NASA Makes a Surprise Statement, Calling Out Private Space Start-up for Big Risks

By Sissi Cao • 11/03/20


ESA’s Aeolus satellite was recently maneuvered to avoid collision with a SpaceX Starlink satellite. ESA/ATG medialab

Inspired by the ambitions of SpaceX and its rivals to move our internet infrastructure from ground cell towers and underground optic fibers to satellites orbiting from above, a Texas-based space startup called AST & Science has an even bolder idea: it wants to deploy cell towers-sized satellites in low Earth orbit to provide 4G and 5G connection to smartphones on Earth.

The company plans to build a constellation of 243 such satellites and has raised $110 million to fund the project, codenamed “SpaceMobile.” However, NASA is gravely worried about the risk of these satellites colliding with other objects in Earth’s orbit and voiced its objection to the project in an unprecedented open letter.

“With the increase in large constellation proposals to the FCC, NASA has concerns over the possibility of a significant increase in frequency of conjunction events,” the space agency wrote in a letter dated October 30. The letter was submitted during the public comment period of the company’s Federal Communications Commission petition to acquire radio spectrum permits.

See Also: Will Starlink Satellites Become Space Junk One Day? SpaceX Has an (Imperfect) Plan.


It’s the first time NASA has publicly opposed a private company’s plan to build a satellite constellation, because AST’s proposed altitude, 466 miles (720 kilometers) above Earth, lies near NASA’s “A-Train” satellites, a group of 10 Earth-observing satellites operated by the space agency and the U.S. Geological Survey.

SpaceX’s Starlink satellites orbit at a similar altitude (341 miles, or 550 kilometers), but AST’s satellites are significantly larger, which NASA said pose an “unacceptably high risk” of collision in space and would require a great deal of work on a daily basis to prevent it.

In order to provide service, each AST satellite will need large phased-array antennae that span an area of 900 square meters.

“Historical experience with the A-Train constellation has shown that this particular region of space tends to produce a large number of conjunctions between space objects,” the NASA letter said. “For the completed constellation of 243 satellites, one can expect 1,500 mitigation actions per year and perhaps 15,000 planning activities. This would equate to four maneuvers and 40 active planning activities on any given day.”

See Also: SpaceX Starlink’s Bankrupt Rival, OneWeb, To Resume Satellite Launch

Also concerned with AST’s lack of experience in building such projects, NASA estimates that up to 10 percent of the satellites may end up failing, which would make them even more difficult to maneuver around.

AST said it plans to work with NASA to address its concerns, “including providing clarification of AST’s constellation design that robustly manages orbital debris, keeping NASA and other orbital assets safe,” Raymond Sedwick, chief scientist for space systems at AST, said in a statement to Ars Technica on Monday.

Potential space collision is a growing concern among space agencies as commercial space missions crowd up low Earth orbit at an unprecedented rate.

SpaceX, the busiest satellite launcher right now, addresses this problem by installing ion engines on its Starlink satellites so that they can maneuver themselves around to avoid collisions. And when those engines die off, the satellites should naturally de-orbit and burn up in Earth’s atmosphere.

It’s not a perfect solution, though, because about 3 percent of Starlink satellites fail to function after deployment, making them de facto space debris.

Coalition Led By SpaceX, Blue Origin Want to Rewrite FCC Rules On Space Use
By Sissi Cao • 11/04/20 



In his second venture, Blue Origin, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos doesn’t have the luxury to use an existing infrastructure like the USPS for Amazon. Mark Wilson/Getty Images

As the commercial space industry takes off amid a boom of billionaire-backed rocket and satellite startups, the industry’s leading players are urging the Federal Communications Commission, which manages traffic in the increasingly busy low Earth orbit (altitudes between 160 kilometers and 1,000 kilometers), to rewrite rules about how companies use space.

On Monday, an industry coalition representing Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Virgin Orbit, Relativity Space and Sierra Nevada submitted a letter to the FCC, urging the agency to “undertake appropriate reforms of its launch and reentry licensing processes consistent with the direction outlined in Space Policy Directive 2 (SPD-2),” a White House memo issued in 2018 to push agencies like the FCC to streamline regulations regarding space use.

The letter was first reported by CNBC’s Michael Sheetz on Twitter. Noting that the number of commercial rocket launches have grown significantly since 2013, “timely Commission action can help facilitate a rapidly growing commercial space industry that supports the public interest, streamlines outdated regulatory procedures, and protects spectrum use for both government and commercial users,” wrote representatives of the coalition.


Space activities in the U.S. are regulated by multiple federal agencies. The FCC is responsible for responsible for coordinating the use of radio spectrums at which satellites transmit signals from one another in order to prevent signal interference. The agency is historically known for being highly generous in granting spectrum access to commercial missions.

“I’m not aware of any example of the FCC denying such a license,” Brian Weeden, a satellite expert at the Secure World Foundation, recently told Ars Technica. “They’re trying to be business-friendly and encourage companies to be doing business in the US.”

Apparently that’s not enough to satisfy the rapidly growing business of space companies. In Monday’s letter, the industry coalition recommended a list of principles for any potential FCC rule change, with a focus on improving spectrum access for commercial launches, coordinating spectrum use by multiple companies, and automating the application and review process.

The coalition is notably missing a number of major industry players, including longtime NASA contractor United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and small satellite startup Rocket Lab.

Unifor extends contract talks with General Motors past strike deadline

TORONTO — The union representing Canadian workers at General Motors says its bargaining committee has decided to continue its contract talks with the company past the strike deadline.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Unifor had set a deadline of 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday to reach a new, three-year labour deal and encouraged members to be prepared to strike if needed.

But the union said just before the deadline that its master bargaining committee was ready to negotiate all night to avoid a work stoppage.

Any proposed deal to come out of the negotiations would need to be approved by GM's 4,100 union members, who are scheduled to vote on Sunday.

The union said Wednesday afternoon that executives from the Detroit automaker came to Canada this week for face-to-face discussions as bargaining heated up.

Unifor national president Jerry Dias is expected to give more information about negotiations at a news conference at 10 a.m. ET.

Ahead of its deadline, the union said the company had not offered concrete commitments on future product plans, and was falling short of earlier agreements struck by Ford Motor and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 5, 2020

 

Harry Reid Confirms US Federal Government Covered Up UFOs For Years

"There's more than one up there," the former Senate majority leader says in the new UFO documentary "The Phenomenon."

• By Ed Mazza, HuffPost 

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the U.S. government has been hiding key details about UFOs for years. 

“Why the federal government all these years has covered up, put brake pads on everything, stopped it, I think it’s very, very bad for our country,” Reid said in the new documentary “The Phenomenon” from director James Fox. 

“Are you saying that there’s some evidence that still hasn’t seen the light of day?” asked Fox. 

“I’m saying most of it hasn’t seen the light of day,” Reid replied. 

The film examines the history of UFO sightings in the United States and abroad, including new details about the military-confirmed encounters off the coast involving U.S. Navy pilots. It also details a 1967 report in which an object appeared over a U.S. missile base at the same time 10 of the missiles became inoperative. 

“If they had been called upon by the president to launch, they couldn’t have done it,” Reid said in the film. 

Reid, who was among the lawmakers behind a classified but since-closed U.S. government UFO program, has become increasingly outspoken about the phenomena since leaving office. However, he stopped short of confirming evidence of other-worldly activity, writing in August on Twitter that he wants the issue studied and that “we must stick to science, not fairy tales about little green men.”

He repeated that point of view in the new film. 

“Nobody has to agree why it’s there. But should we at least be spending some money to study all these phenomenon?” he asked. “The answer is ‘yes.’” 

UFO expert Lee Speigel, a former HuffPost reporter, served as a co-writer and co-producer on the film, which he said took seven years to come to fruition. 

HUFFPOST IS THE RT OF NORTH AMERICA

“Whether you’re a UFO ‘believer’ or debunker, those in-between or still undecided, it’s important to present accurate information that potentially affects the national security of all nations and the safety of all citizens of our planet,” Spiegel said. 

“The Phenomenon” is currently available via VOD.

Calgary-Nosehill Conservative MP Michelle Rempel-Garner gave a tribute to women and witches in the House of Commons.

                                        FRIDAY OCTOBER 30, HOUSE OF COMMONS

"ON THE OCCASSION OF THIS RARE BLUE MOON SAMHAIN, ALL YOU WITCHES OUT THERE KEEP ON ROCKING"

AND BLESSED BE TO YOU TOO 

Uber, Lyft keep contractor status for drivers
Joel Rosenblatt, Robert Wilkens-Iafolla
Bloomberg News

In one fell swoop, Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. on Tuesday fended off labor protections that were decades in the making, allowing the companies to keep compensating their drivers as independent contractors.

(BACK TO THE SIXTIES WITH PROVISIONS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW THAT CAN EXCLUDE TRAVELING SALESMEN AND CAB DRIVERS THAT ALBERTA USED TO HAVE)

By design, very little will change under the ballot measure approved by California voters that was underwritten by the ride-hailing companies, along with Instacart Inc., DoorDash Inc. and Postmates Inc.

While Proposition 22 requires these app-based transportation services to offer some modest new perks for drivers, it protects them from having to provide much costlier benefits that full-time employees get

.


For the companies, that makes the more than $200 million they and their supporters spent on the ballot measure campaign — a record for the most populous state — worth every penny, according to William Gould, a professor at Stanford Law School.

“Two hundred million plus is much cheaper from their perspective than paying the employees these benefits that the legislature has established for them,” said Gould, a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board under President Bill Clinton.

Shares of Uber and Lyft surged the most in several months on the election outcome. Lyft’s stock advanced 12% by 11:40 a.m. in New York trading, while Uber was up 13%. The reaction from investors Wednesday reflects not just the stakes in California but also expectations of what will happen elsewhere.

By establishing a template for a hybrid classification of worker that breaks from the traditional employee-or-contractor mold, Proposition 22 may have broader ramifications. If the rule works out well for both the workers and companies it could influence a push for legislation in other states or on the federal level, legal experts said.

“Legal pushback may continue, but Proposition 22 sets the tone for other states to follow in recognizing gig workers as a central part of today’s economy and the future of work,” said Jesse Jauregui, partner with Alston & Bird. “Proposition 22 is pointing to a new third way’ of structuring the nature of work and may become the model for other gig workforces to follow.”

Uber and Lyft have long pushed federal and state lawmakers to adopt a “third classification.”

Some federal lawmakers have also pushed “portable benefits” that would give some benefits to drivers, but not give them the full employment entitlements or put the companies on the hook for liability.

By no stretch is Tuesday’s vote a global panacea for the ride-hailing industry, which has been ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic.

Uber and Lyft will continue to face court challenges to their labor model elsewhere in the U.S. and abroad.

What the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement means for the global fight against climate change

New Atlanticist by Margaret Jackson and Jorge Gastelumendi

Related Experts: Margaret Jackson, Jorge Gastelumendi


COP25 High Level Climate Champion Gonzalo Munoz holds the copy of The Paris Agreement as he poses with Britain's former Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth and newly appointed COP26 President, Claire Perry, Italian Environment Minister Sergio Costa and Spanish State Secretary of Environment Hugo Moran (not pictured) during the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid, Spain December 13, 2019. REUTERS/Susana Ver


The United States finalized its formal withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change on November 4, exactly one year after it began the process. Today, with the presidential election outcome still undetermined, the United States is the first country to step away from the historic climate accord.

US President Donald J. Trump first announced his intent to withdraw on June 1, 2017. Article 28 of the Paris Agreement stipulates that a country must wait three years after the agreement went into force on November 4, 2016, to withdraw, at which point the country may do so by submitting written notification to the Secretariat, and then wait one year until the withdrawal takes effect.

When former US President Barack Obama spoke about the success of the Paris Agreement in December 2015, he said, “Together, we’ve shown what’s possible when the world stands as one.” The Parties of the Paris Agreement—then 195 nations—agreed on a bottom-up approach to combat climate change and hold the global average temperature below two degrees Celsius, with best efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees. The climate accord presents a framework for transparent reporting and monitoring of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a pathway towards a climate-resilient development, as well as a mechanism to increase climate ambition on mitigation and adaptation every five years through the resubmission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).

The urgency to address climate change-induced impacts keeps increasing. While immediately stopping GHG emissions is essential, legacy emissions mean that a heated planet, now at 1.0 degrees Celsius (~1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer is currently subject to stronger and more frequent and devastating storms, floods, and fires. Communities, especially cities, are forced to adapt and withstand these climate-fueled disasters.

Climate change affects every country around the world and can only be solved through a coordinated, multilateral effort. The Paris Agreement has been the most effective platform to bring countries together around this issue. Despite its shortcomings, the countries involved are willing to come to the table year after year to make collective progress during the annual Conference of the Parties (COP).

The United Kingdom will host COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 after postponing a year due to the coronavirus pandemic. The UK is using this year to increase pressure on countries, businesses, cities, and regions to aim for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and to make the commitment before the next COP, as well as mobilizing an adaptation and resilience global action agenda jointly with Egypt. In addition to the frequency and severity of extreme weather and extreme heat events around the world that raised awareness of the risk of climate change, this kind of geopolitical pressure led to unprecedented momentum across the public and private sectors in a race to net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century.

The European Union launched the Green Deal with a promise to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, and the recent carbon neutrality statements of China, Japan, and South Korea indicate that the world is moving ahead in the fight against climate change, with or without US leadership. Last week, two US allies—Japan and the Republic of Korea—announced carbon neutrality commitments by 2050, one week before the US presidential election, and two weeks after Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China’s 2060 carbon neutrality target. President Trump’s “America First” agenda and the US absence in climate and the global COVID-19 response have left the door wide open for China to step in as a leader in international climate governance.

The US withdrawal from the climate accord could be short-lived if former Vice President Joe Biden is elected. Biden stated he intends to rejoin the Paris Agreement and implement an ambitious climate agenda under his “Build Back Better” campaign, including a target of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, a commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, and the promotion of green infrastructure and climate resilience as components of a global economic recovery.

However, a Republican-led Senate could hinder his progress and present obstacles to reinstating the environmental and climate regulations that the Trump administration rolled back over the last four years. The work to regain confidence in the United States as a climate leader will start at home with more ambitious policy action, a commitment to clean energy innovation and deployment, and improved resilience measures.

Another four years of a Trump presidency would hinder international efforts to fight the causes and impacts posed by climate change and make the goal of peaking global carbon emissions by 2030, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nearly impossible. The United States is the second-highest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the highest emitter in per-capita emissions. The Climate Action Tracker labels US climate policies as “critically insufficient” and attributes most of the reductions in emissions over the next few years to the economic slowdown from the pandemic.

However, the momentum to decrease emissions will not wane at the US subnational level, whatever the outcome of the election. Coalitions like We Are Still In are leading the charge for climate ambition in statehouses, city halls, tribal governments, and campuses across the country. Together, they aim to reduce US GHG emissions by 37 percent from 2005 levels, though decisive federal government action could accomplish much more. The United Nations and other countries are committed to working with US stakeholders who share the determination to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, regardless of the position of US federal leadership.

The pandemic illustrated the critical role for strong national leadership in combating a crisis and what happens when countries—including the United States—fail to cooperate on a multilateral level to find a solution. The global influence of the United States will decline if the next president does not commit to a 2050 net-zero target, bolster worldwide adaptation and resilience efforts, and rejoin the Paris Agreement. Climate change is emerging as a central pillar of key multilateral forums such as the Group of Seven (G7) and the Group of Twenty (G20) and will be an integral part of foreign policy from trade to health to security. The pressure to act will not abate.

Margaret Jackson is deputy director for climate and advanced energy at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.

Jorge Gastelumendi is director of global policy for the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center.

Either way, this election is a major turning point for our climate future

Elections 2020 by Kathy Baughman McLeod

View on Thursday April 23 2020 not far from Fienstorf, Germany. (REUTERS)

As the nation braces for the presidential election next week, there’s arguably no issue beyond the COVID-19 crisis for which the stakes are higher than climate change policy. The increasingly alarming and measurable impact of global warming in the United States alone—as evidenced by the four hurricanes that have smacked the state of Louisiana since August and the recent devastation wrought by the California wildfires, which have scorched more acreage than in any year since CalFire began keeping records in 1932—means that the outcome on November 3 will mark a true make-or-break moment for climate change policy in the United States.

This hot-button topic is one on which the two candidates couldn’t be further apart—and also one that’s front and center in the minds of the American public. According to a survey conducted this summer by Pew Research Center, 68 percent of voters feel that climate change is an important issue in their voting decision. So, what can we expect on this issue from a second Trump term or a Biden administration?

The current administration’s view of the impact of climate change is reflected in its record and messaging over the last four years, during which the US environmental policy has been characterized by a denial of science and a steady dismantling of environmental policies governing clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals. The administration has rolled back seventy-two regulations—including limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions—with twenty-seven more in progress.

These rollbacks include weakening fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks, lifting a freeze on new coal leases on public lands, and changing how the Endangered Species Act is applied, thus making it more difficult to protect wildlife from the long-term threats posed by climate change (like significant changes in habitat).

Conversely, the Trump administration issued an executive order to support the One Trillion Trees Initiative, which aims to promote and build resilient forests by restoring and conserving a trillion trees around the world by the end of the decade. Some ecologists estimate that this initiative would significantly lessen heat-related impacts by sequestering about 25 percent of the carbon that is currently in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, many of the Trump administration’s actions have positioned climate action as a threat to the US economy, while championing and facilitating the growth of the coal, oil, and gas industries (despite the fact that renewable energy presently represents the greatest area of job growth in the energy sector), and repeatedly labeling climate activists as alarmists. There is little reason to expect a change in this stance should President Trump be reelected.

Former Vice President Biden, meanwhile, has proclaimed climate change to be a national priority, promising unprecedented executive action out of the gate to both mitigate the impact of a warming planet and position the US as the global leader in pioneering environmental policy. He has vowed not only to immediately recommit to the Paris Agreement, but also to rally the rest of the world to ramp up their own domestic climate targets.

A man rides a bike on a flooded street following Hurricane Irma in North Miami, Florida, US, September 11, 2017. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri


His overarching goal stateside is to ensure the United States achieves a 100 percent clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. To set the country on the right track, he plans to advance legislation during his first year in office that establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets by his first term’s end in 2025; makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation; and incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the country. Such innovations will focus especially on areas most vulnerable to climate change, including the coastal communities suffering from the effects of sea level rise, salt water intrusion and sunny day flooding, as well as the storms that increasingly hammer vulnerable areas, where 40 percent of Americans make their home.

To address the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—underfunded for decades and further strained by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as new work-from-home patterns test utility systems and underscore the need for widely accessible broadband internet and reliable transportation—Biden has also vowed to take action. In July he announced a plan to spend $2 trillion over four years on clean energy and climate resilient initiatives to rejuvenate the transportation, electricity, and building sectors, which he believes will create millions of new jobs—including one million jobs developing and manufacturing electric cars—for what he hopes is a foundation for sustainable growth and improved public health.

Former Vice President Biden’s goals include achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035, upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest energy-efficiency standards, and providing every American city with more than 100,000 residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options. Furthermore, it promises to make communities that have suffered disproportionately from pollution—including low-income rural and urban communities and communities of color—the first to benefit from these far-reaching initiatives.

Predictably, there are factions of the climate change movement that believe Biden’s strategy to mitigate global warming isn’t aggressive enough. Climate advocacy groups have argued that the former vice president’s plan doesn’t provide a sufficiently clear and short path for the United States to decrease its dependency on fossil fuels. However, it stands to reason that in order to go further, he must first cross the election finish line—which depends in part on winning over undecided and moderate voters in swing states. And to do so, he needs to walk a careful line, especially in regard to energy policy in crucial states like Pennsylvania, where the fate of fossil fuel-based fracking weighs heavily on many voters’ minds.

As we move forward into the next presidential administration, the science and data are clear: the United States needs new policies and investments to avoid the worst human and economic impacts of climate change to our country. Next week’s election is arguably the most important in our history in regard to climate change and its increasingly traumatic—and expensive—ramifications, for both our country and our world.

Kathy Baughman McLeod is senior vice president and director of the Adrienne Arsht Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center at the Atlantic Council.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist

NDP Steps Up Push For New Tax On Wealthy, Companies ‘Profiteering’ From Pandemic
Jagmeet Singh is taking his pitch for a super-wealth tax 

into the House of Commons.

By Ryan Maloney

11/04/2020 

ADRIAN WYLD/CP

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh speaks during a news conference

 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Nov. 4, 2020.


Federal New Democrats are renewing a push for Canada’s wealthiest people and the corporations thriving amid the COVID-19 pandemic to pay more to ease the country’s crisis recovery.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh announced Wednesday his party will introduce a motion in the House of Commons calling for a so-called super-wealth tax and an excess-profits tax on “big corporations profiteering from the pandemic.” The party says the estimated billions of dollars in new revenue raised by such moves should then be spent on health care and social programs.

Though non-binding on the government, the motion, set to be introduced Thursday, could put pressure on the Liberals, whose emergency spending during the crisis has resulted in a massive deficit. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) said in September that Canada is on track for a $330-billion deficit this fiscal year.

At an Ottawa press conference, Singh said ordinary Canadians are becoming “more and more worried” about shouldering the burden of slaying the deficit, warning it could mean eventual government cuts to health care and social programs.

“To pay for the programs, the help that people need, it should not be you that has to pay for it,” Singh said. “It should not be families and people and workers and small businesses who have struggled. It should be those who have profited off the pandemic, it should be the ultra-wealthy that contribute their fair share.”

The motion notes that since the pandemic’s start in March, Canadian billionaires are $37 billion richer, a figure that comes from a recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. It asks the House to call on the government to legislate a “one per cent tax on wealth over $20 million,” an NDP platform pledge in the last federal election.

The proposal for an excess-profits tax is also something Singh has raised before. He said last month that large companies benefiting during the pandemic, such as grocery chains and Amazon.com Inc., should see profits that are higher than averages before the crisis taxed at double the corporate rate, The Globe and Mail reported.

According to New Democrats, the money raised by both moves should be re directed to:

Ensure all Canadian residents can have a guaranteed livable basic income;

“Expand health care” with a national dental care program and a “universal, single-payer, public pharmacare program”;

Implement a right to housing and fund a “For Indigenous, By Indigenous” housing strategy to be delivered by Indigenous housing providers.

The PBO reported in July the NDP’s proposed super-wealth tax could net $5.6 billion in the current fiscal year and estimated it would apply to 13,800 Canadian families. However, the office warned “the magnitude of this response is highly uncertain and dependent on the level of enforcement and the asset valuation techniques prescribed by the legislation.”

Asked how far a wealth tax would really go to paying for new programs, Singh said it would generate “massive new revenue that we could get from people who could afford to do so.”

The excess-profit tax also “has the potential to have massive revenue implications, which is also not something to be ignored,” he said, adding the NDP will likewise keep pushing the government to target the use of tax havens by corporations.

The NDP leader, who on Tuesday called for the defeat of U.S. President Donald Trump, said the tight election results in that country reflect that many ordinary people are feeling let down, frustrated, and angry.

The resiliency of Trump’s vote, despite his many controversies and what the NDP leader has called a failure to manage the pandemic, “just makes me want to work harder,” Singh said.

The government’s September throne speech, which passed with NDP support, identified pharmacare as a priority, but did not pledge to bring in a guaranteed basic income. It also stated the government would “identify additional ways to tax extreme wealth inequality.”
‘No blank cheques,’ Freeland says

In a virtual speech to the Toronto Global Forum last week, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland made the case for more deficit spending amid the ongoing health emergency.

“It is just not practically possible, never mind fair, to ask workers to stay home, or businesses to shut their doors, without providing the financial support they need to compensate for lost income,” she said.

Yet she also said she is not among those who believe deficits “don’t matter” to governments and signalled federal aid programs can’t go on forever.

“Whether on Bay Street or Main Street, there are no blank cheques, and there are no free lunches,” she said. “Our fiscally expansive approach to fighting the coronavirus cannot and will not be infinite.”

With a file from The Canadian Press

Bigger, wider and more politicized: Alberta's 2nd surge of COVID-19 has arrived
Robson Fletcher CBC

© CBC Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, left, in an April televised address about the COVID-19 situation in the province. At right, Kenney responds to a question about the spread of the virus, at an unrelated press conference in October

© CBC

In Alberta, the novelty of the novel coronavirus has worn off.

Back in the spring, the threat was new and unknown. Provincial leaders acted accordingly, with an abundance of caution. Seeing what was likely coming, they cancelled in-person classes across Alberta with just 56 reported cases of the disease.

By late March, with the province recording 56 new cases per day, non-essential businesses were forced to close and gatherings were restricted to a maximum of 15 people, including in churches and private homes. At the same time, Premier Jason Kenney gave police new powers to enforce public-health orders.

In April, the premier convened a special, televised address. He laid out the scale of the threat in somber tones and, saying he didn't want to sugar-coat the situation, shared several models of the disease's potential spread. The worst-case scenario, he said, could see as many as 6,600 deaths by the end of the summer. That is, if Albertans didn't act.

But Albertans did act. Collective efforts were successful in the curbing the spread of the virus. Apart from two major outbreaks at meat-packing plants, COVID-19 was largely contained elsewhere in the province. By June, just a couple dozen new cases were being reported each day. A week or more would pass with zero deaths.

Everyone breathed a collective sigh of relief. Dr. Deena Hinshaw, the province's chief medical officer of health, dialled back her daily addresses from five days a week, to three, to two. The province's data crunchers stopped publishing updated statistics on weekends and holidays. Summer arrived, and the living seemed easier.

How things have since changed.
Setting new highs

On Tuesday, Alberta Health announced 2,268 new cases and 15 more deaths since Friday, bringing the total deaths to 338. (The four-day data dump was the result of the aforementioned end to weekend reporting, coupled with some computer maintenance on Monday.)

New records were set — again — for hospitalizations, ICU admissions and active cases.

And yet, the response from provincial leaders has remained relatively subdued, at least compared with those early days. At a press conference on an unrelated matter on Monday, Kenney was asked about the situation and said Albertans can expect additional measures later this week, but offered no specifics.

He spoke seriously of the situation, urging young Albertans, in particular, to "knock it off" with the partying and social gatherings. His words carried less urgency, though, compared with his April address.

"I know people are tired of it," the premier said. "We're all fed up with this."

While many Albertans may be tired of the public-health restrictions — and, perhaps, inured to the threat of the virus — many others fear the worst is yet to come. Various polls have shown the divide often tends to fall along partisan lines.

Predicting the future is impossible, of course, but a close look at Alberta's present situation reveals a few things: the current wave of COVID-19 is larger, more widespread and more politicized than the first.
Bigger

Whether you call it a wave, a surge, or a simple increase in spread, recent data from Alberta Health makes it clear the province is recording more cases of COVID-19 than ever.

In early October, around 150 cases per day were being detected by the provincial lab. By mid-October, it was into the 300s. And by the end of the month, daily cases peaked above 600 for the first time in the province's history.

That marks a doubling time of about 2½ weeks.

If current trends continue, physicians and researchers worry we could be soon be seeing thousands of cases per day in Alberta.

Adjusted for population, Alberta now has the second-highest number of active COVID-19 cases of all provinces. (The highest is Manitoba, where a "code red" situation was declared in Winnipeg this week, bringing widespread closures and restrictions to the city.)

There is a focus on cases because they are a leading indicator of the disease. Where cases go, severe outcomes tend to follow. And Alberta has been seeing a surge in those, as well.

Last week, the number of patients in hospital with COVID-19 hit an all-time high. The province also set a record for the number of patients in intensive care.

Many of these people caught the disease while in hospital for other reasons, but this still has an effect on the capacity of the health-care system. In Edmonton, physicians warned the system is at a "tipping point," after outbreaks at four hospitals.

Calgary's hospitals have seen outbreaks, too. And while they may currently be under less strain than those in Edmonton, they are still stretched.

For the first time, the Peter Lougheed Centre has activated the field hospital it built in the spring. The temporary structure in the hospital's parking lot sat empty for months after construction because there was no need for the extra space.

Now, it's being used 20 hours per day as an auxiliary emergency department, to make more room for COVID-19 patients in the hospital, proper.

Deaths, too, have been rising.

After a lull in the summer, the number of people dying from COVID-19 has been creeping back up, especially lately.

Over the past week, the province has recorded more than four deaths per day, on average, for the first time since late April.

There is typically a delay of up to several days in reporting deaths, as well, so the most recent numbers are usually an undercount.

But it's not just the height of the current wave that's different from the spring surge. It's also the breadth.
Wider

Alberta saw a huge spike in COVID-19 cases in April, but these were largely localized events — primarily related to major outbreaks at two slaughterhouses in the southern part of the province.

First, the Cargill meat-packing plant near High River, just south of Calgary, saw the virus sweep through its staff. By the time it was over, 949 employees had tested positive and two died. A total of 1,560 cases were linked to the plant, including family members and other close contacts.

The next outbreak struck the JBS slaughterhouse in Brooks. By early May, 487 workers at that facility had come down with COVID-19.

At the same time, the virus spread through the community, which is home to about 15,000 people. At the height of the spread, Brooks had 26 per cent of Alberta's total active cases, despite making up just 0.3 per cent of the province's population.

The situation is different now. Significant numbers of COVID-19 are being reported in all corners of Alberta, making containment more of a challenge.

The virus's heaviest incursion has been in the major cities. Edmonton and Calgary have the most active cases, and the municipal governments have taken their own counter-measures, including mandatory masks in public places.

But smaller centres haven't been spared. Active cases in Lethbridge shot up six-fold in the span of three weeks in October, giving it the highest rate per capita among the larger cities in the province. There have also been smaller outbreaks in more rural areas.

Together, this has created a new situation for Alberta, with significant numbers of new and active cases in all five health zones simultaneously.

Back in the spring, Alberta Health partnered with the slaughterhouse operators and deployed on-site testing and specific counter-measures to curb the spread of the disease. Now it's waging a war on many more fronts.

At the same time, Albertans are more divided about how to best fight the battle.
Politics

The pandemic's arrival in the spring brought levels of cross-partisan co-operation not witnessed in a long time.

Canadians marvelled as Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, once bitter political foes, made a habit of complimenting one another.

Even Kenney, who has been perhaps the most antagonistic premier toward the federal government, got in on the love.

It didn't last.

The Alberta government's anti-Trudeau rhetoric has since returned. It's even been directed toward the pandemic response, in particular.

Unlike most provinces, Alberta has so far refused to adopt the national COVID-19 tracing app, steadfastly standing by its own ABTraceTogether app, which has been plagued by functionality problems on iPhones.

In response to questions from the opposition last week, government MLAs mocked the federal alternative with heckles of "Trudeau's app," echoing the language of federal Conservative MP Michelle Rempel's criticism of the software.

The provincial government's own approach to curb the spread of COVID-19, meanwhile, has become the subject of increasing criticism from the opposition.

The Alberta NDP, too, has been putting aside any early-pandemic sense of solidarity. It has launched a series of recent attacks on the government's COVID-19 response, especially with respect to school reopenings.

Both sides have also tried to use Dr. Hinshaw to their advantage. Early on in the pandemic, the chief medical officer of health was seen by many Albertans as a bastion of apolitical, scientific advice. But increasingly politics is seeping into the perception of her role, as much as she may try to resist it.

In late September, the NDP proposed a change to Hinshaw's position. They wanted to make her an independent officer of the legislative assembly, rather than an advisor to cabinet. Such a change would give her more ability to disagree with the government — and more protection from being fired.

But the move put her in an awkward spot. Hinshaw tried to stay neutral, saying she could work "within whatever framework the government chose to set out." The NDP and UCP each tried to spin that as supporting their position. Ultimately, the motion to change her role was defeated at committee.

Hinshaw faces similar awkwardness in her regular press briefings when asked pointed questions about how the government's recent reluctance to introduce new public-health restrictions, at least relative to its approach in the spring, squares with the record-high number of cases and hospitalizations.

In response, Hinshaw has repeatedly explained that Alberta's COVID-19 countermeasures need to be considered as a whole, including both the benefits they may bring in terms of curbing disease spread and the harms they may inflict on the economy and Albertans' physical and mental health.

This is entirely consistent, logically, with the government's position, but many observers continue to look for any crack of daylight between what UCP ministers and MLAs say versus what the chief medical officer of health is saying — even in tone, if not content.

On Tuesday, Opposition Leader Rachel Notley took the unusual step of scheduling her own press conference after Hinshaw's scheduled address. This kind of manoeuvre typically happens in response to a politically charged government announcement, not a public health update.

All told, this has changed the terrain of the battlefield. Public health officials are now having to navigate new political realities while also trying to tame the spread of an autumn wave that has risen higher and spread wider than the one in the spring.

And winter is on its way.

Canada's 1st Confirmed Case Of Rare Swine Flu Found In Alberta

There's only been 27 human cases reported globally since 2005, officials say.


Colette Derworiz Canadian Press


JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta's chief medical officer of health, addresses the media during a news conference on March 20, 2020. The province's top doctor is calling the first confirmed case of H1N2v in Alberta an isolated one.


EDMONTON — Canada’s first case of a rare swine flu variant has been found in a patient from central Alberta, but the province’s chief medical officer of health says it seems to be isolated.

Dr. Deena Hinshaw says the Influenza A H1N2v case was detected in mid-October after the patient showed up at an emergency department for medical care.

“This currently appears to be one isolated case,” Hinshaw said at a news conference Wednesday. “It is also the only case of influenza that has been reported so far this flu season.

“Influenza viruses that normally circulate in pigs, including H1N2, can infect people — although this is not common.”

When cases appear in humans, they are called ‘variant’ viruses and a ‘v’ is added to the end of the name.

Hinshaw said it’s the first reported case of H1N2v in Canada since 2005 when reporting became mandatory — and one of only 27 cases globally.

Health Canada said on its website the other cases include 24 in the United States and two in Brazil.

“Based on current evidence in Canada, the risk to human health is low,” it noted.
No evidence of spread

The federal agency said swine flu viruses don’t normally infect people, but there have been infrequent exceptions. It can be contracted by humans when they breath in respiratory droplets from an infected pig or touch something with the virus on it and then touch their mouth or nose.

“All have been linked to direct or indirect contact with swine and none of the previously reported cases have caused sustained human-to-human transmission,” added Hinshaw.

The Alberta patient, she said, had mild symptoms, was tested for influenza and COVID-19 as is routine in hospitals, and recovered quickly.

“There is no evidence at this time that the virus has spread further,” she said.

Hinshaw said Alberta Health is working closely with Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, as well as Alberta Health Services and the Public Health Agency of Canada, to determine the source of the virus and to verify that no spread has occurred.

“Retrospective testing of central Alberta COVID samples from the past two weeks for influenza is almost complete and no positive influenza samples have been found,” she said.

Hinshaw said Alberta Health Services will offer optional influenza testing to anyone in central Alberta who shows up for COVID-19 testing.

Both she and Dr. Keith Lehman, the province’s chief veterinarian, said they are still investigating the source of the virus.

“At the moment, there are no links to slaughterhouses,” said Hinshaw, who added that they are looking into potential links to some pig farms in the area.

Lehman said the animal health investigation is using information provided by the patient.

“We have identified some potential sources and we are continuing to investigate,” he said.

Lehman added that it’s not unusual to see influenza in swine populations in Western Canada and around the world.

“Within Western Canada, we have routine surveillance that is undertaken for our swine farms and we tend to see anywhere from roughly 10 to 30 cases identified per quarter,” he said. “It is a virus that is not uncommon in our swine populations.”

Lehman said there’s no increased risk to other hog operations because they have strong biosecurity practices to prevent it from spreading. If a pig does contract it, it’s typically a mild illness, he said.

Officials stressed that H1N2 in pigs is not food-related.

“It is not transmissible to people through pork meat or other products that come from pigs and there is no risk associated with eating pork,” said Hinshaw.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published on Nov. 4, 2020.