Monday, April 04, 2022

DECRIMINALIZE DRUGS!

'We will be forced to steal': Taliban bans poppy cultivation

Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of opium poppies, the sap of which is used to produce heroin, in an industry that accounts for tens of thousands of jobs and a substantial proportion of the country's GDP. But now, the ruling Taliban has said it plans to put an end to poppy cultivation, leaving farmers fearing for their future in a country whose economy is in freefall.

Crisis of Capitalism
Compendium of Applied Economics

(Global Capitalism)

Series:
Studies in Critical Social Sciences, Volume: 34
Author: Luciano Vasapollo
Translator: Barbato Alessandra

This book is a compendium of a comprehensive treatise of applied economics published in Italian by Jaca Books in 2007. It includes a number of changes and updates, and a new section on the contradictory relation of capital to nature, intrinsic to...See More

Copyright Year: 2012
E-Book (PDF)
Availability: Published ISBN: 978-90-04-21033-2Publication Date: 28 Oct 2011
Hardback
Availability: Published ISBN: 978-90-04-21032-5Publication Date: 28 Oct 2011
Prices from (excl. VAT):
€116.00$146.00
View PDF Flyer

UK

Channel 4 ‘disappointed’ as Government proceeds with privatisation plans

The channel is currently owned by the Government and receives its funding from advertising.

Channel 4 ‘disappointed’ as Government’s proceeds with privatisation plans (Ian West/PA)

By Naomi Clarke, PA Entertainment Reporter
April 04 2022

Channel 4 has said it is “disappointed” at the Government’s decision to proceed with plans to privatise the broadcaster without “formally recognising the significant public interest concerns which have been raised”.

The Government, which currently owns the channel, has been consulting on whether to privatise the broadcaster following concerns for its survival in the streaming era.

A statement by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport said it had made the decision to allow the channel to “thrive in the face of a rapidly-changing media landscape” while a Government source said the move would “remove Channel 4’s straitjacket”.

A statement by Channel 4 said: “With over 60,000 submissions to the Government’s public consultation, it is disappointing that today’s announcement has been made without formally recognising the significant public interest concerns which have been raised.

“Channel 4 has engaged in good faith with the Government throughout the consultation process, demonstrating how it can continue to commission much-loved programmes from the independent sector across the UK that represent and celebrate every aspect of British life as well as increase its contribution to society, while maintaining ownership by the public.”

The channel explained that it presented the Government with an alternative to privatisation that would “safeguard its future financial stability” and allow it to do more for the public, creative industries and the economy.

The channel’s chief executive Alex Mahon also said in an internal email to staff on Monday that they had proposed a “vision for the next 40 years” which was rooted in “continued public ownership” and “built upon the huge amount of public value this model has delivered to date and the opportunity to deliver so much more in the future”.

However, she added that ultimately the ownership of the channel was for the “Government to propose and Parliament to decide” and that her priority now was to “look after all of you and the wonderful Channel 4 spirit”.

The broadcaster said that it will continue to engage with the Government during the legislative process and plans to do everything it can to “ensure that Channel 4 continues to play its unique part in Britain’s creative ecology and national life”.

No price tag has been set by the Government yet, but reports suggest the channel could be sold for as much as £1 billion in a process that could take several months, with the proposals needing to pass through both the House of Commons and Lords.

Channel 4 was founded in 1982 to deliver to under-served audiences and currently receives its funding from advertising.

Channel 4 CEO Alex Mahon (Yui Mok/PA)

In a statement, a DCMS spokesperson said: “Following an extensive consultation on the future ownership of Channel 4, the Culture Secretary has come to a decision and is now consulting with Cabinet colleagues.

“We want Channel 4 to flourish and thrive in the face of a rapidly-changing media landscape. It holds a cherished place in our broadcasting landscape and we want that to remain the case.

“We set out our preferred option for a change of ownership to give the corporation new freedoms to innovate and grow while continuing to make an important economic, social and cultural contribution to the UK. We will announce further details shortly.”

Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries added in a tweet that she wanted the broadcaster to remain a “cherished place in British life”, but felt that government ownership was “holding Channel 4 back from competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon”.

She added: “I will seek to reinvest the proceeds of the sale into levelling up the creative sector, putting money into independent production and creative skills in priority parts of the country – delivering a creative dividend for all.”

Other ministers have not been as supportive of the announcement, with Tory MP Sir Peter Bottomley saying he opposes the privatisation as he feels it is “bad for the diversity of television, bad for viewers and bad for independent producers”.

While Labour’s shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell described the move as “cultural vandalism”.

She said: “Selling off Channel 4, which doesn’t cost the tax-payer a penny anyway, to what is likely to be a foreign company, is cultural vandalism. It will cost jobs and opportunities in the North and Yorkshire, and hit the wider British creative economy.

“This shows that the Conservatives have run out of ideas and run out of road. Of all the issues the public wants action on, the governance of Channel 4 isn’t one.

“The government should have a laser like focus on the cost of living crisis, and help people with their bills, not be fiddling around like this for ideological reasons.”

John McVay, chief executive of the trade body Pact – which represents UK independent production companies, added that he felt privatising the channel was “unnecessary” and risked damaging the UK’s TV and film production industry.

He explained: “Unlike other broadcasters, it makes none of its programmes in-house – but a private owner could shift production away from independent producers to cut costs, with a knock-on impact on the wider industry.

“Selling it off now risks reducing the opportunities for independent producers, and reducing the amount of programming commissioned outside London – levelling down, not levelling up. It isn’t too late for the Government to think again.”

Philippa Childs, the head of the broadcasting, entertainment, communications and theatre union, described the action as a “short-sighted sale of an incredible UK asset”.

She added: “This cynical move prioritises the interests of shareholders ahead of public service and ignores myriad responses to the Government’s consultation, and vehement opposition from the industry.

“The Government is yet to present any evidence that a change in ownership would benefit both Channel 4 or the public.

“Bectu condemns this short sighted and destructive move that deals a major blow to the UK’s creative sector, the creative economy and jobs of UK freelancers. With the creative industries amongst the hardest hit by the pandemic, and continuing to face a chronic skills shortage, there is no worse time to introduce such uncertainty, particularly for independent producers.”

Cultural vandalism claim
£1 billion Channel 4 privatisation splits opinion

Terry Murden, Editor | April 4, 2022
Follow Daily Business on LinkedIn

Channel 4 news team

Channel 4 will be privatised before the next general election in a move that will raise £1 billion for the Treasury but has prompted claims from Labour of “cultural vandalism”.

The biggest privatisation in nine years has also been greeted with disappointment by Channel 4 itself which said it would nonetheless “continue to engage” with the Government to “ensure that Channel 4 continues to play its unique part in Britain’s creative ecology and national life”.

It added that the government had not formally recognised “the significant public interest concerns which have been raised.”

Channel 4, which yesterday announced that former Kingfisher CEO Sir Ian Cheshire as its next chairman, said it had presented the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with an alternative to privatisation that would safeguard its future financial stability, “allowing it to do significantly more for the British public, the creative industries and the economy, particularly outside London.”

It argues that this is particularly important “given that the organisation is only two years into a significant commitment to drive up its impact in the UK’s Nations and Regions.”

Channel 4 is relocating its head office to Leeds and has opened one of two creative hubs in Glasgow.

It continued: “Channel 4 remains legally committed to its unique public-service remit. The focus for the organisation will be on how we can ensure we deliver the remit to both our viewers and the British creative economy across the whole of the UK.

“The proposal to privatise Channel 4 will require a lengthy legislative process and political debate. We will of course continue to engage with DCMS, Government and Parliament, and do everything we can to ensure that Channel 4 continues to play its unique part in Britain’s creative ecology and national life.”

Ministers argue that government ownership of Channel 4 is “holding it back” and that a sale will create a “creative dividend” which will play a part in the levelling up agenda.

A source said the channel will remain a public service broadcaster in the same way that privately-owned ITV is a PSB.

Lucy Powell, Labour’s Shadow Culture Secretary, said: “Nothing screams a rudderless government like announcements on Channel 4 while people’s energy bills are through the roof.

“Selling off Channel 4, which doesn’t cost the tax-payer a penny anyway, to what is likely to be a foreign company, is cultural vandalism. It will cost jobs and opportunities in the North and Yorkshire, and hit the wider British creative economy.

“This shows that the Conservatives have run out of ideas and run out of road. Of all the issues the public wants action on, the governance of Channel 4 isn’t one.

“The government should have a laser like focus on the cost of living crisis, and help people with their bills, not be fiddling around like this for ideological reasons.”

Fly less? Go vegan? How people can take climate action

To cut emissions, switch to a plant-based diet

(AFP/Karim SAHIB)

The single best thing you can do is to not fly long-haul

(AFP/Valery HACHE)

Even within countries there can be dramatic differences in carbon footprint

(AFP/GREG BAKER)

When possible the report says people should travel by train instead of plane - but that requires infrastructure

(AFP/Charly TRIBALLEAU)

People in Afghanistan have some of the world's lowest per capita carbon footprints (AFP/Javed TANVEER)

Amélie BOTTOLLIER-DEPOIS
Mon, April 4, 2022

Individuals along with economy-wide efficiencies can make a major difference in the drive to avert the worst of global warming, UN climate experts say, estimating that sharp cuts to demand for energy-guzzling services could slash emissions up to 70 percent by 2050.

Avoiding airplanes, eating less meat, insulating your home could all make a dent, particularly when broad swathes of societies embrace change, says the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

While research often focuses on cutting emissions in the supply of goods and services -- energy generation, transport, agriculture, construction -- the IPCC has for the first time dedicated a whole chapter of its climate solutions report to the demand that drives these industries.

"Having the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behaviours can result in a 40-70 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050," said Priyadarshi Shukla co-chair of IPCC working group that produced the 3,000 page report.

But where can "this untapped potential", as Shukla calls it, be found?

- Day-to-day choices -

"Avoid, shift, improve" -- these are the key ways to curb demand, the report says.

You can avoid energy-intensive behaviour, switch to low-carbon technologies and improve the efficiency of existing tech.

In general, there are plenty of opportunities for improvement in the ways people travel from point A to point B.

You can change an internal combustion engine car to an electric one ("improve"), or even "shift" your daily commute to cycling or walking.

The biggest potential for avoidance is reducing long-haul flights. If people took fewer long distance flights and took the train where possible, overall aviation emissions could be reduced by 10 to 40 percent by 2040.

Meanwhile, increasing energy efficiency in homes and other buildings takes first place in the "improve" category.

And the most important "shift" you can make is to adopt a plant-based diet. But becoming a vegetarian or even vegan would have less of an emissions impact than cutting out one long-haul flight a year.

The report also highlights the need to reduce all types of waste, from energy or food for example.

"Choosing low-carbon options, such as car-free living, plant-based diets without or very little animal products, low-carbon sources of electricity and heating at home as well as local holiday plans," can reduce an individual's carbon footprint by up to nine tonnes of CO2 equivalent, says the IPCC.

- Unequal -

Most people in the world never take long-haul flights in the first place and do not have access to nutritious food.

Billions of people have a carbon footprint far below nine tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

For example, the average carbon footprint per inhabitant in Afghanistan is less than one tonne, according to the report, while in most western developed nations it is well over 10 tonnes.

And within countries there can also be an enormous split between the lavish energy consumption of the rich and the meagre carbon footprint of poorer people.

In fact, about half of the world's emissions can be attributed to the consumption of the richest 10 percent of the global population, the report said.

At the bottom of the wealth pyramid, the poorest half of the world contributes around 10 percent of consumption emissions.

"Wealthy individuals contribute disproportionately to higher emissions and have a high potential for emissions reductions while maintaining decent living standards and well-being," the report said.

- Beyond behaviour -

The responsibility for transforming the world's energy use and economic system to deal with climate change cannot be borne on the shoulders of individuals alone, the report stresses.

While people can make a difference with their lifestyle choices, the IPCC says transformative change involves more than just individuals' consumption choices.

There also need to be shifts in culture and social norms, business investment, political drivers from institutions, and changes in infrastructure.

abd/klm/mh/cdw

'Climate Revolution': Scientists Launch Global Civil Disobedience Campaign

"Scientist Rebellion will be on the streets between April 4th and 9th, acting like our house is on fire," said organizers. "Because it is."

Scientists hold a sign reading, "Climate Revolution Or We Will Lose Everything" at a rally. This week, scientists around the world will occupy universities to demand a "Climate Revolution" following the release of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Photo: Twitter/@ScientistRebel1)

JULIA CONLEY

COMMON DREAMS

April 4, 2022

Scientists from around the world on Monday mobilized to demand a "Climate Revolution," holding rallies and staging acts of civil disobedience with the goal of making the planetary emergency "impossible to ignore."

With a kick-off timed to coincide with Monday's release of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers across the globe this week will participate in the Scientist Rebellion, staging strikes and occupations at universities, research institutes, and scientific journals to demand that the community speak out forcefully against continued fossil fuel emissions to highlight "the urgency and injustice of the climate and ecological crisis."

"In short, there's no worthy reason for me to be doing this work if I'm not also pushing for climate action."

"We have not made the changes necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C, rendering this goal effectively impossible," said Dr. Rose Abramoff, an American climate scientist, referring to the goal set by the Paris climate agreement in 2015. "We need to both understand the consequences of our inaction as well as limit fossil fuel emissions as much and as quickly as possible."

For scientists, Abramoff added, "it is no longer sufficient to do our research and expect others to read our publications and understand the severity and urgency of the climate crisis."

One neuroscientist named Jonathan posted a video on social media explaining why he is taking part in the Scientist Rebellion.

"With our civilization poised to crumble under the weight of climate disaster in a matter of decades, the incremental advance of understanding is pointless," he said. "In short, there's no worthy reason for me to be doing this work if I'm not also pushing for climate action."

The Scientist Rebellion is poised to be the largest-ever civil disobedience campaign led by scientists, with experts risking arrest in at least 25 countries on every continent in the world.

In Germany, scientists displayed over 100 posters demanding a climate revolution "after over 100 days of criminal failure" by the government "to act in line with scientific guidance on the climate crisis."

Climate Action Tracker has rated Germany's climate policies, including a scheduled phase-out of coal by 2038 and a net zero emissions target of 2045, as "insufficient" for limiting global heating to 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels.

Scientists in Spain on Monday occupied the campus of the University of Granada, calling for the institution to include "a compulsory module in all its degrees, dedicated to the climate energy and resource crisis, the collapse of ecosystems, and the interrelated systemic impact of these crises."

"Scientists are particularly powerful messengers, and we have a responsibility to show leadership," Charlie Gardner, a conservation scientist at the University of Kent, told Agence France-Presse. "We are failing in that responsibility. If we say it's an emergency, we have to act like it is."

More than 1,000 scientists are expected to participate in "high levels of disobedience" following the release of the IPCC's latest report, which the U.S. and other wealthy countries have attempted to water down in what Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) called "a desperate bid to evade responsibility."

"The prospects are ecocide, plus genocide, and require a strong social reaction. We are hundreds of scientists calling on our colleagues across disciplines to join us in the streets."

Wealthy countries have fought to "erase references to key concepts like loss and damage and to water down references to the scale of finance needed for adaptation," FOEI said, even after the latest report by the IPCC warned that by burning fossil fuels, humans are producing "unprecedented" global heating and putting biodiverse ecosystems and frontline communities at risk—with life-threatening droughts and other effects hitting countries which have done little to cause the crisis.

"We are experiencing an absolutely exceptional historical situation, in terms not only of the history of our universities, our cities, or our countries, but of the history of the human species and planet Earth writ large," said Prof. Jorge Riechmann, a social scientist from Spain.

"The prospects are ecocide, plus genocide, and require a strong social reaction," he continued. "We are hundreds of scientists calling on our colleagues across disciplines to join us in the streets, to live up to the truth of the words we write: that if we do not act now, not only is total catastrophe certain; but it would occur in the most unjust way possible, where those who have done the least to cause the problem are those who suffer most from it. I feel a moral obligation to prevent this from happening."

A lack of direct action among scientists and climate experts, said one Scientist Rebellion participant, is akin to knowing that a house is about to burn down but taking no action to convince people in the building to get out of harm's way.

"Imagine two people are sitting in a house," said Mike Lynch-White, a former Theoretical Physics PhD candidate who is now a full-time climate campaigner. "One turns to the other and calmly states that the house is on fire and the roof is about to collapse and kill them both, before going back to their morning newspaper. It would be completely unreasonable for the other to believe the threat, no matter how real it is."

"Scientist Rebellion will be on the streets between April 4th and 9th, acting like our house is on fire," said organizers. "Because it is."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

The UN's 10,000-page red alert on climate change

Author: AFP|

Update: 04.04.2022

Scientific evidence has removed any lingering doubt that human activity is "unequivocably" responsible for global warming, says the IPCC / © AFP/File

Accelerating global warming is driving a rising tide of impacts that could cause profound human misery and ecological disaster, and there is only one way to avoid catastrophe: drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Spread across 10,000 pages, these are the main takeaways from a trio of UN reports on climate change published in August 2021, February 2022 and on Monday. The three tomes -- each with its own roster of hundreds of authors -- focus on physical science, impacts and the need to adapt, and finally how to slash carbon pollution.

This will be the sixth such trilogy since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered its first report in 1990 and positioned itself as the final word on the science behind global warming.

Here are five key findings from the three reports:

- Beyond a doubt -

Whatever climate sceptics might say, scientific evidence has removed any lingering doubt that human activity is "unequivocally" responsible for global warming, which has seen the planet heat up an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 -- the main driver of warming, emitted mainly by burning fossil fuels -- rose at least 10 times faster between 1900 and 2019 than any time in the last 800,000 years, and is at its highest in two million years.

- Bye bye 1.5C? -

The 2015 Paris Agreement calls for capping global warming "well below" 2C, and 1.5C if possible. A crescendo of deadly impacts already being felt and a slew of new science has led most countries to embrace the more ambitious aspirational goal.

But that ship may have sailed.

The 2015 Paris Agreement calls for capping global warming "well below" 2C, and 1.5C if possible / © AFP/File

In every IPCC projection for a liveable future, Earth's average surface temperature increases by 1.5C or 1.6C by around 2030 -- a decade earlier than estimates made only a few years ago.

In theory, it will be possible to cap temperature increases to below the 1.5C threshold by the end of the century, but even a temporary "overshoot" could cause irreversible damage to fragile ecosystems at the poles, in the mountains, and in coastal areas.

If countries do not improve on the emissions reduction pledges running to 2030, made under the Paris treaty, even staying under 2C will be a serious challenge. Current national policies would see Earth warm 3.2C by 2100.

- Avalanche of suffering -

Once a problem on the distant horizon, the devastating consequences of climate change have become a here-and-now reality. Nearly half the world's population -- between 3.3 and 3.6 billion -- are "very vulnerable" to global warming's deadly impacts, which are certain to get worse.

Hundreds of millions of people could be forced from their homes by rising sea levels / © AFP/File

Heatwaves so extreme as to literally be unliveable; superstorms made more deadly by a water-logged atmosphere and rising seas; drought, water shortages, more disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks...

These and other impacts are set to become worse, and will disproportionately ravage Earth's most vulnerable populations, including indigenous peoples.

Hundreds of millions could eventually be forced from their homes by sea levels -- pushed up mainly by melting ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica -- that will continue to rise across the next century no matter how quickly humanity draws down emissions.

Even if global heating is capped at 2C, oceans could gain half-a-metre by 2100 and two metres by 2300, double the IPCC's estimate from 2019.

- Only option left -

The IPCC insists that it does not provide recommendations, only background information and policy options so decision makers can make the right choices to ensure a "liveable future" for the planet and its inhabitants.

But all roads leadiing to a 1.5C or even a 2C world "involve rapid and deep and in most cases immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions in all sectors" -- including industry, transportation, agriculture, energy and cities.

Hitting those temperature goals will require a massive reduction in fossil fuel use, the IPCC says: 90 percent, 25 percent and 40 percent less coal, gas and oil, respectively, by 2050, and 90 percent, 40 percent and 80 percent less by 2100.

The use of coal plants that do not deploy carbon capture technology to offset some of their pollution to generate power must decline by 70 to 90 percent within eight years.

- Tipping points -

The new trio of IPCC reports emphasise as never before the danger of "tipping points", temperature thresholds in the climate system that could, once crossed, result in catastrophic and irreversible change.

By 2050, virtually all electricity generation must be carbon free if Paris temperature goals are to be reached / © AFP/File

The good news is that we seem to have pulled back from emissions scenarios from human sources that could by themselves result in a 4C or 5C world. The bad news is that "low probability/high impact" tipping point scenarios in nature could lead us there all the same.

The disintegration of ice sheets that would lift ocean levels a dozen metres or more; the melting of permafrost containing vast stores of the same greenhouse gases we are desperately trying to keep out of the atmosphere; the transformation of the Amazon basin from tropical forest to savannah -- all could be triggered by additional global warming.

Where are those triggers? Scientists are not sure, but they do know that the risk is much higher in a world that has warmed 2C above 19th-century levels than one that has warmed 1.5C.

Above 2.5C, the risk is "very high".

Campaigners Say IPCC Report Reveals 'Bleak and Brutal Truth' About Climate Emergency

"It's not about taking our foot off the accelerator anymore—it's about slamming on the brakes," said one expert in response to latest U.N. assessment.

Mining machines work in the Garzweiler open-pit lignite mine, with wind turbines in the background in North Rhine-Westphalia, Jackerath, Germany on April 4, 2022.

(Photo: Federico Gambarini/dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT

April 4, 2022

A United Nations report on the climate emergency—released Monday after negotiations spilled into overtime—sparked a fresh wave of calls for bolder and scientifically informed action to rapidly and dramatically reduce planet-heating emissions for the sake of all life on Earth.

"This monumental climate report is distressing but it is not surprising."

"How much more destruction must we witness, and how many more scientific reports will it take, before governments finally acknowledge fossil fuels as the real culprits behind the human suffering being felt across the globe?" asked Namrata Chowdhary, head of public engagement at the advocacy group 350.org.

"As we come ever closer to the tipping points for human existence, once again scientists are sounding a clear alarm: Massive cuts in emissions are unavoidable to avert the worst," Chowdhary added.

The new report, entitled Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, is the third installment from the sixth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Earlier analyses, released in August and February, focused on physical science and impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, respectively. A synthesis document is forthcoming.

The analysis was produced by 278 authors from 65 nations and is based on over 18,000 papers and nearly 60,000 comments from countries and experts. The document emphasizes the need for systemic changes globally, including decarbonizing the energy sector, electrifying transportation, shifting to more plant-based diets, and restoring key ecosystems.

While there is evidence of increased climate action globally—particularly with wind and solar energy and well as electric vehicles (EVs)—the IPCC report concludes that "unless there are immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, 1.5°C is beyond reach."

Limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C is the more ambitious goal of the Paris agreement, which also has a 2°C target and has guided global climate policies and talks since it was finalized in late 2015.

"This latest IPCC report finds that global emissions are now 54% higher than they were in 1990 and starkly points out that from 2010 to 2019, heat-trapping emissions were higher than ever and are still rising globally across all major sectors," noted Kristina Dahl, a principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Dahl continued:

To keep the principal goal of the Paris agreement within reach, countries will need to strengthen their national pledges and decrease global heat-trapping emissions by roughly 40% relative to 2019 levels within this decade. Because we have failed to rein in global warming emissions to date, the choices available to us are no longer ideal. In addition to deep, absolute cuts in heat-trapping emissions, some amount of these emissions will also need to be removed from the atmosphere if nations are to limit planetary warming to 1.5°C or even 2°C. Most emissions removal options, however, come with substantial, and in some cases untenable, tradeoffs. On the other hand, surpassing the 1.5°C threshold would lead to catastrophic climate impacts—with some so extreme adapting will no longer be feasible—as well as significant loss of life, property, and ecosystems in the United States and around the world. The science of climate change, its consequences, and the solutions to it could not be clearer. The ball is now in the court of world leaders and policymakers, who must act with the utmost urgency to address the global climate crisis.

Oxfam climate policy lead Nafkote Dabi declared Monday that "this IPCC report pulls no punches. The bleak and brutal truth about global warming is this: Barring action on a sweeping scale, humanity faces worsening hunger, disease, economic collapse, mass migration of people, and unbearable heat. It's not about taking our foot off the accelerator anymore—it's about slamming on the brakes. A warming planet is humanity's biggest emergency."

Describing 1.5°C as "a survival target" that "remains within our grasp, but just barely," Dabi highlighted the need for "a dramatic shift towards sustainable renewable energy." While warning that ramping up fossil fuel production in response to Russia's war on Ukraine "is shortsighted folly," she noted that the costs of extreme weather exacerbated by human-caused global heating "are piling up" and "do not hit everyone equally."

"People living in poverty are suffering first and worst," Dabi explained. "Farmers in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia have lost crops and entire herds of livestock to an exceptionally long and severe drought. Millions of people in East Africa are now on the brink of a hunger catastrophe. Meanwhile, the richest people who have massive carbon footprints are turning up the air-conditioning on their mega-yachts."

"This monumental climate report is distressing but it is not surprising," she added. "Scientists and the IPCC have been warning governments of this danger for decades. Our future lies in the decisions we make today. We cannot tackle climate change later. We must clamp down on emissions now or face more catastrophic climate disasters, season after season."

The campaigner's call for action—particularly by wealthy countries most responsible for polluting the planet—was echoed by other activists and experts, including Meena Raman from Friends of the Earth Malaysia, who said that "it is a disgrace that decades of cowardly decisions by rich industrial nations have led us here, to the brink of climate catastrophe laid bare in this latest IPCC assessment report."

"The United States in particular must accept its role in creating the climate impacts we're experiencing right now," Raman added. "Scientists have confirmed that much more finance must urgently flow from developed to developing countries, to enable the latter to adapt and adjust to irreparable damage from climate impacts. This funding is necessary to secure the well-being of their citizens and economies. Without it, our hard-fought progress for equity, equality, rights, and justice will unravel."

"The IPCC report out today reaffirms that frontline communities, Indigenous groups, and youth groups should have a seat at the table."

Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel similarly focused on the United States, declaring that "solutions to solve this crisis exist but political courage and policy creativity are lacking" and calling on President Joe Biden to "immediately declare a climate emergency to ramp down oil and gas extraction and limit its harmful methane pollution."

Keith Slack of EarthRights International pointed out that "as governments have failed to take meaningful climate action, Indigenous and frontline communities such as the water protectors at Line 3 in Minnesota, those in the Omkoi region of Thailand, and the Macho Piro people in the Peruvian Amazon have risen to address the crisis by building a global movement to resist climate-damaging industries and denounce the inaction of world leaders."

"The IPCC report out today reaffirms that frontline communities, Indigenous groups, and youth groups should have a seat at the table in the adoption of climate policies," said Slack, the group's director of strategy and campaigns. "The IPCC also acknowledges the important role of climate litigation in helping communities protect their rights in the midst of the climate crisis."

"The main barrier to a sustainable future at this moment is that governments are not showing the political will for an energy transition and are not listening to frontline communities and everyday citizens who are demanding change," he added.

Varshini Prakash, executive director of the U.S.-based Sunrise Movement, agreed. As she put it: "We are at a crossroads right now. Do we continue to rely on fossil fuel corporations and petrostates who are fueling war and making record profits at the expense of working families, or do we begin a mass mobilization of our government and society to transition to a renewable energy future?"

According to Prakash, "The science of the IPCC report is clear: Fossil fuels are to blame for the climate crisis, and our government's continued support for fossil fuels at home and abroad is killing us."

‘At a crossroads’ to a liveable future: UN ‘file of shame’ urges rapid climate action

“There is clear economic and technical potential to meet the kind of reductions that would be needed, but we are a long way from being on track in terms of what is actually going on.”

By Jonathan Wilson
E&T
Published Monday, April 4, 2022

Substantial reductions in the use of fossil fuels are needed to tackle the climate crisis, the third instalment of a crucial UN report has warned.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science body has today released the third part of its sixth assessment report, spelling out how to cut emissions by switching to increasingly cheap renewables and fuels such as hydrogen, as well as energy efficiency, capturing carbon and planting trees.

The first “code red” part of the report, released in August 2021, was considered essential in sounding the “death knell” for fossil fuels. The second part, released in February this year and which followed the intense climate deliberations at COP26, was billed as “an atlas of human suffering”.

Now the third and final part of the IPCC’s report starkly positions humankind as being “at a crossroads”. Meeting goals agreed by countries to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C or below 2°C to avoid the worst impacts of climate change requires rapid, deep and immediate greenhouse gas emissions cuts in all areas, it says.

UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres described the IPCC’s report as a “file of shame”. Speaking at a press conference, Guterres said: “The jury has reached a verdict and it is damning. This report is a litany of broken climate promises.

“It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unliveable world. We are on a fast track to climate disaster: major cities under water; unprecedented heatwaves; terrifying storms; widespread water shortages; the extinction of a million species of plants and animals.

“This is not fiction or exaggeration. It is what science tells us will result from our current energy policies.”

He added that investing further in fossil fuel infrastructure is “moral and economic madness”.

The report, which draws on 18,000 studies and sources, pitches scientific findings on climate change into an already heated debate over energy supplies and costs prompted by rising oil and gas prices amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Fossil fuels are naturally once again in the firing line, with coal firmly in the climate crosshairs. The report posits that in order to keep temperatures from rising above 1.5°C, global use of coal must decline by 95 per cent by 2050 compared to 2019. Oil must also must be reduced by 60 per cent and gas by 45 per cent.

Almost all electricity will need to be supplied from clean sources, such as renewables, or fossil fuels fitted with carbon capture and storage. Continuing to install technology such as coal power plants without carbon capture and storage will “lock in” unmanageable fresh emissions. The report also states that simply removing global fossil fuel subsidies could reduce emissions by between 1-10 per cent by 2030.

A meeting to agree the 63-page summary of the report for policymakers, approved in a line-by-line process involving scientists and representatives of 195 countries, overran by more than two days as delegates wrangled over the text, which is now deemed to have been approved by governments.

Finding international agreement on climate change sparks fierce debate between countries that remain heavily reliant on fossil fuel use or revenues and those most vulnerable to rising temperatures beyond 1.5°C, which they warn would be a death sentence for their nations.

Within the UK, the current energy crisis has provoked clashes over whether to speed up the shift away from oil and gas with clean heating, renewables and insulation or to boost domestic fossil fuel supplies from the North Sea or fracking. The government is due to set out its new energy strategy on Thursday with expectations of support for offshore wind and new nuclear reactors, but not cheap onshore wind.

The UN’s IPCC report finds there are still routes to curbing global warming to 1.5°C, but without immediate action it will be impossible to achieve. Report co-chair Jim Skea said: “It’s now or never if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”

The world is well off track to make the necessary emissions cuts, with pollution continuing to rise and pushing temperatures towards dangerous levels. There is still more private and public money flowing into fossil fuels than into climate action.

The report says the costs of solar and batteries needed for electric vehicles have plunged by 85 per cent in the last decade and their deployment has soared, while wind power has fallen by 55 per cent in price.

Some countries have also brought in effective laws and policies that have led to falls in emissions. The report also finds that the economic benefits of cutting emissions exceed the cost of the action needed, while trillions of dollars of coal, oil and gas assets could become “stranded” as the world takes action to limit global warming.

The report also highlights how consumers can be encouraged to make green choices in eating more plant-based diets; heating homes; taking up walking and cycling; driving electric cars, and moving away from excessive consumption of ‘status’ goods and services. Meanwhile, cities can be made greener, more walkable and healthier by electrifying heating and transport and creating more green spaces. In rural areas, protecting, restoring and managing forests and other natural landscapes provides the biggest opportunity of cutting emissions from land.

The IPCC’s full study, comprising the three instalments making up this sixth assessment, is the first of its kind since 2014.

The first set out a “code red” warning on what humans are doing to the planet, and the second detailed impacts of climate change and our options for – and limits to – adapting to rising temperatures.

The latest report finds that based on policies implemented up to the end of 2020, the world faces temperature rises of 3.2°C by 2100 and warming of 2.8°C, even if all the climate action pledges for the next decade are successfully delivered.

To give the world an even chance of limiting temperatures to 1.5°C, immediate action is needed, with 43 per cent cuts in greenhouse gases on 2019 levels by the end of this decade.

Emissions have to peak by between 2020 and before 2025 to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, with rapid and deep reductions in the coming decades, including for methane which is produced through activities including farming and oil and gas production.

The report warns that measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are “unavoidable” if the world is to reduce emissions to zero overall by the second half of the century to meet the temperature goals. These measures, which range from restoring forests to developing technology that directly captures carbon from the air, can have risks of their own.

IPCC chairman Hoesung Lee said: “We are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now can secure a liveable future. We have the tools and know-how required to limit warming.”

Commenting on the report, Guterres said: “Climate promises and plans must be turned into reality and action now. It is time to stop burning our planet and start investing in the abundant renewable energy all around us.

“We owe a debt to young people, civil society and indigenous communities for sounding the alarm and holding leaders accountable. We need to build on their work to create a grassroots movement that cannot be ignored.

“If you live in a big city, a rural area, or a small island state, if you invest in the stock market, if you care about justice, and our children’s future, I am appealing directly to you.

“Demand that renewable energy is introduced now – at speed and at scale, demand an end to coal-fired power, demand an end to all fossil fuel subsidies.”

Report author Michael Grubb, from University College London, said: “Annual emissions over the past decade were the highest in history, but there is increased evidence of climate action in some areas, remarkable progress in low-carbon technologies and at least 18 countries with sustained emission reductions.

“There is clear economic and technical potential to meet the kind of reductions that would be needed, but we are a long way from being on track in terms of what is actually going on.”

The Cost of Not Acting on Climate?

US Govt Study Says $2 Trillion Per Year by 2100

Throughout this century, the crisis will accelerate unless we stop burning coal, gas, and petroleum now. It's not all or nothing, the question is: how bad are we going to let it be?

This photo taken on July 12, 2021 shows a village official evacuating a child from a flooded area following heavy rains in Dazhou in China's southwestern Sichuan province. (Photo: STR/AFP via Getty Images)

JUAN COLE

April 4, 2022

by Informed Comment

Journalist Timothy Gardner at Reuters has gotten an advance look at a White House Office of Management and Budget document that concludes that by the end of this century, when Olivia Rodrigo would be 100 if she has the long life we wish for her, the annual cost of the climate crisis we are causing will amount to $2 trillion a year in today’s dollars.

$2 trillion is an incredible expense.

But we shouldn’t think of the problem as in the distant future. We’re being hit, and badly, right now by the climate emergency.

From 1980 to 2021, the National Centers for Environmental Information says that America suffered 310 major climate and weather events of over $1 billion each, the total cost of which in today’s dollars is $2.1 trillion.

That’s a heavy cost for a forty-year period. We’ll be having to spend that much every day in only a few decades.

Throughout this century, the crisis will accelerate unless we stop burning coal, gas, and petroleum now... The climate and weather catastrophes will be on steroids.

The past seems near to us, and even a little bit into the future seems distant and clouded with mist. 78 years ago we were wrapping up World War II. Frank Sinatra’s “White Christmas” was rising on the charts. Zorro and Captain America were playing in the movie theaters. I’ll be 70 this year and have some memories of the mid-1950s. I’m telling you, it passes like lightning. Before you young’uns know it you’ll be facing the fin de siècle. The more coal, gas and oil you burn, the less fun it will be. Cut way back now, and it won’t be so bad.

The Brown University Costs of War project concludes that the “War on Terror” launched by George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001, attacks, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, extra spending on homeland security, and veterans’ health care, will come to $8 trillion.

So by the late 2090s we’ll be spending that every four years.

All of World War II, including the US conquest of much of Europe and of east Asia, cost $4.7 trillion in today’s dollars.

We’d be spending that in 78 years every 2.5 days.

What will we be spending it on? Gardner says the bills will come due every year then for “coastal disaster relief, flood, crop, and healthcare insurance, wildfire suppression and flooding.”

Throughout this century, the crisis will accelerate unless we stop burning coal, gas, and petroleum now.

The climate and weather catastrophes will be on steroids. Remember how Hurricane Maria flattened Puerto Rico in 2017? How it made landfall in Yabucoa with sustained winds as high as 155 mph, having gotten up even higher for a while as one of our first known category 6 storms?

Warm ocean water increases the ferocity of tropical storms, and because of evaporation it puts more water into the atmosphere, so the downpours and flooding are worse and worse. That extra moisture contributed to Hurricane Harvey, the “500-year storm,” which submerged Houston with its worst flooding on record in 2017.

The 500-year storms will come more and more frequently.

Then there were those headlines in 2018 that Kanye West, Kim Kardashian and Lady Gaga had to flee their Malibu mansions before advancing wildfires. There will be more and more such bonfires of the vanities.

I hear people talking about a “point of no return” or wondering if it is “game over.” The climate is not like that. It is not an either-or proposition. Billions of human beings will be living on earth in 78 years. Things can be merely annoying, or challenging, or disastrous. The climate crisis is on a scale from 1 to 100. We can land at 15, which is not so bad. Or we can land at 95, which will make our lives really tough. It all depends on how much carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere now.

Vote for politicians who understand all this and will pass legislation to address it immediately. Your children and grandchildren with thank you. But even those of us alive the rest of this decade will benefit from drastic action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Science tells us that the process of warming will cease within a few years of such big cutbacks.

Juan Cole teaches Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. His newest book, "Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires" was published in 2020. He is also the author of "The New Arabs: How the Millennial Generation Is Changing the Middle East " (2015) and "Napoleon's Egypt: Invading the Middle East" (2008). He has appeared widely on television, radio, and on op-ed pages as a commentator on Middle East affairs, and has a regular column at Salon.com. He has written, edited, or translated 14 books and has authored 60 journal articles.

'A Victory for the Virus': US Congress Cuts New Global Covid Aid to $0

"Zero for global Covid equals many needless deaths in poor countries—and heightened risk of new variants," said one campaigner.

A medical staffer prepares to inoculate teachers with Moderna's

Covid-19 vaccine on January 12, 2022 in Mexico City.

(Photo: Gerardo Vieyra/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS

April 4, 2022

Republican and Democratic congressional negotiators on Monday are reportedly set to announce a $10 billion coronavirus funding package that contains no money to fight the pandemic globally, prompting outrage from public health experts who say the decision will prolong the Covid-19 crisis.

"Failing to fund the global fight against Covid-19 is a choice to extend the pandemic, to accept preventable suffering and insecurity for all, and to live with the knowledge that, deep in the time of the world's greatest need, the United States gave up," tweeted Peter Maybarduk, Access to Medicines director at Public Citizen.

"There's no shortage of money. Just will."

Lawmakers were initially considering a package that included $1 billion in funds for the global pandemic response, money that would go toward worldwide vaccination initiatives and other key programs that are languishing due to cash shortfalls. The Biden administration is already facing mounting backlash for falling well short of its modest vaccine donation pledges.

But The Washington Post reported Monday that lawmakers "were unable to agree on how to pay for" the $1 billion in Covid-19 aid, even though it amounted to a fraction of the $5 billion the White House asked for last month.

The reported agreement to strip global Covid-19 money from the spending deal comes weeks after Congress approved a $782 billion military budget, $29 billion more than President Joe Biden originally requested last year.

"The deal set to be announced Monday is expected to repurpose funding from previous stimulus packages," the Post noted. Republican lawmakers have repeatedly questioned the need for any new Covid-19 funding and demanded that money for the pandemic come from already-approved sources.

The agreed-upon $10 billion aid package, which is expected to receive a vote as soon as this week, will fund the purchase of tests, vaccines, and therapeutics for the U.S.

Jen Kates, director of global health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told the Post that the decision to drop money for the international pandemic response is "a victory for the virus."

"It demonstrates that one of the main take-home messages of this experience—that this is truly a global phenomenon—has not resonated or at least not resonated above politics," Kates added.

According to Our World in Data, just 14.5% of people in low-income countries have received at least one coronavirus vaccine dose as rich nations and pharmaceutical companies continue to hoard doses and technology.

Related Content
Covid-19 Vaccine Equity Index Reveals 'Failure of Historic Proportions'
Andrea Germanos

Politico reported last week that "for nearly three months, top officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development privately warned the White House and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that USAID would soon run out of money to help put Covid-19 shots in arms across the world, jeopardizing one of President Joe Biden's key Covid promises."

Experts have long warned that failure to ensure global, equitable access to coronavirus vaccines increases the likelihood of variants emerging and spreading—a fear that appears to have been validated by worldwide infection waves caused by the Delta and Omicron mutations.

Recent surges in Asia and Europe, believed to have been driven by a highly infectious Omicron subvariant, have heightened concerns that another U.S. wave is imminent just as Congress is skimping on pandemic preparation and response funding. The subvariant currently accounts for more than half of all new coronavirus cases in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Congress is about to announce $10 billion in Covid funding. That money is needed for domestic purposes and is good," Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, said Monday. "But zero for global Covid equals many needless deaths in poor countries—and heightened risk of new variants."

A research paper published in February estimated that an investment of $61 billion could fund the production of three coronavirus vaccine doses for every person in low- and lower-middle-income countries—and save more than a million lives.

"There's no shortage of money," Weissman said. "Just will."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Amazon Workers' Historic Win and Corporate America's Ongoing Greed

If it can't fight off unions directly, it will do so indirectly by blaming inflation on wage increases, and then cheer on the Fed as it slows the economy just enough to eliminate American workers' new bargaining clout.

Union organizer Christian Smalls (C) celebrates as he speaks following the April 1, 2022, vote for the unionization of the Amazon Staten Island warehouse in New York. (Photo: Andrea Renault/AFP via Getty Images)

ROBERT REICH

April 4, 2022

by RobertReich.org

On Friday, Amazon—America's wealthiest, most powerful, and fiercest anti-union corporation, with the second-largest workforce in the nation (union-busting Walmart being the largest), lost out to a group of warehouse workers in New York who voted to form a union.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that corporate profits are at a 70-year high.

If anyone had any doubts about Amazon's determination to prevent this from ever happening, its scorched-earth anti-union campaign last fall in its Bessemer, Alabama warehouse should have put those doubts to rest.

In New York, Amazon used every tool it had used in Alabama. Many of them are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act but Amazon couldn't care less. It's rich enough to pay any fine or bear any public relations hit.

The company has repeatedly fired workers who speak out about unsafe working conditions or who even suggest that workers need a voice.

As its corporate coffers bulge with profits—and its founder and executive chairman practices conspicuous consumption on the scale not seen since the robber barons of the late 19th century—Amazon has become the poster child for 21st-century corporate capitalism run amok.

Much of the credit for Friday's victory over Amazon goes to Christian Smalls, whom Amazon fired in the spring of 2020 for speaking out about the firm's failure to protect its warehouse workers from COVID. Smalls refused to back down. He went back and organized a union, with extraordinary skill and tenacity.

Smalls had something else working in his favor, which brings me to Friday's superb jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The report showed that the economy continues to roar back to life from the COVID recession.

With consumer demand soaring, employers are desperate to hire. This has given American workers more bargaining clout than they've had in decades. Wages have climbed 5.6 percent over the past year.

The acute demand for workers has bolstered the courage of workers to demand better pay and working conditions from even the most virulently anti-union corporations in America, such as Amazon and Starbucks.

Is this something to worry about? Not at all. American workers haven't had much of a raise in over four decades. Most of the economy's gains have gone to the top.

Besides, inflation is running so high that even the 5.6 percent wage gain over the past year is minimal in terms of real purchasing power.

But corporate America believes these wage gains are contributing to inflation. As the New York Times solemnly reported, the wage gains “could heat up price increases.“

This is pure rubbish. But unfortunately, the chair of the Federal Reserve Board, Jerome Powell, believes it. He worries that “the labor market is extremely tight,"and to “an unhealthy level.”

As a result, the Fed is on the way to raising interest rates repeatedly in order to slow the economy and reduce the bargaining leverage of American workers.

Pause here to consider this: The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that corporate profits are at a 70-year high. You read that right. Not since 1952 have corporations done as well as they are now doing.

Across the board, American corporations are flush with cash. Although they are paying higher costs (including higher wages), they've still managed to increase their profits. How? They have enough pricing power to pass on those higher costs to consumers, and even add some more for themselves.

When American corporations are overflowing with money like this, why should anyone think that wage gains will heat up price increases, as the Times reports? In a healthy economy, corporations would not be passing on higher costs—including higher wages—to their consumers. They'd be paying the higher wages out of their profits.

But that's not happening. Corporations are using their record profits to buy back enormous amounts of their own stock to keep their share prices high, instead.

The labor market isn't “unhealthily" tight, as Jerome Powell asserts; corporations are unhealthily fat. Workers don't have too much power; corporations do.

The extraordinary win of the workers of Amazon's Staten Island warehouse is cause for celebration. Let's hope it marks the beginning of a renewal of worker power in America.

Yet the reality is that corporate America doesn't want to give up any of its record profits to its workers. If it can't fight off unions directly, it will do so indirectly by blaming inflation on wage increases, and then cheer on the Fed as it slows the economy just enough to eliminate American workers' new bargaining clout.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Robert Reich, is the Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. His book include: "Aftershock" (2011), "The Work of Nations" (1992), "Beyond Outrage" (2012) and, "Saving Capitalism" (2016). He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." Reich's newest book is "The Common Good" (2019). He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment

Monday, April 04, 2022

'We will be forced to steal': Taliban bans poppy cultivation

About Me