told me this about Manchin’s opposition this morning: "It makes perfect sense to Manchin, who is the last Democrat serving in a realigning West Virginia, which broke for Donald Trump by 35 points in 2020. Manchin will need to win 20 points’ worth of Republican voters to hold his seat in 2024, in a presidential election cycle. That is pretty hard." Thoughts?

MJ: If that’s the case, Manchin is playing a very long game that may not yield the results he’s looking for. And then what? Siding with the GOP is one thing, but attempting to manipulate the people through political machinations would leave a sour taste in people's mouths. After the win, then what? You begin supporting Democratic legislation again? Even with that being a reason, it still is hard to make sense of it.


JS: In your view, does Manchin want a deal at all?

MJ: It's hard to say. It was reported that he went to Biden last week with an outline of his own, which the press secretary said mirrored a lot of the president's plan. If he went to the trouble to create that, you’d think he would follow through. If there are major parts he disagrees with, he could state those plainly and have an alternative solution. At the end of the day, the work still needed to get done. He didn't do that. This is some sort of weird power play. It's hard to say where he is going with it or if he wants to get the work done.

JS: Schumer vows to bring a vote to the Senate floor early next month. The idea is showing Manchin Republicans aren't going to show up the way Manchin says they will show up. If that doesn't work, should Democrats whittle down the BBB even more to satisfy him?

MJ: First of all, Congress needs to stop playing these petty-ass games of one upmanship. It's all ego. It’s not doing anything to help the millions suffering. Enough is enough already with that bullshit.

Second, absolutely not. The bill was already missing major parts that could help, including student loan debt relief – which a lot of people are still calling for. Whittling it down even more would render it almost useless as far as providing relief to Americans struggling and suffering.

JS: There’s an assumption that passing something, anything, is better than passing nothing. That presumes something else: that this legislation is a winner for the Democrats in next year’s midterms.

MJ: I don't know if this is a winner. If anything, I think it could make it harder for some Democrats, because their constituents will see them as not having fought hard enough for the right things. And I don't know if passing "something" is better than passing "nothing." What "something" doesn't help the people? Is that still a good thing?


READ: Watch: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unloads on Joe Manchin for killing Build Back Better bill

JS: I'm not sure policy is going to reach swing voters the way some moderate Democrats say it's going to reach swing voters.

MJ: Republicans do whatever they can to sabotage Democratic stuff. They do anything to push their agendas. Democrats seem to want to simultaneously "play nice" and also wag their fingers at naughty Republicans. If Democrats played the game the same way, they could probably get some gains. The time for turning the other cheek is over. It only gets your ass kicked. There is no "fair" when lives are at stake.

JS: My thinking is that Biden needs to get more strident.

MJ: I would agree. He's the president after all. He needs to pull his presidential boxers up and start being more resolute with everyone, Democrats included. For Manchin’s part, he needs to do what he was elected to do: put the needs of the American people before his own.

JS: What could Biden say that would make you cheer?

MJ: He could say he wants to relieve student debt. He could say he wants to uplift the poorer classes. He could say he’s determined to dismantle the carceral system and come up with alternatives to reduce the disproportionate impact on communities of color. He could say he stands behind the federal decriminalization of cannabis.

JS: What’s your sense of hope for the future right now? One to 10?

MJ: It’s a three. We're doomed.

The climate is destroyed. Our economy is unbalanced. People can't afford basic needs. No one seems to want to do anything about it. We have billionaires spending their money going to the front porch of space (not actual space, mind you) instead of giving back to the communities that help keep their bloated businesses afloat. We have a global pandemic that doesn't seem to be going away soon. It has turned us all into one gigantic human science experiment. We are literally waiting to find out which petri dish we are on. Scary times.

JS: Do you have any hope that the Democrats will find courage?

MJ: Only with new blood. The old-timers who don't seem to want to retire are stifling progress, I think. Again, they want to play things "fair" and "by the rules" when we have now entered the Hunger Games-era of US history. The rules don't apply. We read the book. We saw the movie. But we didn’t think it could happen to us. Now here we are.

JS: Monique, many thanks for chatting with me today.

MJ: Thank you for asking me!

John Stoehr is a fellow at the Yale Journalism Initiative; a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly; a contributing editor for Religion Dispatches; and senior editor at Alternet. Follow him @johnastoehr.

Mitch McConnell Tries to Lure Joe Manchin to GOP to Become Majority Leader Once More

BY DARRAGH ROCHE ON 12/22/21 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Tuesday that Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) would be welcome in the Republican Party following his announcement that he's a "no" on the Build Back Better Act.

While criticizing the "vitriol" directed at Manchin by some in the Democratic Party, McConnell suggested the West Virginia senator could find a new home in the GOP.

McConnell's comments are significant at a time when Manchin is at odds with President Joe Biden and the Democrats and while the Senate is evenly divided between the parties.

The Kentucky Republican told Fox News' The Guy Benson Show on Tuesday that Manchin had done the country a "favor" by apparently killing the $1.75 trillion Build Back Better Act.

Manchin told Fox News Sunday that he was a "no" on the bill after months of negotiations and conflict between moderate and progressive Democrats.

Though a final vote hasn't taken place, without Manchin's support Build Back Better will likely fail to pass.

McConnell said he was "shocked at the vitriol" aimed at Manchin. The White House issued a strong statement about Manchin's Fox News appearance, suggesting he had gone back on his word.

"Basically it seemed to me that they were calling Senator Manchin a liar. I think that was not smart. This is a 50/50 Senate. It's going to be 50/50 for another year, and believe me, this is not how I would handle a disappointing vote like that," McConnell said.

"He doesn't fit well over there, but that is a decision ultimately that he has to make. We certainly welcome him to join us if he was so inclined," he said.

The Senate is currently made up of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. If Manchin were to change parties, it would alter the balance of power and give the GOP enough seats to make McConnell Senate Majority Leader again. He previously served in that position from January in 2015 to January in 2021.

McConnell isn't alone in calling on Manchin to switch parties, with at least four other GOP senators including Ted Cruz of Texas and Tom Cotton of Arkansas publicly discussing the possibility in recent comments.

While Manchin changing party would have huge national significance, the senator has long resisted suggestions that he should join the Republicans despite factors that appear to point in that direction.

He is considered a moderate or conservative Democrat and represents a state that has been solidly Republican in presidential elections since 2000. Nonetheless, in October he dismissed rumors that he was considering leaving the Democratic Party because of the price tag of the Build Back Better Act.

"It's bulls**t," Manchin told CNN's Manu Raju at the time. "I have no control of rumors."

Manchin also told CNN's Ali Zaslav that he had thought about becoming an independent who caucuses with Democrats, like Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but he had never considered switching to the GOP.

On Monday, Manchin appeared to address his future in the Democratic Party.

"I would like to hope there are still Democrats who think like I do. I'm fiscally responsible and socially compassionate. Now, if there are no Democrats like that, then they'll have to push me where they want me," he said.

Republican attempts to lure Manchin to their side of the aisle may not succeed, but could still be a cause of concern for Democrats as they struggle to maintain a precarious majority and pass President Biden's agenda.

'Green light for extremists': Columnist argues Trump's GOP has mainstreamed anti-Semitism

Bob Brigham
December 22, 2021

Elizabeth Preza, AlterNet

Donald Trump's Republican Party tolerates anti-Semitism, but America doesn't have to go along with it, according to a new Daily Beast column.

"Why does America tolerate the GOP’s blatant anti-Semitism?" columnist Wajahat Ali asked. "I again asked this question after listening to former President Trump’s unabashed anti-Semitism on fully display during an interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid. Here, Trump invoked the hateful “dual loyalty” trope, saying, “I’ll tell you, the Evangelical Christians love Israel more than the Jews in this country,” and complaining that The New York Times hates Israel in the same breath that he said the newspaper is run by Jews."

Ali argued that GOP conspiracy theories are "just a lousy remake of the Elders of the Protocols of Zion."

READ: Ron DeSantis in hot seat after top aide pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theory

"They’ve even updated the blood libel conspiracy for the modern era. The conservatives aligned with QAnon believe liberals are part of an international cabal of sex traffickers who bear the “mark of the beast,” and kidnap, molest and kill children," he explained. "And so these conspiracies persist and flourish, radicalizing the likes of Ashili Babbitt, who showed up at the US Capitol on Jan. 6 committed to unleashing 'the storm,' a QAnon codeword for violence, before being shot and killed by a Capitol police officer."

Ali explained how Republicans have a multi-part plan to avoid being labeled as anti-Semitic.

"Despite all this evidence of blatant antisemitism, Republicans nonetheless have been able to avoid being labeled antisemitic despite bathing in it nearly every day though a simple five-step plan: 1) Deny, 2) Project, 3) Deflect — those first three steps, by the way, are straight out of Roger Stone’s “rules” to “Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack” — 4) Praise Israel, and 5) Attack Ilhan Omar," he wrote.

Ali warned the GOP's position will result in more violence.

"Everyone has moved on from Trump’s latest antisemitic outburst because the zone is indeed flooded with shit, but our communities can’t afford to brush it off, laugh, refer to it as a 'trip up,' or be complacent. These hateful words, mainstreamed, praised and promoted by our elected officials, are a green light for extremists to “stand back and stand by” as they prepare to unleash violence against fellow Americans," Ali wrote. "The GOP’s antisemitism is fuel for their fire, and silence and apathy makes people into complicit co-arsonists."

READ: Virginia GOP shredded for 'classic and blatant' anti-Semitism against Jewish Democratic incumbent

Read the full column.

BEHING PAYWALL

Stop calling the GOP fascists 'hypocrites': No one cares -- and they have no shame

Chauncey Devega, Salon
December 22, 2021

Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson (Screenshot)

A healthy democracy, in America or anywhere else, must be based upon shared assumptions about empirical reality, facts and truth. Today's Republican Party and other "conservatives" reject such basic principles, norms and values.

Fascism, which lies at the core of contemporary Republican politics, is the mind-killer: It is anti-intellectual, anti-rational and anti-human. Fascism also seeks to annihilate the world as it actually exists and replace it with a fantasy world created by the fascist movement and its leader.

Too many liberals and progressives in this hour of darkness cling to the misguided belief that their core values about reason, democracy, human rights and civil rights are effectively universal, and so compelling that Republicans and others on the right must share them to a large degree. This collective narcissism may doom us all.

Many members of the media class obsessively complain and protest — in a mixture of performative shock and sincere disbelief — that Republicans are "hypocrites" who have "double standards" and constantly tell lies. This is also a willful decision to avoid the truth.

To cite a recent example, it is now publicly known that on Jan. 6, Fox News personalities, including Brian Kilmeade, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, texted White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, pleading with him to persuade Donald Trump to stop his followers from attacking the Capitol. Yet within hours or days, these propagandists were telling their viewers that Trump's attack force actually comprised "leftist radicals" — members of antifa, "Black Lives Matter or similar groups. Or, alternatively, that the Capitol attackers were genuine patriots and heroes — or simply "tourists."

On cue, Democrats and the mainstream commentariat lambasted Fox News for its supposed hypocrisy and for allegedly insulting its audience. And of course, once this news hit the headlines, the Fox hosts involved changed their stories, blatantly lying about what their texts to Meadows had said. Hannity, Ingraham and Kilmeade pledged their loyalty once again to Donald Trump — out of fear, shared by all members of his cult following, that he might order them purged for disloyalty.

RELATED: Text-gate fallout: Hannity, Ingraham and Don Jr. unveiled as whiny MAGA wimps!

This is all part of a much larger and very tedious pattern, in which many liberals and Democrats express amazement that Republican political leaders and propagandists say one thing in private and something opposite in public. There also continues to be considerable consternation and awe at the power of Trump's Big Lie and his followers' unwavering dedication to it.

Even after decades, many people still seem stunned by the Republican Party and the broader right's unwavering hostility toward science and expertise, their cultlike behavior and rejection of reality, their willingness to embrace conspiracy theories and religious extremism, their deepening attraction to fascism and authoritarianism and a range of related antisocial behavior.

These habitual complaints about Republican hypocrisy function as a script or narrative frame that dominates much mainstream American political commentary. The indictment has lost almost all its power, except among a small niche audience of those who have convinced themselves that "democratic norms" still apply to the Republicans. When the average American is told that the Republicans are hypocrites, the common (and largely understandable) response is: "So what?" To make that accusation against politicians is the equivalent of observing that water is in fact wet.

But for those in the chattering class who wield such words it has the imagined power of a religious invocation: God's judgment is called down to punish the "hypocrite" who has transgressed against the democratic order and its supposed commitment to truth and facts. In the world of realpolitik — and a country under siege by a fascist movement — such holy words have lost their power. If there is a deity who cares about such things, that deity abandoned the American people a long time ago.

But there is another more basic explanation for why Democrats and others committed to reason, truth and democracy continue to believe they can find common ground with Republicans. That explanation is rooted in fear.

Today's Republican Party and conservative movement has shown itself to be sociopathic and sadistic. It evinces no belief in a moral code or set of values that could be leveraged to create feelings of shame or embarrassment. Winning and keeping political power is all that matters; domination and control are the sole raison d'être.

Most people who identify with the Democratic Party, and most Americans overall, are terrified of that fact and continue to deny it, believing — or pretending to believe — that Republicans will return to the realm of "normal" politics sooner or later.

In a conversation with Salon earlier this year, Dr. Justin Frank, a physician and psychoanalyst who is the author of "Donald Trump on the Couch," explained the roots of such reasoning:
Most people do not want to believe that a person could be as destructive and evil as Donald Trump. That fact changes their worldview and their fantasies about life having a happy ending. The fantasy is that we are all protected, we are all going to be safe, which is a very childlike way of thinking. This is why many people do not want to acknowledge what Trump really is: They do not want to face the fact that Donald Trump, in my opinion, has shown himself to be a psychopath.

Similarly Dr. John Gartner, a former professor at the Johns Hopkins medical school and a contributor to the bestseller "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President," offered this context in an interview earlier this year:

In a way, we as a society have been so protected and privileged, and lived such a life of peace and sanity, that we don't believe that the dystopian science fiction that we are living today in America is actually happening. There's a certain default option of normality. Nobody wants to give up that default assumption that we are still living in a world of facts and sanity.

White America does not have either the historic memory or contemporary experience that comes from living under that kind of power, or struggling against it. For many people, therefore, the default impulse is to deny or ignore the existential danger embodied by American fascism, or simply hide from it in terror.

RELATED: Dr. John Gartner on America after Trump: "Dystopian science fiction is actually happening"

Fascism is viewed by many Americans — mostly but not entirely meaning white Americans — as something that occurs "over there" as opposed to arising here at home. Black Americans, of course, had a dramatically different historical experience, surviving and defeating domestic fascism in the form of chattel slavery and then the regime of Jim and Jana Crow white supremacy.

Many heirs to the Black Freedom Struggle are not especially surprised by the ascent of American neofascism in the Age of Trump. Moreover, Black Americans and other marginalized groups are uniquely "gifted" in terms of their ability to comprehend such evil and ultimately to outlast and defeat it. Others would be wise to learn from them.

What should those who are genuinely committed to saving American democracy do in this moment of escalating crisis? Most important of all, they must not abandon their core values. That amounts to surrender. Liberals, progressives and other pro-democracy forces must instead embrace a new maturity by confronting the political battlefield (and the larger world) as it exists, not as they wish it to be.

Over the last few years, I have come to this conclusion: What many Democrats, liberals and progressives of a certain type —comfortable, middle-class and predominantly white — want from the Republicans and conservatives is an apology. They seem to expect a rueful admission that fascism was not supposed to "happen here," and an expression of regret that the democratic bargain has been broken and betrayed.

In this fantasy, first comes the collective schadenfreude and satisfaction of seeing both the leaders and followers of the Republican Party admit they were wrong. Second comes an expression of repentance and a kind of conversion experience, in which Republicans and their followers come back to reason and fully commit themselves to "normal" social and political behavior.

In reality, no such apology will be forthcoming, nor will there be any ritual penitence. Republicans and their allies are dedicated to their cause. They believe themselves to be just and noble, and moreover to be righteous victims of oppression who are on the correct side of history. They will never admit defeat. They will never repent. To an increasing degree, they are willing to die or kill for their cause.

Do Democrats and their allies want to be "right" on questions of principle and to keep on complaining in sanctimonious terms about hypocrisy and lies and the violation of so-called norms and institutions? Or do they want to win power and keep it, and by doing so save the unfinished experiment of American democracy from descending into fascism? The answer to that question will help to shape the future of American democracy.

 

U.S. military-industrial complex sees war as shortcut to profits

Source

People's Daily Online

Editor

Wang Xinjuan

Time

2021-12-22 

By Zhong Sheng

Over the years, U.S. military expenditure has continuously hit record highs while the country's fiscal deficit worsened, behind which lies the strong influence of the country's military-industrial complex.

Throughout the U.S. history, its military-industrial complex, a mighty interest group, has repeatedly manipulated the country's political decision-making and seen wars as a shortcut to profits, prompting the U.S. government to cause one catastrophe after another in the world.

War is big business for the U.S., as Peter Kuznick, a history professor at the American University in the U.S., put it sharply.

To create inelastic demand for arms trade, the U.S. military-industrial complex has been bent on pushing U.S. foreign policy toward wars and conflicts.

“The U.S., driven by political-corporate greed, robbed Afghanistan of stability and tranquility for two decades,” said an article published on the website of Pakistan Observer.

In the Afghan war where loss is reckoned in lives, the only winner is the U.S. military-industrial complex, the article pointed out.

“The decisions to start and sustain wars are thus shaped by people with vested interests in extending the war as long as possible,” the article continued.

The five biggest U.S. defense contractors—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman—acquired as much as $2.02 trillion from the U.S. government’s funding for the war in Afghanistan, according to the Security Policy Reform Institute, an independent think tank in the U.S.

The fact that U.S. top weapon companies grabbed huge profits from the war in Afghanistan mirrors the age-old special existence of the military-industrial complex in the U.S.

During World War II, a structural connection between the giant war machine of the U.S. and the country’s economic system was forged and a huge interest group composed of the U.S. military, military industrial enterprises, politicians, and scientific research institutions took shape.

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government,” warned former U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower in his farewell speech delivered in 1961.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” Eisenhower added.

However, in the following decades, the influence of the military-industrial complex hasn’t been curbed, but penetrated deeply into the decision-making process of the U.S.

General Dynamics got off to a good start this year; although the world becomes more and more dangerous for mankind, the company has seen a good sign of stable demands, said Phebe Novakovic, chairman of General Dynamics, in April. Her remarks revealed that the U.S. military-industrial complex is actually composed of a bunch of vultures.

It is no secret that U.S. military industry companies spend large sums of money on lobbying U.S. politicians, donating money to their election campaigns and funding the so-called policy experts to ensure policies are in their favor.

Representatives from military industry companies have also frequently taken advantage of the “revolving door” to hold a position in key decision-making departments.

Statistics suggest that more than 4,000 military-industrial complex lobbies are active in today’s U.S. political arena.

The military-industrial complex can not only make sure that its own interests are not affected by changes of government, but can often prevent government from making decisions that may shrink its slice of the cake, even if these decisions are in line with the public interest.

The U.S. government has unrestrainedly provided resources for arms dealers, sacrificing investment in its public goods and increasing the risks of wars, which has done itself and others no good, commented Erica Fein, the Senior Washington Director of American anti-war coalition Win Without War.

To ensure strong demands for arms trade, the U.S. military-industrial complex has continuously incited the government to create imaginary enemies, never hesitating to arouse people’s fear and stirring up trouble.

The U.S. is searching for enemies around the world under the guise of safeguarding national security and promoting democracy and freedom, of which one of the drivers is the interests of the military-industrial complex, as American observers noted.

If it had not been the Russians, the U.S. would have devised some other rivals to replace them as a justification for its military aggression, George Kennan, who formulated the U.S. containment policy toward the Soviet Union, said in a speech in his later years.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has successively launched the Kosovo War, the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and many other wars, in which American arms dealers have made a great fortune.

For a long time, the U.S. military-industrial complex has repeatedly packaged wars as a proper option for U.S. foreign policy in a bid to pursue its own benefit, which has caused endless pain for people in other countries and led to turmoil and unrest in the world.

Such consequences make people around the world couldn’t help but wonder: What the U.S. has done to shoulder the international responsibilities it has kept talking about? How has it safeguarded the human rights it always spouts off about? Where is the so-called democracy that it couldn’t stop boasting about?

(Zhong Sheng is a pen name often used by People’s Daily to express its views on foreign policy and international affairs.)

 

Celebrations in Damascus and Aleppo on UNESCO’s inscription of Qudud al-Halabiya on World Heritage list- Video

16 December، 2021

Celebrations in Damascus and Aleppo on UNESCO’s inscription of Qudud al-Halabiya on World Heritage list

The Qudūd Ḥalabīya literally “musical measures of Aleppo” are traditional Syrian songs combining lyrics in Classical Arabic based on the poetry of Al-Andalus.

 

Nature-Based Solutions Should Play Increased Role in Tackling Climate Change

Working with nature and enhancing the role of ecosystems can help reduce the impacts of climate change and increase climate change resilience according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) report.

December 22, 2021 by European Environmental Agency 

Climate change, biodiversity loss and degradation of ecosystems are linked and all have devastating consequences for our economic and social stability, health and well-being. Working with nature is increasingly recognised as an efficient way to tackle these growing challenges, according the new EEA report ‘Nature-based solutions in Europe: Policy, knowledge and practice for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

The EEA report provides up-to-date information for policymakers on the how to apply nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction and at the same time making use of multiple societal benefits that these solutions can bring. Drawing on selected examples across Europe, the report shows how impacts of extreme weather and climate-related events are already tackled in this way. It also assesses global and European policies and how nature-based solutions are increasingly being integrated in the efforts to shift towards sustainable development.

The EU’s 2030 biodiversity strategy, a key pillar of the European Green Deal, includes a nature restoration plan that can boost the uptake of nature-based solutions. Nature-based solutions are also highlighted in the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change that was recently adopted by the European Commission.

How nature can protect us

Many countries are already restoring nature in river valleys and uplands to reduce downstream flooding risks. In coastal regions, natural vegetation helps to stabilise coastlines, while re-forestation is increasingly used for storing carbon. Nature is also brought back into cities by greening urban spaces or reopening old canals or rivers, which increases resilience to heatwaves and brings additional health and wellbeing benefits. Despite their increasing prominence, nature-based solutions could be mainstreamed further, the report notes.

Other key findings of the report

• An EU-wide mapping of existing and potential nature-based solutions can help to identify priority areas for enhancing ecosystem services and addressing climate change and biodiversity loss concerns.

• Agreed standards, quantitative targets, measurable indicators and evaluation tools for nature-based solutions at EU level can help to assess progress, effectiveness and multiple benefits.

• As nature-based solutions depend on healthy ecosystems, which are themselves vulnerable to climate change, their potential for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction may decline in the future.

• Stakeholder involvement, dialogue and co-design of tools and measures are key to increase awareness, to resolve potential stakeholders’ conflicts and to create social acceptance and demand for nature-based solutions.

• Further implementation of nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe requires development of technical standards, increased knowledge of potential trade-offs, collaborative governance, capacity building and sufficient funding.