How cold was the ice age? Researchers now know

by University of Arizona
  

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

A University of Arizona-led team has nailed down the temperature of the last ice age—the Last Glacial Maximum of 20,000 years ago—to about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (7.8 C).


Their findings allow climate scientists to better understand the relationship between today's rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide—a major greenhouse gas—and average global temperature.

The Last Glacial Maximum, or LGM, was a frigid period when huge glaciers covered about half of North America, Europe and South America and many parts of Asia, while flora and fauna that were adapted to the cold thrived.

"We have a lot of data about this time period because it has been studied for so long," said Jessica Tierney, associate professor in the UArizona Department of Geosciences. "But one question science has long wanted answers to is simple: How cold was the ice age?"

Tracking Temperature

Tierney is lead author of a paper published today in Nature that found that the average global temperature of the ice age was 6 degrees Celsius (11 F) cooler than today. For context, the average global temperature of the 20th century was 14 C (57 F).

"In your own personal experience that might not sound like a big difference, but, in fact, it's a huge change," Tierney said.

She and her team also created maps to illustrate how temperature differences varied in specific regions across the globe.

"In North America and Europe, the most northern parts were covered in ice and were extremely cold. Even here in Arizona, there was big cooling," Tierney said. "But the biggest cooling was in high latitudes, such as the Arctic, where it was about 14 C (25 F) colder than today."

Their findings fit with scientific understanding of how Earth's poles react to temperature changes.

"Climate models predict that the high latitudes will get warmer faster than low latitudes," Tierney said. "When you look at future projections, it gets really warm over the Arctic. That's referred to as polar amplification. Similarly, during the LGM, we find the reverse pattern. Higher latitudes are just more sensitive to climate change and will remain so going forward."


Counting Carbon

Knowing the temperature of the ice age matters because it is used to calculate climate sensitivity, meaning how much the global temperature shifts in response to atmospheric carbon.

Tierney and her team determined that for every doubling of atmospheric carbon, global temperature should increase by 3.4 C (6.1 F), which is in the middle of the range predicted by the latest generation of climate models (1.8 to 5.6 C).

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the ice age were about 180 parts per million, which is very low. Before the Industrial Revolution, levels rose to about 280 parts per million, and today they've reached 415 parts per million.

"The Paris Agreement wanted to keep global warming to no larger than 2.7 F (1.5 C) over pre-industrial levels, but with carbon dioxide levels increasing the way they are, it would be extremely difficult to avoid more than 3.6 F (2 C) of warming," Tierney said. "We already have about 2 F (1.1 C) under our belt, but the less warm we get the better, because the Earth system really does respond to changes in carbon dioxide."

Making a Model

Since there were no thermometers in the ice age, Tierney and her team developed models to translate data collected from ocean plankton fossils into sea-surface temperatures. They then combined the fossil data with climate model simulations of the LGM using a technique called data assimilation, which is used in weather forecasting.

"What happens in a weather office is they measure the temperature, pressure, humidity and use these measurements to update a forecasting model and predict the weather," Tierney said. "Here, we use the Boulder, Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research climate model to produce a hindcast of the LGM, and then we update this hindcast with the actual data to predict what the climate was like."

In the future, Tierney and her team plan to use the same technique to recreate warm periods in Earth's past.

"If we can reconstruct past warm climates," she said, "then we can start to answer important questions about how the Earth reacts to really high carbon dioxide levels, and improve our understanding of what future climate change might hold."


Explore further   Ancient plankton help researchers predict near-future climate
More information: Glacial cooling and climate sensitivity revisited, Nature (2020).  

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2617-x , www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2617-x
Journal information: Nature


Provided by University of Arizona

Asteroid passing Earth before the election is real, but NASA isn't worried
The Michael Jordan-size asteroid has a 0.41% chance of entering Earth's atmosphere.
Amanda Kooser
Aug. 26, 2020
  

Enlarge Image
Artist's concept of a near-earth asteroid.NASA/JPL-CalTech

It's easy to look at 2020 and assume an asteroid coming in close to Earth this year will be just one more disaster to add to the pile. But it's going to be OK, at least as far as asteroid 2018 VP1 is concerned.

Yes, the asteroid is scheduled to get uncomfortably close to Earth on Nov. 2, the day before the US elections. It may even enter our atmosphere, but it doesn't herald doomsday.

NASA Asteroid Watch, which keeps an eye on these space rocks, tweeted some reassurances on Sunday.

Asteroid 2018 VP1 measures roughly 6.5 feet (2 meters) in diameter. "It currently has a 0.41% chance of entering our planet's atmosphere, but if it did, it would disintegrate due to its extremely small size," NASA said.

Asteroid 2018 VP1 is more of a space speck than a big bad harbinger of destruction. Space is a busy place and asteroids sweep past Earth all the time, including the occasional surprise asteroid that sneaks up on us.

NASA has been tracking 2018 VP1 since, well, 2018. We knew it was coming back for a visit. If it does hit our atmosphere, it will be much worse for the asteroid than it will be for us.

“Consciousness” –Existing Beyond Matter, Or in the Central Nervous System as an Afterthought of Nature?



Does human consciousness exist separate from matter, or is it embodied in the body –a critical player in anything that has to do with mind? “We are not thinking machines that feel; rather, we are feeling machines that think.” answers neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, who pioneered the field of embodied consciousness –the bodily origins of our sense of self. “We may smile and the dog may wag the tail, but in essence,” he says. “we have a set program and those programs are similar across individuals in the species. There is no such thing as a disembodied mind.”

Consciousness is considered by leading scientists as the central unsolved mystery of the 21st Century: “I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness,” says Edward Witten, theoretical physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey who has been compared to Isaac Newton and Einstein about the phenomena that has been described as assuming the role spacetime did before Einstein invented his theory of relativity.

Some scientists have asked how can we be sure that the source of consciousness lies within our bodies at all? One popular, if mystical, idea, writes astrophysicist Paul Davies in The Demon in the Machine, “is that flashes of mathematical inspiration can occur by the mathematician’s mind somehow ‘breaking through’ into a Platonic realm of mathematical forms and relationships that not only lies beyond the brain but beyond space and time altogether.”

The English astronomer, Fred Hoyle, infamous for his rejection of the Big Bang theory, suggested an even more radical hypothesis: that quantum effects in the human brain leave open the possibility of a “superintelligence in the cosmic future using a subtle but well-known backwards-in-time property of quantum mechanics in order to steer scientific progress.”

Four billion years ago, writes Damasio, in The Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of the Cultural Mind, “the first primitive organisms monitored changes in their bodily state – equivalent to hunger, thirst, pain and so on – and had feedback mechanisms to maintain equilibrium. The relic of those primitive mechanisms is our autonomic nervous system, which controls bodily functions such as heartbeat and digestion, and of which we are largely unconscious.

Then, about half a billion years ago, the central nervous system, featuring a brain, evolved an afterthought of nature,” says Damasio who a proposes three layered theory of consciousness based on a hierarchy of stages, with each stage building upon the last. The most basic representation of the organism is referred to as the Protoself, next is Core Consciousness, and finally, Extended Consciousness.

Damasio, who is an internationally recognized leader in neuroscience, was educated at the University of Lisbon and currently directs the University of Southern California Brain and Creativity Institute. The human brain, he argues, became the “anchor” of what had once been a more distributed mind. Changes in bodily state were projected onto the brain and experienced as emotions or drives – the emotion of fear, say, or the drive to eat. Subjectivity evolved later again, he argues. “It was imposed by the musculoskeletal system, which evolved as a physical framework for the central nervous system and, in so doing, also provided a stable frame of reference: the unified ‘I’ of conscious experience.”

Life was regulated at first without feelings of any sort; here was no mind and no consciousness. 

“There was,” Damasio writes, “a set of homeostatic mechanisms blindly making the choices that would turn out to be more conducive to survival. The arrival of nervous systems, capable of mapping and image making, opened the way for simple minds to enter the scene. During the Cambrian explosion, after numerous mutations, certain creatures with nervous systems would have generated not just images of the world around them but also an imagetic counterpart to the busy process of life regulation that was going on underneath. This would have been the ground for a corresponding mental state, the thematic content of which would have been valenced in tune with the condition of life, at that moment, in that body. The quality of the ongoing life state would have been felt.”

Enter Sarah Garfinkel, at the University of Sussex, UK, who joins Damasio in arguing that our thoughts, feelings and behaviors are shaped in part by the internal signals that arise from our body. But, she reports in New Scientist: “it goes beyond that. It is leading her and others to a surprising conclusion: that the body helps to generate our sense of self and is a key part of consciousness. This idea has practical implications in assessing people who show little sign of consciousness. It may also force us to reconsider where we draw the line between life and death, and provide a new insight into how consciousness evolved.”

Since 2000, concludes Damasio, “I have been defending the idea that the body is a critical player in anything that has to do with mind.”

The Daily Galaxy, Max Goldberg, via New Scientist and Antonio R. Damasio, Descartes Error and the Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of the Cultural Mind and Paul Davies, The Demon in the Machine –All Kindle editions

Image credit: Shutterstock License

SCIENTISTS: BACTERIA COULD SURVIVE TRIP TO MARS ON OUTSIDE OF SPACECRAFT

GERALT VIA PIXABAY/FUTURISM
A DAY AGO__JON CHRISTIAN__FILED UNDER: OFF WORLD

The Hitcher

Researchers in Japan say that a sample of bacteria managed to survive in the vacuum of space, on the exterior of the International Space Station, for three entire years — raising the possibility that errant organisms could unknowing hitch a ride to Mars on an exploration mission.

“The results suggest that [bacteria] could survive during the travel from Earth to Mars and vice versa, which is several months or years in the shortest orbit,” said Akihiko Yamagishi, a professor of molecular biology at Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences who worked on the research, in a press release about the research.
Mars Tho

According to a new paper about the research published in the journal Frontiers in Microbiology, the bacteria in question is called Deinococcus, which tends to form small colonies and is resistant to ultraviolet radiation.


Yamagishi has previously investigated the hearty Deinococcus’ ability to survive miles above the Earth’s surface using balloons and aircraft.
Panspermia

Yamagishi’s research was motivated by the theory of panspermia, which posits that life is capable of spreading through space, perhaps by hitching a ride on meteorites.

“The origin of life on Earth is the biggest mystery of human beings,” Yamagashi said. “Scientists can have totally different points of view on the matter. Some think that life is very rare and happened only once in the Universe, while others think that life can happen on every suitable planet. If panspermia is possible, life must exist much more often than we previously thought.”


READ MORE: Bacteria could survive travel between Earth and Mars when forming aggregates [EurekAlert]

More on panspermia: New Evidence That Life on Earth Could Have Come From Outer Space


Could life have started on Mars before coming to Earth? Possibly, new study suggests

Japanese study tackles hypothesis of panspermia, where life could travel between planets

Nicole Mortillaro · CBC News · Posted: Aug 26, 2020

New research suggests that bacteria could survive in space and could have even come from Mars to Earth. (NASA/GSFC)
How life arose on Earth remains a mystery, though many theories have been proposed. Now a new study by Japanese scientists has reinvigorated the discussion around panspermia: The idea that life may have reached Earth from Mars.

The panspermia hypothesis suggests life may have arisen on another planet, with bacteria travelling through space, hitching a ride on a piece of rock or other means, eventually making its long-distance journey to Earth. Mars is a particularly appealing source, as studies suggest it was once potentially habitable with a large hemispheric ocean.

However, the biggest challenge has been determining if bacteria could survive the harsh interplanetary — or even intragalactic — journey.

To answer that question, a group of Japanese scientists, in participation with the Japanese space agency, JAXA, conducted an experiment on the International Space Station.

In the new study, published Wednesday in the journal Frontiers of Microbiology, researchers found, with some shielding, some bacteria could survive harsh ultraviolet radiation in space for up to 10 years.
Protective shield

For their experiment, the team used Deinococcal bacteria, well-known for tolerating large amounts of radiation. They placed dried aggregates (think of them as a collection of bacteria) varying in thickness (in the sub-millimetre range) in exposure panels outside the space station for one, two and three years beginning in 2015.

Early results in 2017 suggested the top layer of aggregates died but ultimately provided a kind of protective shield for the underlying bacteria that continued to live. Still, it was unclear whether that sub-layer would survive beyond one year.


NASA launches mission to Mars
28 days ago

NASA launched its next-generation Mars rover, Perseverance, which will endeavour to collect samples of Martian soil and rocks during a months-long mission. They will be the first material brought back to earth from another planet and could provide evidence about the possibility of life on Mars. 1:53

The new three-year experiment found they could. Aggregates larger than 0.5 mm all survived below the top layer.

Researchers hypothesized that a colony larger than one millimetre could survive up to eight years in space. If the colony was further shielded by a rock — perhaps ejected after something slammed into a planet such as Mars — its lifespan could extend up to 10 years.

Akihiko Yamagishi, a professor at Tokyo University in the department of pharmacy and life sciences who was principal investigator of the Tanpopo mission designed to test the durability of microorganisms on the ISS, said one of the important findings is that microbes could indeed survive the voyage from Mars to Earth.

"It increases the probability of the process, [making it] much higher," Yamagishi said in an interview.

Once life took hold in Earth's oceans, it thrived. (Great Barrier Reef National Park Authority/Reuters)

"Some think that life is very rare and happened only once in the universe, while others think that life can happen on every suitable planet. If panspermia is possible, life must exist much more often than we previously thought."

There are two important factors, he believes: Mars and Earth come relatively close together in their orbits every two years, which would allow time for transfer of bacteria; and the RNA World theory.

The theory hypothesizes that Earth was once composed of self-replicating ribonucleic acids (RNA) before deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and other proteins took hold. Yamagishi believes that RNA could have once existed on Mars before conditions for life arose on Earth and potentially travelled towards Earth bringing along RNA which began to seed our planet.
Not 'ironclad proof'

This isn't the first experiment to see whether bacteria could survive in space.

In past experiments, where microbes were mixed with clay, sugar or other elements, the bacteria died. However, this is the most promising finding to date supporting the panspermia hypothesis.

While some research suggests bacteria could survive a trip embedded in rock, this is the first of its kind to suggest they could survive without that kind of aid, what the researchers term "massapanspermia."

However, it's not an open and shut case.

"Actually proving that it could happen is another thing, so I wouldn't say that this is ironclad proof," said Mike Reid, a professor at the University of Toronto's Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics who wasn't involved in the Japanese study. "It's certainly leading in that direction."

Surface of Mars shows scars of glaciers just like Canada's High Arctic: study
It's Alive! Algae Survive 16 Months Exposure To Space

Does Reid believe life could have made its way from Mars to Earth?

"If you'd asked me 20 years ago, I would have said no, of course not. But now, it's a little hard to say," he said. "I think we won't be able to answer that question until we've had a really thorough look at the surface of Mars ... did it ever have life ... and was it like us?"

The answer to that question could come in the form of NASA's Perseverance mission to Mars that launched on July 30. One of the main goals of the state-of-the-art rover is to look for past signs of life on the red planet, taking samples to be returned to Earth at a later date.

While promising, the Japanese research team acknowledged that, while their research strengthens the case for panspermia, other factors need to be considered, such as whether bacteria could survive the descent through Earth's atmosphere.

Canadian company creates concrete from carbon dioxide in the air
Isabella O'Malley
Digital Reporter, Environmental Scientist


Thursday, August 27th 2020, 6:00 am - A Canadian cleantech company is fighting climate change by capturing carbon dioxide from a plentiful and perhaps obvious resource - the air we breathe.

Concrete’s omnipresence is undeniable and roughly 70 per cent of the world’s population lives in a structure that contains this material. Most of our built environment, including homes, schools, hospitals and buildings, was created with concrete because of its strength and relatively cheap cost. It is also incredibly versatile, which is why it is the second most widely used substance on Earth after water.

This use has come at a cost.

The concrete industry is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions globally and generates the most carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per dollar of revenue. Approximately 8 per cent of humanity’s carbon footprint comes from concrete and the only sources of greenhouse gases that are higher come from coal, oil and gas.

Most of the greenhouse gas emissions from concrete come from manufacturing cement, which is concrete’s primary ingredient. Limestone and clay are heated to 1,400°C to start the calcination process, which releases 50 per cent of concrete’s carbon emissions. The fossil fuels that heat the limestone account for 40 per cent and the fuel used for mining and transporting the concrete make up 10 per cent of the carbon emissions.

TRAP THE CARBON INSTEAD
Our reliance on concrete won’t disappear anytime soon, so CarbonCure, a Canadian cleantech company, designed a technology that injects captured CO2 from the air to permanently store it in concrete.

The company sources CO2 from industrial gas suppliers, which is then injected into wet concrete during the mixing process. As the materials are mixed, the CO2 undergoes a mineralization process that converts the gas into nano-sized minerals that strengthen the concrete and reduces the amount of cement needed. This procedure comes without compromising performance.


carboncure concrete Concrete made with CarbonCure technology was used to build the East Deicing Apron at Calgary International Airport in 2019. Credit: CarbonCure

“By using CarbonCure and manufacturing CO2 mineralized concrete, producers reduce the carbon footprint of their concrete by an average of 4-6 per cent,” said CarbonCure during an interview with The Weather Network.

“Every cubic metre of CO2 mineralized produced with CarbonCure reduces carbon emissions by 17 kg; so an average building made with CO2 mineralized concrete would reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 120,000 kg. That's equivalent to the carbon absorbed by 160 acres of forest in a year, or the emissions generated from driving 480,000 km.”

CarbonCure was founded in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 2012 and has since contributed to several large-scale projects using its technology, including the construction of one of its own buildings. Four years after the company formed, the Ambassatours Headquarters was built with 93,900 kg of CO2 that was captured from the air.

Another notable project that saved an impressive 160,000 kg of CO2 is the East Deicing Apron at the Calgary International Airport, which is equivalent to 85 hectares of forest absorbing CO2 in a one year period. The new centralized deicing pad was built in 2019 and involved the second-largest pour of CarbonCure concrete in a single project and the largest quantity to be used at a Canadian airport.


CONCRETE PRODUCTION EXPECTED TO GROW
Experts predict that growth in concrete production will coincide with global urbanization and economic development, which is why sustainable alternatives are needed to lower its exorbitant impact on the climate.

A study conducted by McKinsey & Company found that scaling innovative technologies can help the concrete industry reduce its 2017-level CO2 emissions by over 75 per cent by 2050. The company says that concrete will likely remain the top construction material globally due to the availability of limestone and cement, but the COVID-19 pandemic is providing opportunities for alternative sustainable materials.

“As players address the challenges of uncertain demand, they have an opportunity to reset strategies: identifying the best path toward decarbonization, assessing digital and technological advancements to invest in, and rethinking their products, portfolios, partnerships, and construction methodologies—areas we explore later,” McKinsey & Company states.

“Forward-thinking players could have an opportunity to leapfrog and become the industry front-runners.”

The study concludes that innovative approaches, including new technologies and alternative building materials, will be “indispensable” to achieve carbon reduction targets by 2050.

LGBT rights

How Trump's chief pink-washer is setting back LGBT+ equality  Mark Gevisser

Only a week after his ad endorsing the president’s pro-gay credentials, Richard Grenell seems to have forgotten his brief

Fri 28 Aug 2020
 

LGBT+ adviser Richard Grenell recording his speech for the Republican convention. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP


Richard Grenell, who spoke at the Republican party’s convention on Wednesday night, is an openly gay former US ambassador to Germany who has just been appointed the Trump campaign’s senior adviser on LGBTQ+ outreach. But just a week after Grenell launched a campaign advertisement in which he describes Trump as “the most pro-gay president in American history”, he remained utterly silent on the matter at the convention podium, choosing instead to focus his speech on the president’s “America first” foreign policy.

This is unsurprising, given not only Trump’s evangelical Christian base, but also how easy it is to disprove the claims made by Grenell in the earlier ad. In it, he distorts timelines and mashes up facts to present Joe Biden as a homophobe and Trump as some kind of rainbow warrior. He even claims that the US president initiated a global campaign to decriminalise homosexuality at the United Nations last year.
Advertisement

Trump, in fact, uttered a single sentence on the issue at the 2019 UN general assembly, as part of Grenell’s high-profile but empty global decriminalisation campaign. At a UN meeting he convened, Grenell said he wanted the 69 countries in which homosexuality was still illegal to be called out “on a daily basis”, and according to state department insiders, Grenell lobbied furiously for aid to these countries to be suspended if they did not drop their anti-gay laws.

If the global dynamics over LGBTQ+ rights in the past decade have shown one thing, it is that such intervention only strengthens the efforts of homophobic leaders, buttressing their claims that anti-gay policies protect their peoples’ “traditional values” and “cultural sovereignty” from the immoral west. It thus only makes life worse for LGBTQ+ people on the ground. When David Cameron was prime minister in 2011, he mooted that international aid should be conditional on decriminalisation: this caused a marked uptick in hostility to LGBTQ+ people in some African countries, and almost all the continent’s leading activists signed a statement disassociating themselves from the notion. In a similar vein, the Russian activist Igor Yasin wrote in 2013: “Russia needs its own Stonewall, not western sanctions.”

During Barack Obama’s term, the US government generally understood this, and trod carefully. It moved multilaterally and stayed in the background at the UN, working hard to support local activists. Particularly during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. Proactive US missions actually made a difference to LGBTQ+ activists around the world – although there were some notable mis-steps, such as the hosting of an LGBT Pride event in Pakistan in 2011, two months after the US assassination of Osama bin Laden on that country’s soil.

Some of this work has continued in the Trump years, but as elsewhere in US foreign policy, any notion of multilateralism has been thrown to the wind. And many of Grenell’s fellow Trump supporters, including conservative gay Republicans, deny that transgender people exist at all; abroad as at home, the US government has stepped away from any association with trans rights.

Meanwhile, the pro-gay stick can be used as another weapon against the US’s enemies. Listen, for instance, to Grenell’s words in his campaign ad: “President Trump fully supported our fight to crush the homophobic and barbaric Islamic terrorist organisation Hezbollah and the Iranian regime that supports them.”

This is an increasingly common tactic: rightwing European politicians, such as the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders, use the alleged homophobia of Muslims to justify their anti-immigration policies, while Israel uses its pro-LGBTQ+ policies to garner support in the US and western Europe, and to promote itself as a beacon of tolerance in a hostile neighbourhood. By promoting gay rights, activists claim, Israel “pink-washes” its human rights abuse of Palestinians. Now Grenell has become a pink-washer for Donald Trump: he chases the gay vote in the US (albeit not during the RNC) by suggesting that the “American” values Trump seeks to defend – against immigrants, and foreign powers, of course – include the protection of gay people. This is all the more egregious because of the Trump administration’s actual record: its opposition, for instance, to the LGBTQ+ employment discrimination cases ruled on by the supreme court in June, on the basis of a protection of religious freedom.

In contrast, Joe Biden’s extensive LGBTQ+ platform sets out to build on the gains made during the Obama era. It also tries to strike a balance in foreign policy between, on the one hand, the “aggressive” use of “pressure tactics” such as global Magnitsky sanctions, and “culturally appropriate information campaigns” and helping local organisations and activists on the other. And, in Congress, Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris is a co-sponsor of the Greater Leadership Overseas for the Benefit of Equality (Globe) Act, which sets out a comprehensive vision for the role that the US should play in promoting global LGBTQ+ equality.

Biden and the Globe act also emphasise the importance of immigration reform for LGBTQ+ people seeking asylum in the US. As I watched Grenell put on a rainbow-coloured “Make America Great Again” cap in his pro-Trump campaign ad, I thought of Camila Díaz Córdova, who was murdered in El Salvador in 2018. A few months previously she had petitioned for asylum in the US, armed with documentation of previous threats on her life, because she was transgender. She was deported before she was given the chance to argue her case.

• Mark Gevisser is the author of The Pink Line: The World’s Queer Frontiers

THE GUARDIAN

UPDATED 
Pandemic has brought Canadians together, pushed Americans apart, poll suggests

88% of Canadians said they approved of country's response to COVID-19

The Canadian Press · Posted: Aug 27, 2020


Families in Toronto’s east end Danforth neighbourhood bang pots and pans on April 15 as part of a nightly salute to health-care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. A new survey suggests two-thirds of Canadian respondents feel more united than before the outbreaks. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)

Canadians believe the COVID-19 crisis has brought their country together, while Americans blame the pandemic for worsening their cultural and political divide, a new international public opinion survey suggests.

Fully two-thirds of Canadian respondents to the Pew Research Center study released Thursday say they believe Canada is more united as a result of the coronavirus, while 77 per cent of U.S. participants feel precisely the opposite is true south of the border.

"In the U.S., where a patchwork of coronavirus-related restrictions reflects broad disagreement over the best path to economic recovery while mitigating the spread of the virus, roughly three-quarters say that the U.S. is more divided than before the coronavirus outbreak," the centre said in a release.

"In contrast, nearly three-quarters in Denmark say there is more unity now than before the coronavirus outbreak. More than half in Canada, Sweden, South Korea and Australia also say their countries have become more united since the coronavirus outbreak."

A similar bilateral gap emerged when those surveyed were asked about how their respective countries responded to the emergency.
In Canada, 88 per cent of respondents said they approved of their country's response to COVID-19, compared with just 47 per cent of Americans who feel the same way about how the U.S. has responded.

The difference of opinion in the U.S. was tied to the political affiliations of those who took part in the survey, said Kat Devlin, one of the Pew research associates who compiled the report. Of those identified as Republican, 76 per cent cheered the government response, compared with 25 per cent of Democrats.

Political splits

"In a way, in the U.S., we do see these political splits among the two main political parties that may affect the overall views of the U.S. compared with in Canada."

A separate online poll conducted over the weekend by Leger for the Association for Canadian Studies asked Canadian and Americans alike which of the two countries they believed had better handled the outbreak.

Fully 87 per cent of Canadian respondents said their country's response had been "much" or "somewhat" better than that in the U.S., while only 38 per cent of Americans agreed. Nearly as many — 37 per cent — gave the U.S. higher marks than Canada, while 25 per cent gave no answer.


The Pew survey also found a distinct link between respondents disappointed in the response to the pandemic in their country and the likelihood they felt divisions had worsened.

"In every country surveyed, those who think their country has done a bad job of dealing with the coronavirus outbreak are more likely to say that their country is now more divided."

The disparate versions of reality in the U.S. when it comes to COVID-19 have been on clear display over the last two weeks as America's political parties, their eyes squarely on the Nov. 3 presidential election, have used their national conventions to spin competing narratives.

Joe Biden's Democrats have excoriated Donald Trump's response to the pandemic and ensuing economic crisis, accusing the president of "devastating, inexcusable management" and his operatives of lying "through their teeth" about it.

Republicans, meanwhile, insist the crisis is under control, even as the death toll — 183,000 people to date out of a world-leading six million cases — continues to rise.

Regardless of their political affiliation, Americans surveyed agreed that divisions in the U.S. have widened since the pandemic began, Devlin said.

"This is actually one question where Republicans and Democrats are somewhat united in their answers," she said. "About three-quarters at least in both parties do feel this sense of national division here."

Women, who typically do more unpaid work at home such as child care, reported a disproportionate impact from the pandemic in 12 of 14 countries surveyed. (Katerina Georgieva/CBC)

The Canadian portion of the Pew study involved 1,037 respondents across the country who were surveyed by phone between June 15 and July 27, and the American section had 1,003 U.S. participants who took part between June 16 and July 14.

Both components of the survey carry a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

14 countries

The survey, which involved participants from 14 countries including the U.K., France, Italy, Australia, Japan and South Korea, also found a majority of respondents believe the global spread of COVID-19 could have been mitigated with stronger international co-operation. That sentiment was especially strong in Europe, which was hit hard by the virus in the earliest days of the pandemic, particularly in Italy and Spain.

In the U.S., where Trump has largely taken a go-it-alone approach, 58 per cent of respondents said the number of American cases could have been reduced had the country worked more closely with other countries.

Women who took part in the survey reported a disproportionate impact from the pandemic in 12 of the 14 represented countries. In Canada, 69 per cent reported that their lives had changed either a "great deal" or a "fair amount," compared with 57 per cent of men.

"Women around the world typically do more unpaid work at home than their male counterparts, such as child care and housework, and this may be amplified by closure of schools and day care centres to combat the spread of COVID-19," Pew reported.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has also said that more women than men around the world are employed part-time, "which is more likely to have been interrupted by the pandemic."

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/08/27/most-approve-of-national-response-to-covid-19-in-14-advanced-economies/

At RNC, Trump gave ‘what may have been the worst convention speech of my lifetime’
For the first time in memory, Donald Trump was a bore

 John Podhoretz | New York Post

But then, just as he did in the worst weeks of April and May, he found himself stumbling in his self-justification. At one point he garbled his words and said, “Thanks to advances, we have pioneered the fatality rate” — when he wanted to say that pioneering advances have led to an 80 percent drop in the fatality rate since April. A convention speech watched by tens of millions is not the greatest time to slip up in this way. You don’t want your most memorable moment to be a mistake 

UCP LIES
Collapsed oil prices and an increase in spending amid the COVID-19 pandemic have pushed Alberta into a historic projected deficit of $24.2 billion.

The UCP government’s fiscal update, presented Thursday in the legislative assembly by Finance Minister Travis Toews, shows a projected deficit for 2020-21 that is $16.8 billion more than was previously forecast. The February budget had predicted a $6.8 billion deficit, however the government revised that to $7.3 billion in March.

Toews said the pandemic and energy price war “blindsided our economy, just as it was beginning to show signs of improvement and approaching pre-recession levels of economic activity,” pointing to markers such as increased drilling rig activity and building permits.

University of Alberta economist Andrew Leach said Toews’ speech gave a false impression of what the situation looked like before the pandemic hit.

For instance, GDP growth was forecast at 2.7 per cent in October’s budget and revised to 2.5 per cent in February.

“Even their own budget documents had downgraded their 2020 outlook, employment was decreasing, bank projections for GDP growth for Alberta were decreasing, we had negative growth in 2019,” he said Thursday.

“All of these things, … if you watch the finance minister’s speech, you’d have no sense that that was true.”

NDP Opposition finance critic Shannon Phillips said the government failed to create jobs before the pandemic and was neglecting to make the investments in health care, education and child care that the economy needs to recover.

“We do not work if child care doesn’t work. We do not work if the school plan does not work …The choice here instead has been to give away large sums of money to already wealthy corporations in the hopes that they would create jobs, which they were not doing before the pandemic,” said Phillips.

Earlier this year, the government accelerated its corporate tax cut to eight per cent from 10 per cent, which took effect July 1. Thursday’s fiscal update said that move will reduce government revenue by between $200 million and $300 million.

POSTMEDIA  



Many Albertans remember the iconic image of former premier Ralph Klein holding up the “Paid In Full” sign to symbolize a debt-free Alberta government.

“I’m very, very proud to announce that Alberta has slain its debt,” the late premier told a cheering crowd on July 12, 2004.

Albertans, in fact, lead the nation in consumer debt. Plus, many people in our province are living paycheque to paycheque. Nearly half of Albertans say they are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills.  

Another credit rating agency, TransUnion, reported last November that Alberta used to fall below the national average delinquency rate. That changed in the second half of 2015

See the provincial delinquency rates here. 

Average debt in Calgary is $28,421 excluding mortgages, while Edmonton's average debt is $26,479 compared to average consumer debt nationwide of $21,458. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-calgary-consumer-debt-equifax-1.3484940

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/road-ahead-brooks-alberta-debt-deficit-politics-1.4574465


'Ralph Bucks' 14 years later: Could the Prosperity Bonus have saved Alberta’s bottom line?

Matthew Black  CTVNewsEdmonton.ca Digital Journalist
  Tuesday, January 14, 2020



The Prosperity Bonus checks were mailed to all Albertans who were residents of the province as of September 1 and filed a 2004 tax return.

EDMONTON -- It’s hard to imagine now, but this time 14 years ago Alberta literally had more money than it knew what to do with.

A series of seemingly unending oil-fueled budget surpluses eventually peaked at $8.7 billion in June of 2006.

With so much cash on hand, Premier Ralph Klein announced the Alberta Prosperity Bonus in September of 2005: a one-time $400 rebate for every Albertans carved out of $1.4 billion of the provincial surplus.


“He came up with a typical populist approach,” said MacEwan University political scientist Chaldeans Mensah.

“Ralph was simply trying to placate his base, ordinary Albertans, to reward them for the difficulties he’d put them through to balance the books.” 

VIDEO: 'Ralph Bucks' come to Alberta

While the “Ralph Bucks” initially proved popular with many, the policy wasn’t enough to sustain Klein’s political future, or shelter the province’s bottom line from the boom-and-bust energy industry and the financial slump that was to come.

“It was strongly supported by ordinary Albertans but the political establishment had some issues with the approach,” said Mensah.

HOW TO SPEND?

Cheques started arriving in mailboxes during January of 2006, sparking sudden spending splurges.

“Dear Albertan: Enclosed is your Alberta 2005 Resource Rebate. This $400 per-person rebate is being provided by the Government of Alberta as a non-taxable, one-time bonus to all Albertans in recognition of their role in building this province," the letter accompanying the check read.

"Congratulations, and thank you for helping build this province.”



With inflation, $400 in 2006 equates to just under $500 in present-day value.

“To be perfectly honest, a lot of people will be going out to buy an iPod,” university student Dan Arnold said in 2006.

“A big shopping spree,” said Grade 8 student Shelby Airth when asked how she would spend her bonus.

Her mother was less enthused, saying “every kid I know is pumped about the $400 that they're getting. That money should go towards offsetting high energy bills, but of course these guys don't see that.”


Savvy businesses picked up on the boom as well, including the Fairmont group of hotels which offered $400 packages encouraging Albertans to "Stay with the Fairmont and let Ralph pick up the tab!"

Others called for a more charitable use for the bonus, with websites like ProsperityInPerspective encouraging donations to local causes.

“I think Albertans are intelligent enough to spend their own money and that’s what this is,” Deputy Premier Shirley McClellan told CTV News in 2005.

CASH BOON BACKLASH

But the cash giveaway wasn’t a smash hit.

The Opposition and others called for a more planned approach to spending the surplus including on ideas like a provincial endowment fund, heightened education funding and a high-speed rail line linking Calgary and Edmonton.

"What's the point of even having a budget? What has happened to the discipline that this government was known for?" asked then-Alberta Liberal Leader Kevin Taft.

Even the right-leaning Calgary Herald took issue with an op-ed headline reading,

“Nice gesture, wrong message.”

“Our issues were very different than they are today,” remembers Scott Hennig with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

He wrote an Edmonton Journal editorial opposing the bonuses as a bait-and-switch shortly after they were announced in September of 2005.

“If your government unfairly imposes a regressive $528 ‘premium’ and then refunds you $400 of that money as a ‘prosperity rebate,’ do you thank it?”

In 2005, Hennig called for an end to the province’s health care premiums, saying it would have amounted to an annual $884-million tax break.

“It would have meant more to a lot of people,” he said looking back years later.

“We thought it was a really ham-fisted way to give a tax cut.”



RALPH BUCKS LEGACY

Hennig says had the government of the day handled its surpluses differently, the province would be in very different economic shape today.

“Even with oil prices down we’d be nowhere near deficit if they’d taken corrective action,” he said.

“It was all very avoidable had they had more modest spending and put it into long-term savings.”

Politically, any popularity boost Klein got from the bonuses was short-lived, within his party at least.

Two months after the cheques were mailed out he announced his intention to resign after his fourth term on Oct. 21, 2007, some 19 months later.

“He was beginning to lose his edge,” said Mensah. “The Ralph edge, the common touch.”

But by the end of March, the Progressive Conservatives had had enough with delegates giving Klein an underwhelming 55 per cent show of support at a party leadership review.

“It was a combination of bumbling leadership … [Klein] ran into problems with his health care reforms and he had some clashes in the legislature,” said Mensah.

“He was done in by the party establishment.”

Klein eventually resigned near the end of September of 2005.

Oil prices crashed in 2008 and the province has posted deficits in every year since, save for one.

“I don’t think any other government is going to follow that path,” said Mensah. “That path was a unique period in Alberta’s history where the government was simply flush with all the money coming in.”

“In hindsight, we see that was not an appropriate approach given what we are now facing as a province.”

With files from the Canadian Press

.

Thanks largely to rapid spending increases that actually began in the later stages of the Klein era, Alberta’s net assets started falling in 2008-09.

By 2016-17 the province had burned through all its net assets and started racking up debt.

Alberta has been adding an average of nearly $10 billion in debt annually since 2015-16, and provincial net debt is projected to hit $35.6 billion this year (2019-20).

The Kenney government’s recently-released 2020 budget calls for gradual deficit-elimination and a substantial slowdown in the pace of debt accumulation.

But energy prices have fallen so far that the budget’s revenue projections are no longer worth the paper they’re printed on.

And stock markets have crashed.

And the coronavirus, trade wars and other factors threaten to trigger a global recession.

So what happens if Alberta’s debt accumulation continues at something like its current pace?

Alberta’s net debt has climbed to almost $8,200 per person, which puts us in spitting distance of British Columbia ($8,782) and Saskatchewan ($10,210).

If Alberta continues to rack up debt in the next five years like it has over the past five — now a plausible scenario — the government’s net debt will hit $85.1 billion by 2024 or $18,500 per Albertan.

Under this scenario, Alberta will carry more debt per person than any Maritime province, where fiscal problems are well documented.

And while it once seemed unthinkable, formerly “debt free” Alberta is in danger of catching Quebec, once the poster-child for fiscal mismanagement, in per-person debt, hitting approximately $20,500 by the middle of the decade.

The consequences of this type of debt accumulation would be painful.

Government debt interest, negligible as recently as 2009, has climbed to $2 billion annually.

The 2020 budget forecasts an increase to $3 billion annually by 2022-23 — but again, that now looks very optimistic.

It’s been two decades since Ralph Klein held up his “debt-free” sign.

Since then, irresponsible choices have derailed Alberta’s finances.

BY THE PC PARTY NOW REBRANDED UCP

https://calgarysun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-opinion-alberta-careening-towards-fiscal-disaster

1999 ALBERTA BUDGET

Revenue Variability – Alberta has been described as having one of the most volatile economies in North America. We are vulnerable to swings in commodity prices and changes in the North American and world economies. While the economy has become more diversified over the last decade, unexpected changes, especially in energy prices, continue to have a significant effect on government revenues. Alberta’s revenue has varied, and will continue to vary, considerably  

Overestimating revenue is a recipe for disaster in Alberta. It resulted in $21 billion of debt being accumulated from 1985-86 to 1993-94. A debt that Albertans are still repaying. It is critical for the government and Albertans to maintain a longer-term perspective on what is affordable. What appears to be affordable one year may not be the next. The events of the last year clearly demonstrate why Alberta needs to be prudent in its budgeting. As a result of weaker world economic growth and low oil prices, provincial government revenue declined from $17.8 billion in 1997-98 to $16.6 billion in 1998-99 – a decline of $1.2 billion or 7%. 

If 1998-99 spending had been based on 1997-98 revenue, we would have had a $1.2 billion deficit. Annual Percentage Change in Revenue 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 (per cent) "A legislatively mandated revenue cushion provides additional comfort to withstand price volatility in the energy sector and possible revenue downturns." - Moody's Investors Service September 1998 from year to year. During the 1990s, revenue grew by an average of 7% in six of the nine years. However, in the other three years, it declined by an average of 4.5%. Protection Against Uncertain Revenue – Revenue cushions were required in the Deficit Elimination Act and the Balanced Budget and Debt Retirement Act to help protect against revenue variability. They ensured that spending was not based on overly optimistic revenue forecasts and provided insurance against in-year revenue declines. Since first introduced in Alberta, similar concepts have been adopted by a number of other governments in Canada. However, the complicated calculation formula and method of presentation of the revenue cushion made it difficult for the public to understand what the ‘real’ forecast of government revenue was and what debt payment was really expected at year end. Also, due to the way the cushion was determined, its size varied considerably over the last few years. It ranged from about 4% of revenue in 1996-97 and 1997-98 to only 2.7% in 1995-96 and 1998-99

1

OPINION

Rio's latest mistake: Putting a price on the priceless

Elizabeth Knight Business columnist
August 28, 2020

The biggest problem with this week’s response from Rio Tinto to its management-made destruction of an archaeological treasure is that it put a $7 million price on destroying something that was priceless.

Three senior executives, including the chief executive Jean-Sebastien Jacques, had a portion of their bonuses docked and were absolved of any blame because, as Rio says, the mistakes had been made collectively over a number of years under different management regimes.

Rather than quelling concerns and placating stakeholders, including traditional owners, shareholders and the broader international archaeological community, the findings of Rio’s internal investigations into the destruction at Juukan Gorge would be incendiary.

While Rio’s board and management are sticking with the line that there is nothing more to see here, even they must understand that this issue is a slow burner, and is far from over yet.


Anger over Rio's destruction of the Juukan Gorge and its subsequent handling of the matter keeps building.CREDIT:MICHELE MOSSOP

That $7 million price tag won’t even hit the sides when it comes to accountability.

When it comes to corporate governance and accountability it was Graeme Samuel, the co-author of the report into the Commonwealth Bank’s Prudential Inquiry, who distilled a board’s decision making into answering two questions: Could we? And should we?
The Rio management knew it could legally blow up the Juukan caves. Yet the second question some anonymous Rio person or group asked instead of 'should we?' unfortunately was ' when can we’?

It is now up to the shareholders to impose their own governance standards on Rio’s board and management.

AustralianSuper boss Ian Silk has this week set the standard, saying that $7 million of punishment is not enough to compensate for the Juukan destruction. In doing so publicly he was signalling to other major shareholders that he would like a bit of company on the ethical high stool.

Others, like Hesta, are becoming a bit more courageous. "[Rio's report] doesn't address strongly who is ultimately responsible for ensuring adherence to its standards and for ongoing oversight, and that is something we continue to engage on’, its chief executive Debby Blakely said.

"We do remain concerned about the gap in their public commitments and their actions, and we want to continue to engage on that."

Does the company feel that £4 million is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage?Louise Davidson, Australian Council of Superannuation Investors

Meanwhile, the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ Louise Davidson’s eyebrows were also raised at the findings from Rio’s internal investigation.

"Remuneration appears to be the only sanction applied to executives. This raises the question – does the company feel that £4 million ($7 million) is the right price for the destruction of cultural heritage?

"The report from the Rio Tinto board review does not deliver any meaningful accountability for the destruction of some of the most significant cultural sites in Australia. The company should explain why greater accountability was not applied in light of this disaster," she said.

AustralianSuper seeks tougher penalties for Rio Tinto cave blast

A string of other investors including Aberdeen and Legal & General have also voiced their concerns, albeit not as strongly.

Over the past couple of days, having read the Rio report the UK’s Local Authority Pension Fund Forum described the company’s actions as an appropriate first step, but said it was looking to see what further action is taken when the findings from the current Senate inquiry are released.

Meanwhile, the really big owners of Rio’s British and Australian shares are the international investment giants BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These are passive investors that tend to talk big on their environmental, social and governance credentials but have a spotty history when it comes to pushing these issues or voting against boards.

One thing Rio does have in its favour is the Chinese-owned Chinalco as a 14.6 per cent shareholder. Last year it voted, unsuccessfully, against the board’s share buyback proposal, but this was because it was prohibited from taking its stake over 15 per cent. It's considered less concerned though about Rio's social licence to mine culturally sensitive areas.

If there is sufficient groundswell from investors in Rio to vote against directors at next year’s annual meeting it could be enough to embarrass one or two into not seeking re-election.

But history has shown boards tend to throw their chief executives under the bus before it comes to that.