HIP CAPITALI$M
Wednesday, February 03, 2021
SMRA wants feds to back off Atlantic salmon
ST. MARY’S – With almost exquisite irony, the St. Mary’s River Association (SMRA) has joined other conservation groups in eastern Canada to oppose a federal effort that could formally list their cherished Atlantic salmon as a protected “species at risk.”
The move comes after a notification earlier this year from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), which stated it was “in the final stages of developing listing advice … under the Species at Risk Act (SARA)… for the Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to support the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in making a recommendation to the Governor in Council on a listing decision.”
According to the memo on DFO stationery, signed by Julie Stewart, who is identified as Director, Species at Risk Program, the department “is projecting that a proposed listing decision could come forward in fall of 2021.”
The problem, said Deirdre Green, a SMRA board member, is that the listing designed to save the fish could actually hinder any efforts that are already underway to do so.
“We support any initiative that provides the best opportunity for Atlantic salmon to survive and thrive,” she said. “However, we are not convinced that listing Atlantic salmon under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) will accomplish this, or that it will aid our group in fulfilling the mandate to conserve, enhance and protect the St. Mary’s River ecosystem.”
She added: “When a species is listed under SARA, there is a general prohibition against harming and harassing that species. This has been known to impact critical research, recovery and restoration efforts.
“Conservation is a human activity and Atlantic salmon need people who care. Our group is concerned that our work and that of others will be negatively impacted. Indigenous communities, various NGOs and conservation-minded volunteers should not be alienated from the rivers and the aquatic species they care about, and a SARA listing could do just that.”
The SMRA is not alone. Both the Nova Scotia Salmon Association (NSSA) and The Atlantic Salmon Federation (ASF) have expressed grave reservations about DFO’s decision.
“The listing of a species as either ‘Endangered’ or ‘Threatened’ (but not ‘Special Concern’) under SARA triggers legal prohibitions which would effectively end recreational salmon angling,” the NSSA recently posted to its website. “A well-managed catch-and-release salmon fishery fosters stronger public engagement in salmon conservation; provides important population data for stock assessment; and helps prevent poaching due to the presence of responsible anglers on the water. A SARA listing could also potentially curtail long-term research and habitat restoration efforts to which the NSSA and our local affiliates have devoted considerable resources.”
The ASF is even blunter.
“A SARA listing would close low-impact salmon fisheries on more than 130 rivers in Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Cape Breton,” its website notes. “It would also extinguish the hope of reopening rivers in parts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This is unnecessary [and] ill-timed.”
According to Green, a more sensible approach would be to “use the tools we have now and work collectively to develop a better path forward to ensure the survival and recovery of the Atlantic salmon.”
She points out, for example, that since 2014, the SMRA has spent approximately $3 million dollars on habitat restoration and liming in the St. Mary’s River and completed 600,000 square meters (about 20 linear kilometres) of in-stream structure work.
“This past fall, we spread approximately 850 tons of lime over 200 acres on one of the West Branch tributaries,” she said. “There are Atlantic Salmon returning to our river, spawning on restored sections of river and being observed frequently in the estuary, cold water holding pools throughout the east, west and main branches.”
A SARA listing does not compel DFO or other government agencies to do anything about the actual threats a species might face, such as resource extraction, agriculture and unregulated fishing.
“As such, it is our belief that there is no need for another legislative or regulatory tool at this juncture,” Green said. “DFO currently possesses the tools it needs to take the required actions on the rivers in question.”
Late last year, DFO announced a slew of investments designed to protect aquatic species at risk in Atlantic Canada, including a grant to the NSSA worth up to $3 million “to conduct conservation planning for priority watersheds within the Southern Uplands region of Nova Scotia.”
Alec Bruce, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Guysborough Journal
#STOPPOISIONINGPREDATORS
Health Canada says it won't consider animal suffering in strychnine review
OTTAWA — Animal suffering won't be considered when a Health Canada agency next reviews licences for poisons used to kill predators, the department has ruled.
Health Canada will undertake its regular review of the three poisons later this spring. A petition opposing their use has nearly 700 signatures.
Animal advocates have also requested that federal Health Minister Patty Hadju review Health Canada's last decision to renew licences for the poisons.
Strychnine is no longer used to control predators in most Commonwealth and European countries or most U.S. states.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 2, 2021
— By Bob Weber in Edmonton. Follow him at @row1960
The Canadian Press
Health Canada says it won't consider animal suffering in strychnine review
OTTAWA — Animal suffering won't be considered when a Health Canada agency next reviews licences for poisons used to kill predators, the department has ruled.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
In a decision released this week, Health Canada says the Pest Management Regulatory Agency won't include "humaneness" in how it assesses toxins such as strychnine.
"Health Canada will not be taking steps towards incorporating humaneness considerations into the pesticide risk assessment framework," said the department's ruling.
"There are currently no internationally recognized science-based parameters to evaluate the humaneness of pesticides."
Sara Dubois, a wildlife biologist with the British Columbia SPCA, said that's not true. University labs have extensive animal welfare protocols and Australia and New Zealand have also moved toward such criteria.
"An absence of information doesn't mean that pain and suffering doesn't happen," she said. "That's the frustrating part."
The decision on strychnine, compound 1080 and cyanide came after more than two years of public consultations sparked by a letter signed by 50 scientists and animal-welfare advocates from across Canada and three countries.
More than 4,000 letters were received, most form letters from letter-writing campaigns. Non-governmental organizations participated as did provinces and municipalities.
"Canadian public respondents are concerned about the humaneness of the three predacides currently registered for use in Canada," the decision says. "Many of these same respondents feel the predacides should be banned in favour of alternative predator control measures."
Animal science researchers have called strychnine a particularly painful and cruel way to die.
Within 20 minutes of being dosed, muscles start to convulse. The convulsions increase in intensity and frequency until the backbone arches and the animal asphyxiates or dies of exhaustion.
Groups such as livestock associations said predator poisons are already tightly controlled. Environmental and veterinary groups called for humaneness parameters in the assessment of pesticides.
Provincial governments said the issue was in their jurisdiction.
In a decision released this week, Health Canada says the Pest Management Regulatory Agency won't include "humaneness" in how it assesses toxins such as strychnine.
"Health Canada will not be taking steps towards incorporating humaneness considerations into the pesticide risk assessment framework," said the department's ruling.
"There are currently no internationally recognized science-based parameters to evaluate the humaneness of pesticides."
Sara Dubois, a wildlife biologist with the British Columbia SPCA, said that's not true. University labs have extensive animal welfare protocols and Australia and New Zealand have also moved toward such criteria.
"An absence of information doesn't mean that pain and suffering doesn't happen," she said. "That's the frustrating part."
The decision on strychnine, compound 1080 and cyanide came after more than two years of public consultations sparked by a letter signed by 50 scientists and animal-welfare advocates from across Canada and three countries.
More than 4,000 letters were received, most form letters from letter-writing campaigns. Non-governmental organizations participated as did provinces and municipalities.
"Canadian public respondents are concerned about the humaneness of the three predacides currently registered for use in Canada," the decision says. "Many of these same respondents feel the predacides should be banned in favour of alternative predator control measures."
Animal science researchers have called strychnine a particularly painful and cruel way to die.
Within 20 minutes of being dosed, muscles start to convulse. The convulsions increase in intensity and frequency until the backbone arches and the animal asphyxiates or dies of exhaustion.
Groups such as livestock associations said predator poisons are already tightly controlled. Environmental and veterinary groups called for humaneness parameters in the assessment of pesticides.
Provincial governments said the issue was in their jurisdiction.
One of the biggest users of strychnine in Canada is the Alberta government. Alberta uses it to poison wolves in an attempt to protect caribou, which have been made vulnerable by many years of heavy industrial use of their habitat.
The province has poisoned hundreds of wolves in its caribou program, as well as many non-target species.
Health Canada will undertake its regular review of the three poisons later this spring. A petition opposing their use has nearly 700 signatures.
Animal advocates have also requested that federal Health Minister Patty Hadju review Health Canada's last decision to renew licences for the poisons.
Strychnine is no longer used to control predators in most Commonwealth and European countries or most U.S. states.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 2, 2021
— By Bob Weber in Edmonton. Follow him at @row1960
The Canadian Press
Supporters of protesting Indian farmers scuffle with police
© Provided by The Canadian PressNEW DELHI — About 200 supporters of Indian farmers scuffled with police on Wednesday after being blocked from marching to an area for protests near the Parliament building in the Indian capital.
Waving flags and banners, the protesters demanded the repeal of new agriculture reform laws which the farmers say will favour large corporations.
The police barricaded the road and some protesters tried to push their way through, but were blocked by a heavy police presence.
The protesters represented the opposition Congress party and groups including the All India Central Council of Trade Unions, the All India Students’ Association and the Students’ Federation of India.
Tens of thousands of farmers have been camping on the outskirts of New Delhi for more than two months in an effort to force the repeal of laws they believe would end government-set prices and force them to sell to powerful corporations rather than government-run markets.
The deadlock turned violent on Jan. 26, India’s Republic Day, when tens of thousands of farmers riding tractors stormed India’s historic Red Fort and unfurled the flag of the minority Sikh community, which is leading the protest. Clashes between the protesters and government forces left one protester dead and nearly 400 police officers injured.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has offered to suspend the laws for 18 months but farmers are insisting they be repealed.
Also Wednesday, India’s External Affairs Ministry said expressions of support to the farmers from celebrities including singer and actress Rihanna and teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg were irresponsible.
Rihanna said in a tweet, “Why aren’t we talking about this?! #FarmersProtest.”
"We stand in solidarity with the #FarmersProtest in India,” Thunberg tweeted.
"The temptation of sensationalist social media hashtags and comments, especially when resorted to by celebrities and others, is neither accurate nor responsible,” the ministry said in a statement.
Shonal Ganguly, The Associated Press
© Provided by The Canadian PressNEW DELHI — About 200 supporters of Indian farmers scuffled with police on Wednesday after being blocked from marching to an area for protests near the Parliament building in the Indian capital.Waving flags and banners, the protesters demanded the repeal of new agriculture reform laws which the farmers say will favour large corporations.
The police barricaded the road and some protesters tried to push their way through, but were blocked by a heavy police presence.
The protesters represented the opposition Congress party and groups including the All India Central Council of Trade Unions, the All India Students’ Association and the Students’ Federation of India.
Tens of thousands of farmers have been camping on the outskirts of New Delhi for more than two months in an effort to force the repeal of laws they believe would end government-set prices and force them to sell to powerful corporations rather than government-run markets.
The deadlock turned violent on Jan. 26, India’s Republic Day, when tens of thousands of farmers riding tractors stormed India’s historic Red Fort and unfurled the flag of the minority Sikh community, which is leading the protest. Clashes between the protesters and government forces left one protester dead and nearly 400 police officers injured.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has offered to suspend the laws for 18 months but farmers are insisting they be repealed.
Also Wednesday, India’s External Affairs Ministry said expressions of support to the farmers from celebrities including singer and actress Rihanna and teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg were irresponsible.
Rihanna said in a tweet, “Why aren’t we talking about this?! #FarmersProtest.”
"We stand in solidarity with the #FarmersProtest in India,” Thunberg tweeted.
"The temptation of sensationalist social media hashtags and comments, especially when resorted to by celebrities and others, is neither accurate nor responsible,” the ministry said in a statement.
Shonal Ganguly, The Associated Press
Ted Cruz Bizarrely Invokes Thanos and 'Watchmen' to Attack Environmentalists
Sen. Ted Cruz tried to use comic books to illustrate a point against environmentalists in a clip passed around Monday and Tuesday. It went over poorly, both among fans and creators.
"Have you noticed in how many movies, how often rabid environmentalists are the bad guys? Whether it's Thanos or… go to 'Watchmen.' The view of the left is people are a disease," Cruz said on his streaming show, "Verdict," while trying to explain his view that Democrats and progressives want to tell conservatives which jobs they can and cannot have.
He went on to insist that left-leaning politicians and voters buy into the idea that "there are too many people in the world, that people are bad and that everything would be better if we had fewer people." To make his point, he cited Thanos, the villain in "Avengers: Endgame" who seeks to wipe out half the population.
Responses came swiftly.
"Hi, @SenTedCruz," wrote Lila Byock. "Watchmen writer/producer here. Literally what the f— are you talking about?"
"Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn quipped, "Maybe he can start with pronouncing Thanos correctly & then work his way up to making sense."
Comic book artist Jamal Igle went a deeper, explaining, "Just so that we're clear: Thanos was a genocidal madman. He thought wiping out half the population of the universe would make things better. He admitted he was wrong because people were mad and then decided to just wipeout everything and start over. That's not environnementalism. [sic]"
Others, like filmmaker Adam Best, got more political: "Thanos didn't think half the population mattered, which is exactly how the president Ted Cruz spent the last four years worshipping felt."
Sen. Ted Cruz tried to use comic books to illustrate a point against environmentalists in a clip passed around Monday and Tuesday. It went over poorly, both among fans and creators.
"Have you noticed in how many movies, how often rabid environmentalists are the bad guys? Whether it's Thanos or… go to 'Watchmen.' The view of the left is people are a disease," Cruz said on his streaming show, "Verdict," while trying to explain his view that Democrats and progressives want to tell conservatives which jobs they can and cannot have.
He went on to insist that left-leaning politicians and voters buy into the idea that "there are too many people in the world, that people are bad and that everything would be better if we had fewer people." To make his point, he cited Thanos, the villain in "Avengers: Endgame" who seeks to wipe out half the population.
Responses came swiftly.
"Hi, @SenTedCruz," wrote Lila Byock. "Watchmen writer/producer here. Literally what the f— are you talking about?"
"Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn quipped, "Maybe he can start with pronouncing Thanos correctly & then work his way up to making sense."
Comic book artist Jamal Igle went a deeper, explaining, "Just so that we're clear: Thanos was a genocidal madman. He thought wiping out half the population of the universe would make things better. He admitted he was wrong because people were mad and then decided to just wipeout everything and start over. That's not environnementalism. [sic]"
Others, like filmmaker Adam Best, got more political: "Thanos didn't think half the population mattered, which is exactly how the president Ted Cruz spent the last four years worshipping felt."
U.S. technology company Clearview AI violated Canadian privacy law: report
American technology firm Clearview AI violated Canadian privacy laws by collecting photos of Canadians without their knowledge or consent, an investigation by four of Canada's privacy commissioner has found.
© Ascannio/Shutterstock
A report by four Canadian privacy commissioners has found Clearview AI's technology created a significant risk to individuals by allowing law enforcement and companies to match photos against its database of more than three billion images, including Canadians and children. Clearview AI's software collects images from the internet and allows users to search for matches.The report found that Clearview's technology created a significant risk to individuals by allowing law enforcement and companies to match photos against its database of more than three billion images, including Canadians and children.
The report rejected arguments from the company that it wasn't subject to Canadian privacy laws and that the images in its database were publicly available.
"What Clearview does is mass surveillance and it is illegal," federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien said in a statement. "It is completely unacceptable for millions of people who will never be implicated in any crime to find themselves continually in a police lineup.
"Yet the company continues to claim its purposes were appropriate, citing the requirement under federal privacy law that its business needs to be balanced against privacy rights."
The report by four of Canada's privacy commissioners comes nearly seven months after Clearview agreed to no longer make its controversial facial recognition software available in Canada. A number of Canadian law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, Toronto and Calgary police, had been using the advanced technology to help identify perpetrators and victims of crimes.
With the technology, police could input the picture of a victim or suspected criminal and compare it with billions of photos it had collected from the internet and social media accounts.
However, privacy experts expressed concerns that the technology could be misused.
While police forces said last summer that they stopped using Clearview AI, questions remained about what would happen to the personal information of Canadians that the company had already collected and whether the company would stop collecting personal information belonging to Canadians.
In July, company CEO Hoan Ton-That said the company had ceased its operations in Canada. He said Canadians would be able to opt out of Clearview's search results.
"We are proud of our record in assisting Canadian law enforcement to solve some of the most heinous crimes, including crimes against children," Ton-That said in a statement at the time. "We will continue to co-operate with the (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) on other related issues."
Lisa Linden, spokeswoman for the company, said Wednesday that the company would respond to the report after it reviewed it.
More later.....
The report rejected arguments from the company that it wasn't subject to Canadian privacy laws and that the images in its database were publicly available.
"What Clearview does is mass surveillance and it is illegal," federal privacy commissioner Daniel Therrien said in a statement. "It is completely unacceptable for millions of people who will never be implicated in any crime to find themselves continually in a police lineup.
"Yet the company continues to claim its purposes were appropriate, citing the requirement under federal privacy law that its business needs to be balanced against privacy rights."
The report by four of Canada's privacy commissioners comes nearly seven months after Clearview agreed to no longer make its controversial facial recognition software available in Canada. A number of Canadian law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP, Toronto and Calgary police, had been using the advanced technology to help identify perpetrators and victims of crimes.
With the technology, police could input the picture of a victim or suspected criminal and compare it with billions of photos it had collected from the internet and social media accounts.
However, privacy experts expressed concerns that the technology could be misused.
While police forces said last summer that they stopped using Clearview AI, questions remained about what would happen to the personal information of Canadians that the company had already collected and whether the company would stop collecting personal information belonging to Canadians.
In July, company CEO Hoan Ton-That said the company had ceased its operations in Canada. He said Canadians would be able to opt out of Clearview's search results.
"We are proud of our record in assisting Canadian law enforcement to solve some of the most heinous crimes, including crimes against children," Ton-That said in a statement at the time. "We will continue to co-operate with the (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) on other related issues."
Lisa Linden, spokeswoman for the company, said Wednesday that the company would respond to the report after it reviewed it.
More later.....
US Agriculture secretary nominee Vilsack endorses biofuels push
BIOFUELS ARE NEITHER CLEAN NOR GREEN
THEY ARE A SUBSIDY TO IOWA CORN FARMERS & ADM
WASHINGTON — Tom Vilsack, President Joe Biden's nominee for secretary of agriculture, pledged Tuesday to focus on climate change initiatives and work to address racial inequities in agricultural assistance programs.
© Provided by The Canadian Press
Vilsack, who testified before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, would bring much on-the-job experience to the position. In addition to serving two terms as the governor of Iowa, he spent eight years as President Barack Obama's Agriculture Secretary.
In his opening remarks, Vilsack, 70, sought to dispel concerns that he would be coming to the job with antiquated ideas.
“I realize that I am back again. But I also realize that this is a fundamentally different time,” he said, referencing a need to rebuild parts of the country's agricultural infrastructure in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The reality is we lacked openness, fairness and competitiveness and resiliency, as the COVID-19 crisis has shown, in many of our agricultural markets,” he said.
In his testimony, Vilsack heavily endorsed boosting climate-friendly agricultural industries such as the creation of biofuels.
“Agriculture is one of our first and best ways to get some wins in this climate area,” he said.
He proposed “building a rural economy based on biomanufacturing” and “turning agricultural waste into a variety of products.” He pledged to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to “spur the industry” on biofuels.
Republican Joni Ernst of Iowa questioned whether Vilsack's commitment to biofuels would clash with the Biden administration's public commitment to switch the federal vehicle fleet to electric cars and trucks.
“We're going to need both,” he responded, saying there was room for both climate-friendly industries to thrive and pointing out that the Navy has begun to deploy warships that run partially on biofuel.
With systemic racial inequity now a nationwide talking point, Vilsack said the Agriculture Department needed to seriously examine if it was sufficiently supporting farmers of colour.
He envisioned an “equity taskforce” to identify what he called “intentional or unintentional barriers that make it difficult for people to access the programs.”
Sonny Perdue, agriculture secretary in the Trump administration, sought to purge hundreds of thousands of people from the SNAP or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps. That effort was defeated in court, and Vilsack said the SNAP program was particularly vital to the country's recovery from the pandemic.
He said he wanted his department to work directly with governors across the country to make sure SNAP benefits were being accessed smoothly and to address the issue of food deserts in low-income communities.
“It’s all well and good to give someone a SNAP card and say, ‘Go to your local grocery store and buy more food,’" he said. "That’s great, assuming you have a grocery store. But if you don’t have a grocery store, what then?”
Vilsack seems to enjoy bipartisan support and faced no serious criticism from Republicans on the committee. Senators from both parties seemed to treat his confirmation as a foregone conclusion, and at one point New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand referred to Vilsack as "Mr. soon-to-be Secretary.”
Ashraf Khalil, The Associated Press
Vilsack, who testified before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, would bring much on-the-job experience to the position. In addition to serving two terms as the governor of Iowa, he spent eight years as President Barack Obama's Agriculture Secretary.
In his opening remarks, Vilsack, 70, sought to dispel concerns that he would be coming to the job with antiquated ideas.
“I realize that I am back again. But I also realize that this is a fundamentally different time,” he said, referencing a need to rebuild parts of the country's agricultural infrastructure in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The reality is we lacked openness, fairness and competitiveness and resiliency, as the COVID-19 crisis has shown, in many of our agricultural markets,” he said.
In his testimony, Vilsack heavily endorsed boosting climate-friendly agricultural industries such as the creation of biofuels.
“Agriculture is one of our first and best ways to get some wins in this climate area,” he said.
He proposed “building a rural economy based on biomanufacturing” and “turning agricultural waste into a variety of products.” He pledged to work closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to “spur the industry” on biofuels.
Republican Joni Ernst of Iowa questioned whether Vilsack's commitment to biofuels would clash with the Biden administration's public commitment to switch the federal vehicle fleet to electric cars and trucks.
“We're going to need both,” he responded, saying there was room for both climate-friendly industries to thrive and pointing out that the Navy has begun to deploy warships that run partially on biofuel.
With systemic racial inequity now a nationwide talking point, Vilsack said the Agriculture Department needed to seriously examine if it was sufficiently supporting farmers of colour.
He envisioned an “equity taskforce” to identify what he called “intentional or unintentional barriers that make it difficult for people to access the programs.”
Sonny Perdue, agriculture secretary in the Trump administration, sought to purge hundreds of thousands of people from the SNAP or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — commonly known as food stamps. That effort was defeated in court, and Vilsack said the SNAP program was particularly vital to the country's recovery from the pandemic.
He said he wanted his department to work directly with governors across the country to make sure SNAP benefits were being accessed smoothly and to address the issue of food deserts in low-income communities.
“It’s all well and good to give someone a SNAP card and say, ‘Go to your local grocery store and buy more food,’" he said. "That’s great, assuming you have a grocery store. But if you don’t have a grocery store, what then?”
Vilsack seems to enjoy bipartisan support and faced no serious criticism from Republicans on the committee. Senators from both parties seemed to treat his confirmation as a foregone conclusion, and at one point New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand referred to Vilsack as "Mr. soon-to-be Secretary.”
Ashraf Khalil, The Associated Press
US Treasury Department calls addressing climate change a priority
Newly confirmed Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is giving climate change a prominent role in her talks with her counterparts around the world, signaling a significant shift by the Biden administration to prioritize addressing climate change not just from the White House but also at the agency.© / Getty Images Janet Yellen
Yellen has spoken to the finance ministers of Italy, Japan, Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom since being sworn in less than a week ago, according to statements provided by the Treasury Department regarding those talks. In all of those calls, "forcefully addressing the threat of climate change" has been discussed as one of Yellen's top priorities and tackling climate change has been a topic of conversation, according to those statements.
Play Video
Biden's Treasury nominee Janet Yellen pushes for "big" action at confirmation hearing
Yellen's early focus on climate change with other finance leaders comes after she told senators during her confirmation hearing last month she would appoint someone at a senior level within the Treasury Department to address efforts on climate change and create a "hub" within her department focused on the risks climate change poses to the financial system and tax policy-related incentives.
Her remarks came in response to a question posed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The Rhode Island Democrat cited warnings that climate change will lead to a crash in the value of coastal properties as well as concerns about the so-called "carbon bubble" – or massive investments in the fossil fuel sector.
"I think we need to seriously look at assessing the risks to the financial system from climate change," Yellen said during the hearing, in which she also called climate change an "existential threat."
Yellen acknowledged climate change and the policies implemented to address it could have a major impact on the value of assets and credit risks within the financial system.
"I think everyone understands that the State Department has an important role, the EPA has an important role, but the Treasury actually is really influential in global discussions around finance and climate," said Joe Thwaites, an associate in the Sustainable Finance Center of the nonprofit research organization the World Resources Institute. Thwaites said the administration's "whole-of-government approach" has been well received.
Prior to her nomination last year, Yellen co-chaired a working group on climate change and finance for Group of 30, an international organization comprised of academics, economic officials and bank leaders, which released a report calling for immediate action to put the world economy on a path toward a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. The working group recommended governments to come up with strategies including implementing carbon pricing as well as invest in low-carbon infrastructure.
In a dramatic shift from the Trump administration, President Joe Biden is making tackling climate change a central component of his agenda. Just hours after being sworn in, he signed an order recommitting the United States to the Paris Climate Agreement, which the Trump administration had announced in 2019 the U.S. would exit. Last week, Mr. Biden also signed a series of executive actions aimed at combating climate change.
"That's something that in the campaign, Biden said he wanted to see the end of fossil fuel subsidies globally by the end of his first term, so the Treasury Department will play a key role in that domestically, but also as it engages internationally," said Thwaites. "There's this recognition that it's not just about turning off the faucet of dirty energy flows, but also to ramp up clean energy financing."
Ending the use of fossil fuels and building renewable energy is the mission of the international organization 350. The group is closely monitoring where Yellen and the Treasury Department go with fossil fuel financing.
"Our hope for Janet Yellen and her communication internationally is that she is a leader in generating discourse of the effect of the finance community on the climate," said Brett Fleishman, head of 350.org Finance Campaigns. But he argued she needs to walk the walk at home as well.
"Is her rhetoric signaling positive change? Absolutely," said Fleishman. "Now we just need to see some of those general statements about climate being an urgent priority and guiding policy, if that all turns into the kind of action driving the just transition."
Newly confirmed Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is giving climate change a prominent role in her talks with her counterparts around the world, signaling a significant shift by the Biden administration to prioritize addressing climate change not just from the White House but also at the agency.
© / Getty Images Janet YellenYellen has spoken to the finance ministers of Italy, Japan, Canada, France, Germany and the United Kingdom since being sworn in less than a week ago, according to statements provided by the Treasury Department regarding those talks. In all of those calls, "forcefully addressing the threat of climate change" has been discussed as one of Yellen's top priorities and tackling climate change has been a topic of conversation, according to those statements.
Play Video
Biden's Treasury nominee Janet Yellen pushes for "big" action at confirmation hearing
Yellen's early focus on climate change with other finance leaders comes after she told senators during her confirmation hearing last month she would appoint someone at a senior level within the Treasury Department to address efforts on climate change and create a "hub" within her department focused on the risks climate change poses to the financial system and tax policy-related incentives.
Her remarks came in response to a question posed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. The Rhode Island Democrat cited warnings that climate change will lead to a crash in the value of coastal properties as well as concerns about the so-called "carbon bubble" – or massive investments in the fossil fuel sector.
"I think we need to seriously look at assessing the risks to the financial system from climate change," Yellen said during the hearing, in which she also called climate change an "existential threat."
Yellen acknowledged climate change and the policies implemented to address it could have a major impact on the value of assets and credit risks within the financial system.
"I think everyone understands that the State Department has an important role, the EPA has an important role, but the Treasury actually is really influential in global discussions around finance and climate," said Joe Thwaites, an associate in the Sustainable Finance Center of the nonprofit research organization the World Resources Institute. Thwaites said the administration's "whole-of-government approach" has been well received.
Prior to her nomination last year, Yellen co-chaired a working group on climate change and finance for Group of 30, an international organization comprised of academics, economic officials and bank leaders, which released a report calling for immediate action to put the world economy on a path toward a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. The working group recommended governments to come up with strategies including implementing carbon pricing as well as invest in low-carbon infrastructure.
In a dramatic shift from the Trump administration, President Joe Biden is making tackling climate change a central component of his agenda. Just hours after being sworn in, he signed an order recommitting the United States to the Paris Climate Agreement, which the Trump administration had announced in 2019 the U.S. would exit. Last week, Mr. Biden also signed a series of executive actions aimed at combating climate change.
"That's something that in the campaign, Biden said he wanted to see the end of fossil fuel subsidies globally by the end of his first term, so the Treasury Department will play a key role in that domestically, but also as it engages internationally," said Thwaites. "There's this recognition that it's not just about turning off the faucet of dirty energy flows, but also to ramp up clean energy financing."
Ending the use of fossil fuels and building renewable energy is the mission of the international organization 350. The group is closely monitoring where Yellen and the Treasury Department go with fossil fuel financing.
"Our hope for Janet Yellen and her communication internationally is that she is a leader in generating discourse of the effect of the finance community on the climate," said Brett Fleishman, head of 350.org Finance Campaigns. But he argued she needs to walk the walk at home as well.
"Is her rhetoric signaling positive change? Absolutely," said Fleishman. "Now we just need to see some of those general statements about climate being an urgent priority and guiding policy, if that all turns into the kind of action driving the just transition."
Biden wants millions of clean-energy related jobs. Can it happen?
Last week, President Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to addressing climate change by creating green energy jobs, building out a "modern and sustainable infrastructure" toward his continued goal of reaching a carbon-free energy sector in the US by 2035.
"[P]eople can call whatever they want a green job," Keefe said, "whether it's somebody who works in recycling or something like that. OK, fine they are green jobs. I'm talking about clean energy jobs."
According to the report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, these clean energy jobs increased by about 2% in 2019 and 4% in 2018. But for Biden to reach just a million new clean energy jobs in his first four years, there would need to be a yearly increase of 6.7% based on the figures from the Environmental Entrepreneurs report, and that's after returning to pre-Covid levels of employment.
Obama's efforts
Obama, who campaigned heavily on addressing climate change, ran into significant roadblocks everywhere from the courts, legislation dying in the Senate and ultimately having many of his administration's new environmental regulations repealed under President Donald Trump.
Obama did pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 to jumpstart the economy in the midst of the recession. The Recovery Act contained grants and loans for the EPA and Department of Energy.
One study led by Syracuse Professor David Popp examined the "green" funds from the Recovery act -- focused on environment-related issues -- and found that for every $1 million spent, 10 new jobs were created a few years later.
"Almost all of those jobs were in manual labor, a lot of them were construction," Popp told CNN. "A lot of that's by design because that's where the money was targeted" through energy efficiency renovations and installing renewable energy infrastructure.
Cap and trade legislation, which would have set limits on carbon dioxide emissions for companies, died in a Senate controlled by 57 Democrats -- seven more than Biden currently has -- after the House passed the bill in 2009.
"[Obama] had this one huge setback, and then he lost control of Congress," Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University at Buffalo, told CNN.
Despite Democrats only controlling Congress by a razor thin margin, Rome said, Biden could have the opportunity to work toward "legislative, not executive action" to address climate change.
"Biden, I think, recognizes that he has the kind of New Deal moment here," Rome said.
Biden's challenge
Biden can't accomplish his vast, $2 trillion clean energy plan without action from Congress. Right now the President would need every Senate Democrat on board to pass any legislation needed -- and he may even need Republicans signing on too if Democrats like Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema continue to oppose eliminating the filibuster.
The current pandemic also creates limitations on what Biden can currently accomplish in Congress, with most members focused on a Covid-19 economic stimulus package. And if the President is unable to pass a stimulus package, it's extremely unlikely his climate agenda would.
Even if Biden passes his energy plan, through a Senate with strong disagreements over environmental policies, experts disagree on whether his goal of millions more clean energy jobs is attainable.
"If the question is, do I think that the Biden plans are going to create millions of jobs, the answer is yes," Keefe told CNN. "Is it 10 million? Is it 20 million? I think that's to be determined."
Keefe noted that some of these future jobs are already being planned, with General Motors announcing that by 2035 it would only be producing emission free vehicles.
Benjamin Zycher, a resident scholar focused on energy and environmental policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, told CNN that "more expensive energy means less employment. It's just that simple."
"The best you could hope for," Zycher said, "is merely an employment shift out of other sectors into green sectors, however that's defined."
Last week, President Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to addressing climate change by creating green energy jobs, building out a "modern and sustainable infrastructure" toward his continued goal of reaching a carbon-free energy sector in the US by 2035.
© Provided by CNN
In remarks last week before signing several executive orders focused on his climate agenda, Biden tied his energy policy directly to his plans to rebuild the US economy, citing the need for new, green infrastructure that would generate millions of jobs.
"A key plank of our Build Back Better Recovery Plan is building a modern, resilient climate infrastructure," Biden said, "and clean energy future that will create millions of good-paying union jobs -- not 7, 8, 10, 12 dollars an hour, but prevailing wage and benefits."
During his campaign, Biden's climate agenda included the goal of creating 10 million new jobs related to clean energy on top of the 3 million clean energy jobs the campaign said currently exist. "If executed strategically, our response to climate change can create more than 10 million well-paying jobs in the United States," the plan says, without laying out a timeline for that jobs-creating goal.
It's certainly an ambitious goal. Measuring the feasibility of Biden's plan is quite difficult and depends on several variables, including whether Congress will pass climate legislation. Biden has proposed a $2 trillion climate plan, which includes spending on things such as green energy infrastructure overhaul across the US. Green jobs are also hard to define, with different studies varying widely on what type of jobs they choose to include. For context, it's also worth examining the climate and energy efforts of President Barack Obama, many of which were repealed under President Donald Trump, and the effect they had on green jobs.
Under the eight years of Obama's presidency, the US economy added 11.6 million total new jobs, which only adds to the steepness of Biden's challenge, if as he said during his campaign, he wants to create 10 million new clean energy jobs.
Clean energy job numbers
Measuring the feasibility of Biden's plan first requires establishing what these clean energy-related jobs are and getting good data to establish a baseline and historical trends, which isn't easy.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics studied what it called "green jobs" starting in 2010 before budget cuts stopped the study in 2013. The BLS defined these jobs broadly, in part as those "in which workers' duties involve making their establishment's production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources."
This definition was not limited to those who directly contribute to building, installing or maintaining green energy technology but was so broad it included jobs in sewage, publishers of environmental trade publications and environment and science museums, to name a few.
In the survey for 2010, the BLS reported the US had "3.1 million green goods and services (GGS) jobs."
A 2020 report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, a non-partisan group of business leaders focused on environment and the economy, found that "[b]efore the COVID-19 crisis, nearly 3.4 million Americans worked in clean energy—solar, wind, energy efficiency, clean vehicles, and more."
Bob Keefe, executive director of Environmental Entrepreneurs, said the study was not focused on the broad category of "green jobs," but rather jobs involved in the process of clean energy.
In remarks last week before signing several executive orders focused on his climate agenda, Biden tied his energy policy directly to his plans to rebuild the US economy, citing the need for new, green infrastructure that would generate millions of jobs.
"A key plank of our Build Back Better Recovery Plan is building a modern, resilient climate infrastructure," Biden said, "and clean energy future that will create millions of good-paying union jobs -- not 7, 8, 10, 12 dollars an hour, but prevailing wage and benefits."
During his campaign, Biden's climate agenda included the goal of creating 10 million new jobs related to clean energy on top of the 3 million clean energy jobs the campaign said currently exist. "If executed strategically, our response to climate change can create more than 10 million well-paying jobs in the United States," the plan says, without laying out a timeline for that jobs-creating goal.
It's certainly an ambitious goal. Measuring the feasibility of Biden's plan is quite difficult and depends on several variables, including whether Congress will pass climate legislation. Biden has proposed a $2 trillion climate plan, which includes spending on things such as green energy infrastructure overhaul across the US. Green jobs are also hard to define, with different studies varying widely on what type of jobs they choose to include. For context, it's also worth examining the climate and energy efforts of President Barack Obama, many of which were repealed under President Donald Trump, and the effect they had on green jobs.
Under the eight years of Obama's presidency, the US economy added 11.6 million total new jobs, which only adds to the steepness of Biden's challenge, if as he said during his campaign, he wants to create 10 million new clean energy jobs.
Clean energy job numbers
Measuring the feasibility of Biden's plan first requires establishing what these clean energy-related jobs are and getting good data to establish a baseline and historical trends, which isn't easy.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics studied what it called "green jobs" starting in 2010 before budget cuts stopped the study in 2013. The BLS defined these jobs broadly, in part as those "in which workers' duties involve making their establishment's production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources."
This definition was not limited to those who directly contribute to building, installing or maintaining green energy technology but was so broad it included jobs in sewage, publishers of environmental trade publications and environment and science museums, to name a few.
In the survey for 2010, the BLS reported the US had "3.1 million green goods and services (GGS) jobs."
A 2020 report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, a non-partisan group of business leaders focused on environment and the economy, found that "[b]efore the COVID-19 crisis, nearly 3.4 million Americans worked in clean energy—solar, wind, energy efficiency, clean vehicles, and more."
Bob Keefe, executive director of Environmental Entrepreneurs, said the study was not focused on the broad category of "green jobs," but rather jobs involved in the process of clean energy.
"[P]eople can call whatever they want a green job," Keefe said, "whether it's somebody who works in recycling or something like that. OK, fine they are green jobs. I'm talking about clean energy jobs."
According to the report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, these clean energy jobs increased by about 2% in 2019 and 4% in 2018. But for Biden to reach just a million new clean energy jobs in his first four years, there would need to be a yearly increase of 6.7% based on the figures from the Environmental Entrepreneurs report, and that's after returning to pre-Covid levels of employment.
Obama's efforts
Obama, who campaigned heavily on addressing climate change, ran into significant roadblocks everywhere from the courts, legislation dying in the Senate and ultimately having many of his administration's new environmental regulations repealed under President Donald Trump.
Obama did pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009 to jumpstart the economy in the midst of the recession. The Recovery Act contained grants and loans for the EPA and Department of Energy.
One study led by Syracuse Professor David Popp examined the "green" funds from the Recovery act -- focused on environment-related issues -- and found that for every $1 million spent, 10 new jobs were created a few years later.
"Almost all of those jobs were in manual labor, a lot of them were construction," Popp told CNN. "A lot of that's by design because that's where the money was targeted" through energy efficiency renovations and installing renewable energy infrastructure.
Cap and trade legislation, which would have set limits on carbon dioxide emissions for companies, died in a Senate controlled by 57 Democrats -- seven more than Biden currently has -- after the House passed the bill in 2009.
"[Obama] had this one huge setback, and then he lost control of Congress," Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University at Buffalo, told CNN.
Despite Democrats only controlling Congress by a razor thin margin, Rome said, Biden could have the opportunity to work toward "legislative, not executive action" to address climate change.
"Biden, I think, recognizes that he has the kind of New Deal moment here," Rome said.
Biden's challenge
Biden can't accomplish his vast, $2 trillion clean energy plan without action from Congress. Right now the President would need every Senate Democrat on board to pass any legislation needed -- and he may even need Republicans signing on too if Democrats like Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema continue to oppose eliminating the filibuster.
The current pandemic also creates limitations on what Biden can currently accomplish in Congress, with most members focused on a Covid-19 economic stimulus package. And if the President is unable to pass a stimulus package, it's extremely unlikely his climate agenda would.
Even if Biden passes his energy plan, through a Senate with strong disagreements over environmental policies, experts disagree on whether his goal of millions more clean energy jobs is attainable.
"If the question is, do I think that the Biden plans are going to create millions of jobs, the answer is yes," Keefe told CNN. "Is it 10 million? Is it 20 million? I think that's to be determined."
Keefe noted that some of these future jobs are already being planned, with General Motors announcing that by 2035 it would only be producing emission free vehicles.
Benjamin Zycher, a resident scholar focused on energy and environmental policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, told CNN that "more expensive energy means less employment. It's just that simple."
"The best you could hope for," Zycher said, "is merely an employment shift out of other sectors into green sectors, however that's defined."
Starship rocket SpaceX hopes to send to Mars explodes
A prototype rocket that SpaceX hopes will one day send astronauts to Mars crashed and exploded on its return to the ground during a test launch in Texas on Tuesday. It's the second time that the prototype Starship rocket has failed to land successfully.
FAA denied SpaceX a safety waiver. Its Starship SN8 rocket launched anyway
On Dec. 9, 2020, SpaceX sent one of its Starship Mars rocket prototypes, dubbed SN8, on a high-altitude test flight for the first time. The successful launch and flight ended with a dramatic and explosive hard landing, which Elon Musk had warned ahead of time might be the outcome.
© Provided by CNET Boom. SpaceX's Starship SN8 prototype had an eventful landing. SpaceX
On Tuesday, we learned the whole scene came in defiance of the Federal Aviation Administration, the US regulatory agency that oversees much of commercial space activity and licenses SpaceX's Starship prototypes to operate in American airspace.
"Prior to the Starship SN8 test launch in December 2020, SpaceX sought a waiver to exceed the maximum public risk allowed by federal safety regulations," reads a statement from an FAA spokesperson. "After the FAA denied the request, SpaceX proceeded with the flight. As a result of this non-compliance, the FAA required SpaceX to conduct an investigation of the incident. All testing that could affect public safety at the Boca Chica, Texas, launch site was suspended until the investigation was completed and the FAA approved the company's corrective actions to protect public safety."
On Tuesday, we learned the whole scene came in defiance of the Federal Aviation Administration, the US regulatory agency that oversees much of commercial space activity and licenses SpaceX's Starship prototypes to operate in American airspace.
"Prior to the Starship SN8 test launch in December 2020, SpaceX sought a waiver to exceed the maximum public risk allowed by federal safety regulations," reads a statement from an FAA spokesperson. "After the FAA denied the request, SpaceX proceeded with the flight. As a result of this non-compliance, the FAA required SpaceX to conduct an investigation of the incident. All testing that could affect public safety at the Boca Chica, Texas, launch site was suspended until the investigation was completed and the FAA approved the company's corrective actions to protect public safety."
© SpaceX BOOM. SpaceX's Starship SN8 prototype had an eventful landing.
This revelation came on the same morning the FAA announced it finally gave the green light for SN8's successor, SN9, to make its own high-altitude test flight from the company's Boca Chica, Texas, development facility.
SN9 successfully launched and flew Tuesday afternoon and then suffered an explosive crash landing very similar to the final fate of SN8. Tuesday evening, the FAA said it would open and oversee an investigation into SN9's "landing mishap."
FAA later provided more details on the launch of SN8 in December, explaining that "the company proceeded with the launch without demonstrating that the public risk from far field blast overpressure was within the regulatory criteria."
Basically, the FAA is saying SpaceX didn't demonstrate that the risk to the public from a potential explosive blast wave was within legal limits, but it went ahead and launched SN8 anyway.
"The FAA required SpaceX to conduct an investigation of the incident, including a comprehensive review of the company's safety culture, operational decision-making and process discipline," an FAA spokesperson said in an emailed statement. "The FAA-approved corrective actions implemented by SpaceX enhanced public safety. Those actions were incorporated into today's SN9 launch. We anticipate taking no further enforcement action on SN8 matter."
So it appears SpaceX launched a prototype rocket without all proper regulatory approvals, and the only consequence was to perform an internal review and have the launch of its next prototype delayed by a few days.
SpaceX didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The launch of SN9 had been repeatedly pushed back during January. Last week it became clear approval from the FAA was the primary holdup, leading Elon Musk to criticize the agency publicly on Twitter.
Nonetheless, the FAA said Friday it was working with SpaceX to approve a modified license for the launch of SN9.
"The corrective actions arising from the SN8 incident are incorporated into the SN9 launch license," the FAA said
This revelation came on the same morning the FAA announced it finally gave the green light for SN8's successor, SN9, to make its own high-altitude test flight from the company's Boca Chica, Texas, development facility.
SN9 successfully launched and flew Tuesday afternoon and then suffered an explosive crash landing very similar to the final fate of SN8. Tuesday evening, the FAA said it would open and oversee an investigation into SN9's "landing mishap."
FAA later provided more details on the launch of SN8 in December, explaining that "the company proceeded with the launch without demonstrating that the public risk from far field blast overpressure was within the regulatory criteria."
Basically, the FAA is saying SpaceX didn't demonstrate that the risk to the public from a potential explosive blast wave was within legal limits, but it went ahead and launched SN8 anyway.
"The FAA required SpaceX to conduct an investigation of the incident, including a comprehensive review of the company's safety culture, operational decision-making and process discipline," an FAA spokesperson said in an emailed statement. "The FAA-approved corrective actions implemented by SpaceX enhanced public safety. Those actions were incorporated into today's SN9 launch. We anticipate taking no further enforcement action on SN8 matter."
So it appears SpaceX launched a prototype rocket without all proper regulatory approvals, and the only consequence was to perform an internal review and have the launch of its next prototype delayed by a few days.
SpaceX didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The launch of SN9 had been repeatedly pushed back during January. Last week it became clear approval from the FAA was the primary holdup, leading Elon Musk to criticize the agency publicly on Twitter.
Nonetheless, the FAA said Friday it was working with SpaceX to approve a modified license for the launch of SN9.
"The corrective actions arising from the SN8 incident are incorporated into the SN9 launch license," the FAA said
© Provided by CNET SN8's last moments. SpaceX video capture
"I am trying to wrap my mind around this right now, and will likely have more to say about it, but I am just in complete shock that a licensee has violated a launch license and there seems to be no repercussions," former FAA official Jared Zambrano-Stout wrote on Twitter. "If a licensee violates the terms of their launch license, they did so knowing that an uninvolved member of the public could have been hurt or killed. That is not exaggeration. They took a calculated risk with your life and property."
An FAA spokesperson said the agency will likely not be providing further comment on the incident.
Follow CNET's 2021 Space Calendar to stay up to date with all the latest space news this year. You can even add it to your own Google Calendar.
"I am trying to wrap my mind around this right now, and will likely have more to say about it, but I am just in complete shock that a licensee has violated a launch license and there seems to be no repercussions," former FAA official Jared Zambrano-Stout wrote on Twitter. "If a licensee violates the terms of their launch license, they did so knowing that an uninvolved member of the public could have been hurt or killed. That is not exaggeration. They took a calculated risk with your life and property."
An FAA spokesperson said the agency will likely not be providing further comment on the incident.
Follow CNET's 2021 Space Calendar to stay up to date with all the latest space news this year. You can even add it to your own Google Calendar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)