WE OWN IT WE WANT TRANSPARENCY

Energy regulator invites comment on Trans Mountain pipeline's insurer secrecy request

CALGARY — The Canada Energy Regulator is inviting public comment on a request by the operator of the Trans Mountain pipeline to protect the identity of its insurers, with the comment period extending beyond the requested deadline.


© Provided by The Canadian Press

In an online post, the federal regulator says it will accept comments on the proposal from the public until March 22 and Trans Mountain will be able to file reply comments until March 25.
 

In its initial filing in February, the federal government-owned pipeline company said it needed a response from the CER by March 15 so it would have time to complete its annual financial resources plan update, including the certificate of insurance which normally names its insurers, before April 30.

 

It argued there is evidence that "certain parties'' are using filings in the regulator's database to identify insurers and pressure them to drop their policies for the pipeline.

The CER says it received comments from B.C. environmentalist Robyn Allan and the Stand.earth organization opposing the request and decided to open a comment period. It didn't say when a decision would be made.

Trans Mountain said it experienced a significant reduction in available insurance capacity in 2020 and, when it found partial replacement policies, it had to pay a significantly higher cost.

 

Its filing came as Indigenous youth in Vancouver blocked the entrances of buildings housing insurance companies to demand they stop insuring the pipeline.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 9, 2021.

The Canadian Press

LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE

Lessons from the farming revolution:

 Why oil and gas productivity matters

Special to Financial Post 3/10/2021

By Mark Milke and Lennie Kaplan

© Provided by Financial Post The Harvesters (July–August) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.

In life we often take a lot for granted. Exhibit A: the technological revolution that gave us modern farming. Being a farmer centuries ago was best illustrated by Flemish artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder. His The Harvesters , painted in 1565, shows labourers gathering wheat and tying up the stacks by hand.

That was then. But over the past 100-plus years, farming across most of the world moved from backbreaking labour for men, women, children and animals alike to increased mechanization. Fields formerly worked by hand or by hoof have more recently been tilled and harvested with mechanized vehicles such as tractors and combines. That change, and many others, brought greater yield per hectare, more food to sustain growing populations worldwide and, usually, more income for farmers.

Farmers producing much more food with much less effort is an example of how capital investment — in this case in machinery — can boost labour productivity and lead to a much better life for all. For, as the Business Council of British Columbia puts it, “a country’s standard of living ultimately depends on its labour productivity, that is, its ability to generate the highest possible level of income or output per unit of labour input …”

SEE

The Brenner debate : agrarian class structure and economic development in pre-industrial Europe : Aston, T. H. (Trevor Henry) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Canada’s most productive industry is the oil and gas sector. Despite energy price gyrations over the past two decades, oil and gas has continued to be an important contributor to Canada’s labour productivity and therefore higher living standards for Canadians.

Why labour productivity is high in oil and gas is no mystery. What drives productivity are a skilled work force, innovation and capital investment. Oil and gas has all three in abundance but, in particular, workers in the sector use prodigious amounts of capital. Think of Bruegel’s farmers: 20 people cutting and bundling wheat by hand produce much less per hour than 20 people driving combines. Even one person driving a combine can massively out-produce 20 people working by hand.

It’s the same in the oil and gas sector. All the capital investment, including in machinery and technology, to extract much more oil and gas from deep underground with less labour is what leads to high per-hour outputs. The dollar value of oil and gas sector output does fluctuate depending on both the price of petroleum and how close the industry is operating to its capacity. But despite these ups and downs labour productivity in the sector is consistently high. It was $936 per hour in 2000, dropped to $402 per hour in 2012 but rose again to nearly $700 per hour as of 2019, the most recent year for which this statistic is available.


THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE
To be clear, workers in the industry, though they do well, don’t make that much money per hour. A large chunk of what they produce goes to paying for the capital and innovation that make their output so high. But they can’t be paid high wages on a sustained basis unless their productivity is high, which is why in the long run labour productivity is key to living standards. 

Some sub-sectors in oil and gas extraction have lower productivity than that nearly $700 per hour, some higher. For example, labour productivity in pipeline transportation was “just” $414 per hour in 2019, while in conventional oil and gas extraction it was $514 per hour and in non-conventional extraction, i.e., the oilsands, it was fully $1,090.

EVEN IF AN OIL OR GAS PLANT WORKER WAS EARNING $100 AN HOUR (ONLY WITH OVERTIME ACTUALLY)THAT MEANS THE EMPLOYER STEALS THE REAL VALUE, SURPLUS VALUE OVER AN ABOVE WAGES AND BENEFITS,A WORKER CREATES, THIS IS LIVING CAPITAL. IT PRODUCES WEALTH.

DEAD CAPITAL, MONEY, BUILDINGS, TECHNOLOGY ALL BECOME DEVALUED IN COMPARISSO TO LIVING CAPITAL (AS LABOUR)

BOTH ADAM SMITH AND KARL MARX USED THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE

In comparison, the average labour productivity for all Canadian industries taken together was only $60 per hour in 2019. Again, that’s an average so some industries did better: labour productivity per hour was $196 in mining, $169 in telecommunications, $149 in real estate, $77 in finance and insurance, $75 in motor vehicles and $68 in aerospace products and parts. On the other hand, some industries did worse, including agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting at $54 per hour, transportation and warehousing at $51, construction at $49, retail sales at $33, arts, entertainment and recreation at $28 and food services at just $23 per hour.

To put things in relative terms, labour productivity in oil and gas extraction, at $700 per hour in 2019, was nearly 12 times the all-industry average of just $60 per hour. That kind of productivity, like the revolution in farming over centuries, can also easily be taken for granted. But that would be a mistake. While labour productivity isn’t the easiest concept to grasp, it matters — a lot.

Higher labour productivity in oil and gas extraction has led to Canadians doing much more with less — their homes are a lot easier to heat with natural gas than chopped wood — but also to significantly higher wages, higher investment by industry, more taxes and royalty revenues for governments, and much, much else that contributes to our high standard of living.

Mark Milke and Lennie Kaplan are with the Canadian Energy Centre, an Alberta government corporation funded in part by carbon taxes. Their recent report is $60 vs. $700 per Hour: Labour Productivity in Oil and Gas Extraction Compared with Other Industries.

MARK MILKE WAS A RESEARCH WRITER FOR THE FRASER INSTITUTE 

WORKING OUT OF CALGARY NOW HE WORKS SHILLING FOR BIG OIL 

AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE STILL IN CALGARY

UN SHILLS FOR TEPCO

U.N. says no adverse health effects linked to 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster


The U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation said the incidence of cancers in workers at the Fukushima power plant is unlikely to be discernible. WITHOUT EVIDENCE

Photo by Keizo Mori/UPI | License Photo  

March 10 (UPI) -- Fukushima residents suffered no adverse health effects from radiation caused by the nuclear meltdown a decade ago at the prefecture's power plant, a new report from the United Nation's said.

Published Tuesday, the 243-page report by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation examines all scientific data available concerning the 2011 meltdown, finding that in the intervening years no negative health issues could be directly tied to radiation from the incident.

"No adverse health effects among Fukushima Prefecture residents have been documented that are attributable to radiation exposure from the FDNPS accident," the report said, referring to the plant by the initials of its full name, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

It also said future health issues directly related to the incident would also likely be indiscernible.

The UNSCEAR determined the large increase in thyroid cancer among children exposed to radiation from the accident can be attributed to improved screening procedures SAME EXCUSE TRUMP GAVE DURING COVID INCREASES IN USA"that have revealed the prevalence of thyroid abnormalities in the population not previously detected." 

 

"An increase in the incidence of cancers is unlikely to be discernible in workers for leukaemia, total solid cancers or thyroid cancer," it said, adding that there was insufficient information for the committee to reach an informed judgement on the risk of cataracts linked to the meltdown.

Evidence of stillbirths, preterm deliveries, low birthweight or congenital anomalies connected to radiation from the plant remains absent, according to the report. WHICH MAY MEAN IT HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR

 

It also said while it continues to consider radiation impacts on wildlife populations in Fukushima, it doesn't expect to find a clear causal link though "detrimental effects on individual organisms might have been possible, and some effects have been observed in plants and animals in the absence of any wide-scale group impacts."

Studies that have found wildlife population impacts remain "subject to some doubt," it said, adding that current assessment methods may not be adequate and further study would be valuable.

The United Nations said in a statement that the report broadly confirms its initial findings from its 2013 report on the accident.

Some 20,000 people were killed and more than 160,000 residents in Fukushima fled their homes after an earthquake-induced tsunami on March 11, 2011, flooded hundreds of miles and severely damaged three nuclear reactors at the power plant, causing it to release massive quantities of radiation. It is the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.


upi.com/7080925

France's love affair with nuclear power will continue, but change is afoot

Anmar Frangoul

© Provided by CNBC The Belleville Nuclear Power

 Plant in Belleville-sur-Loire, France.

Last December, French President Emmanuel Macron signaled that nuclear would continue to play an important role in his country's energy mix.
CNBC takes a look at the role nuclear could play in the energy future of both France and the wider world.

France is recognized for being a hotbed of culture, gastronomy and style. The country is also something of a world leader in another field: nuclear power.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, France is home to 56 operational nuclear power reactors, second only to the U.S., which has 94.

Together, these French facilities have a combined capacity of 61,370 megawatts (MW). And when it comes to nuclear's share in French electricity production, the IAEA says it was 70.6% in 2019, the highest in the world.

Below, CNBC's "Sustainable Energy" takes a look at the role nuclear could play in the energy future of both France and the wider world.
A major player

Peter Osbaldstone, a research director at research group Wood Mackenzie, told CNBC via email that France was "by far the largest nuclear power generator in Europe."

"The emissions intensity of French power is lower than its major neighbours, the market having a relatively small part of overall supply met by fossil fuels," he went on to explain.

"With low-marginal cost nuclear being so prominent in the mix, French wholesale power prices tend to be lower than in neighbouring markets as well," he added, going on to note that this factor also influenced end-user prices, which were also comparatively low.

Andrew Lever, a director at the Carbon Trust, an advisory firm, told CNBC that France had "enjoyed a low reliance on fossil-based power generation."

"Therefore, from a carbon reduction perspective, it is starting from a lower base point relative to other economies who are more reliant on fossil fuel-based generation," he added.
Macron's mission

Last December, French President Emmanuel Macron signaled that nuclear would continue to play an important role in the country's energy mix.

According to a translation of his remarks published by Reuters, Macron said the French nuclear industry would "remain the cornerstone of our strategic autonomy."

Macron's comments suggest France will continue its relationship with nuclear power long into the future, but change is nevertheless afoot. Indeed, by 2035 the government wants to cut nuclear power's share in its electricity mix to 50%. A mixed picture, then.

For his part, Wood Mackenzie's Osbaldstone said the 50% target did not mean the technology had fallen entirely out of favor, noting that in 2019 the French government had "instructed EDF to explore the possibility of constructing six new reactors across three sites." The utility, he added, was "due to respond by mid-2021."

The challenges of decarbonization

The International Energy Agency states that "nuclear power has historically been one of the largest contributors of carbon-free electricity globally" and adds that it also has "significant potential to contribute to power sector decarbonisation."

It should be noted, however, that while the IEA says it produces carbon-free electricity, many regard nuclear as a non-renewable source. This is because they argue uranium, the metal crucial to nuclear power generation, will eventually run out.

The Carbon Trust's Lever told CNBC that for any economy, the level of investment needed to decarbonize energy supply was "massive."

And while the cost of renewable technologies like solar photovoltaic and onshore and offshore wind had enjoyed "a substantial reduction," the same could not be said for "new nuclear" where there had "been a lack of consistent cost reduction."

"From a new build perspective, there are risks of delays in construction and cost management, which in turn present risks to the cost of transition and ultimately energy costs for consumers," Lever said.

"In addition, potentially high decommissioning and waste disposal costs mean a key risk in the future is that nuclear becomes a relatively expensive and unsustainable technology relative to renewable based alternatives."

France looks set to maintain a close relationship with nuclear power going forward, but its neighbor Germany is taking a different route.

In response to the Fukushima disaster of 2011, when a powerful earthquake and tsunami resulted in a meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Chancellor Angela Merkel's government developed plans to shut down the country's nuclear plants by the end of 2022.

Just last week, Reuters reported that Germany had agreed to pay four firms — Vattenfall, RWE, E.ON and EnBW — total compensation of almost 2.6 billion euros (around $3.09 billion) for the early closure of their nuclear plants.

Critiques and concerns

While Macron appears to be backing nuclear, it goes without saying the technology is not favored by all.

Critics include Greenpeace. "Nuclear power is touted as a solution to our energy problems, but in reality it's complex and hugely expensive to build," the environmental organization's website states.

"It also creates huge amounts of hazardous waste," it adds. "Renewable energy is cheaper and can be installed quickly. Together with battery storage, it can generate the power we need and slash our emissions."
The global picture

As governments around the world look to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources of energy, the debate surrounding nuclear power's role in the planet's energy mix will continue.

Just last month Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and billionaire, told CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin that nuclear power would "absolutely" be politically acceptable again. Gates is also the founder and chairman of TerraPower, a company focused on nuclear innovation.

Is then, the transition away from fossil fuels to renewables possible without nuclear?

"Any low-emissions source, like nuclear, can of course play a role in the energy transition," Wood Mackenzie's Osbaldstone said, before going on to outline some of the challenges ahead.

"However nuclear new-build costs are high, the technology requires strong political support and regulatory frameworks in host countries," he added, explaining that generators were "typically large and relatively inflexible in operation — these features reduce the number of possible applications for nuclear."

New tech including small modular reactors, or SMRs, "could go some way to addressing these shortcomings, potentially opening up a larger role for the source. But SMRs remain very much on the drawing board at the moment."

 

US Senate panel chief queries viability of peace process

Pajhwok Monitor

10 Mar 2021 - 11:58

KABUL (Pajhwok): An influential American lawmaker has urged the Biden administration to rethink the May 1 deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

Bob Menendez, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, also accused the Taliban of failing to honour their commitments under the peace deal they signed with the US in Doha last year.

Reuters quoted Menendez as telling journalists on Tuesday” “I’m very concerned about the viability of the peace process in Afghanistan.”

With intelligence reports indicating the militant movement’s failure to meet its promises, the deadline for troop withdrawal would have to be reconsidered, he argued.

“If the Taliban are confirmed as not meeting their commitments, which I personally believe they’re not, then we may have to reconsider the May 1 deadline,” the Senate panel chief remarked.

About 2,500 US soldiers are currently stationed in Afghanistan. Under the US-Taliban pact, all troops will have to be pulled out by May 1.

PAN Monitor/mud

Foreign troop exit: Berlin averse to May deadline

Pajhwok Monitor

3 Feb 2021 - 11:10

KABUL (Pajhwok): Germany believes the exit of international forces from Afghanistan should be linked to the success of ongoing peace talks in Doha.

Foreign Minister Heiko Maas suggested on Tuesday the pullout of foreign troops from the war-devastated country should not be based the May deadline.

Under the US-Taliban peace pact of February 29, 2020, all foreign troops are supposed to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of April this year.

However, the Biden administration, hinting at a review of the agreement, says the militant movement has failed to honour its commitment to reducing violence.

Speaking at an event organised by German media outlets, the minister argued the intra-Afghan peace talks would not conclude at the end of April.

The Associated Press quoted Maas as saying: “Our fear is that the Taliban could use this as a reason to leave the peace talks and seek a military solution.”

The foreign minister maintained: “We must couple both processes, the withdrawal of foreign forces with the peace negotiations. We don’t have to hang on slavishly to the date of the end of April…”

Behind the US, Germany is the second-biggest troop contributor to NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan.

Maas called for an agreement with the United States, the Afghan government and the Taliban on the issue of troop pullout.

PAN Monitor/mud

How will US-India ties impact Pakistan?: Dawn contributor

The paper says that America lacks both the will and the capacity to influence India's position on the Kashmir dispute.

Chinese trucks parked at Gwadar port, Pakistan,

as part of the trade convoy on 13 Nov 2016.PHOTO: DAWN

Javid Husain

PUBLISHED MAR 2, 2021, 

ISLAMABAD (DAWN/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) -The inauguration of the Biden administration has predictably generated a heated debate on America's likely policy concerning Pakistan.

Any analysis of the emerging scenario must be firmly grounded in strategic realities rather than in wishful thinking.

The end of the Cold War had already reduced Pakistan's importance in America's strategic calculations.

On top of that, there is now growing strategic divergence between Pakistan and the US because of the development of the Indo-US partnership as an essential element of the US policy of containment of China, on the one hand, and the deepening cooperation between Pakistan and China on the other.

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a prime example of growing Pakistan-China cooperation.

Additional factors which will influence US policy on Pakistan are India's economic weight with a GDP of US$2.6 trillion (S$3.46 trillion), its increasing global political influence as evidenced by its current membership of the UN Security Council and G20, and its position as the world's largest democracy despite the setbacks caused by the rise of Hindutva under Narendra Modi.

By way of comparison, Pakistan's economy is in dire straits with a GDP of only US$285 billion, there is political instability and its journey as a functioning democracy has been interrupted several times in the past.

Still, as a nuclear power with considerable military strength, Pakistan's importance in strengthening regional peace and stability cannot be ignored.

The Biden administration's initial policy statements clearly show that it is determined to continue the policy of developing a strategic partnership with India in pursuit of the policy of containment of China.

It is worth underscoring that the US policy of developing strategic cooperation with India had been supported by the Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.

Unsurprisingly, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at his confirmation hearing stated that America's relations with India were "a bipartisan success story".

Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin at his confirmation hearing assured Congress that the Biden administration would "operationalise India's Major Defence Partner status".

The increased presence of Americans of Indian origin in powerful positions in the Biden administration may reinforce the trend of deepening cooperation between the two countries, especially in military, nuclear and high-tech areas thereby upsetting further the strategic balance in South Asia to Pakistan's disadvantage.

In short, India is likely to be given the central role in the US Indo-Pacific strategy which will also involve the strengthening of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad involving India, Japan, US and Australia as affirmed by President Joe Biden in his recent telephone conversation with Prime Minister Modi.

Consequently, it would be unrealistic to expect that under Mr Biden, the US would resume large-scale economic and military assistance to Pakistan or would be helpful in the search for a just settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

The harsh reality is that America lacks both the will and the capacity to influence India's position on the Kashmir dispute.

It will, therefore, continue paying lip service to the need for a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute while being supportive of Indian hegemonic designs in South Asia.

However, there are several areas in which the two countries can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation.

Currently, the Biden administration is reviewing the deal signed by the US and the Afghan Taliban in February last year aimed at American military withdrawal from Afghanistan, an end to terrorism originating from Afghanistan, and a peace settlement between the Taliban and the Kabul regime.

It is in the mutual interest of Pakistan and the US to promote the ongoing intra-Afghan dialogue for achieving these goals.

The same can be said about Pakistan-US cooperation for combating terrorism from which both countries have suffered grievously.

Pakistan would be well advised to remove ambiguities in its policies concerning this issue.

Other areas in which Pakistan and the US can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation are the prevention of nuclear proliferation, promotion of peace and stability in South Asia, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean regions, climate change, promotion of human rights and strengthening of bilateral cooperation in economic, commercial, technical and cultural fields.

The test of Pakistan's diplomacy would lie in its ability to reconcile the elements of divergence and cooperation into a coherent whole mindful of both the potential and limitations of the Pakistan-US relationship.

The writer is a retired ambassador and author. He is president of the Lahore Council for World Affairs. The paper is a member of The Straits Times media partner Asia News Network, an alliance of 23 news media organisations.

GUNRUNNER US SUPPLIES AGRESSIVE IMPERIALIST INDIA 

India to buy first US armed drones to counter China, Pakistan: Sources

The Indian government is in the midst of a 10-year, US$250 billion military modernisation.PHOTO: AFP

NEW DELHI (BLOOMBERG) - India plans to buy 30 armed drones from the United States to boost its sea and land defences as tensions persist with neighbours China and Pakistan, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.

The South Asian nation will approve next month the US$3 billion (S$4 billion) purchase of 30 MQ-9B Predator drones manufactured by San Diego-based General Atomics, the officials said, asking not to be identified for speaking with the media. The deal would add to India's military capabilities as the drones it has now can only be used for surveillance and reconnaissance.

India is emerging as a strategic defence partner for the US, particularly in countering Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean and some areas of South-east Asia.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is in the midst of a 10-year, US$250 billion military modernisation.

"US-India relations in the present day are the result of decades of dedicated efforts by both countries," Mr Vivek Lall, chief executive for General Atomics, said in an e-mail.

"The fact that defence cooperation remains high on the list of priorities for the bilateral relationship, is a sign of our mutual security objectives," he said.

The spokesmen from India's Defence Ministry and US Pentagon officials did not respond to requests for comment.

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin is expected to visit India this month, according to local media, while President Joe Biden will soon join counterparts from India, Japan and Australia in the first-ever meeting of top leaders of the "Quad" bloc.

The leaders will meet virtually on March 12, according to India's Ministry of External Affairs, which said they would discuss issues including supply chains, maritime security and climate change.

The MQ-9B drone can fly for about 48 hours and carry a payload of about 1,700kg. It will give the Indian Navy the ability to better monitor Chinese warships in the southern Indian Ocean, and equip the army to engage targets along the disputed India-Pakistan border in the Himalayas.

Last year, India leased two unarmed MQ-9 Predators as border tensions with China threatened to spin into a full-blown conflict. In the end they were not deployed after the Air Force expressed apprehension about drones manned by US personnel flying over the border.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Microsoft Responds to China Cyber Attack by Expanding Business in China

Hack of 60,000 customers won't affect Microsoft's cozy relationship with CCP

Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates and Chinese premier Li Keqiang in 2017 (Thomas Peter/AFP via Getty Images)

Yuichiro Kakutani - MARCH 9, 2021 5:20 PM

Microsoft responded to a Chinese government hack that compromised more than 60,000 of its customers by expanding operations in the repressive regime.

Microsoft acknowledged on March 2 that Chinese "state-sponsored" hackers used vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange's software to install malware and access the emails of thousands of victims. The tech company has nevertheless barreled forward in its Chinese business plan, announcing on March 4 that it will expand its cloud computing service Azure. The move is meant to "empower" Chinese citizens, who live in a country with some of the most heavily censored and monitored webspace in the world.

"Our intelligent, trustworthy, and neutral cloud platform has been empowering hundreds of thousands of developers, partners, and customers from both China and the world to achieve more with technical innovation and business transformation," Alain Crozier, Microsoft's head for the Greater China Region, said in a statement.

The Azure expansion is the latest sign that the Chinese hacking campaign has had little impact on Microsoft's decades-long relationship with China. The U.S.-based tech company has outsourced a large portion of its research and development department to the authoritarian country, where it has had a presence since 1992. The company also partnered with a Chinese military university to conduct research into artificial intelligence.

Microsoft did not respond to a request for comment.

The global cyber attack has claimed a number of high-profile victims, including the European Banking Authority and thousands of businesses. The Biden White House said the hackers remain an "active threat" and that companies should patch up their softwares as soon as possible. The Chinese government has so far denied responsibility for the hacking campaign.

The Azure expansion plan will build a new cluster of data centers in northern China, speeding up the cloud service for Chinese users in the region, according to a press release. The cloud service employs Chinese company 21Vianet as a local partner. As China's leading data service provider, 21Vianet also conducts business with other Chinese tech companies such as Alibaba and Huawei, which U.S. officials say act as conduits for Chinese state espionage.

The Azure cloud computing service includes facial recognition software, a feature that might be attractive for authoritarian regimes. The company touts that "no machine learning expertise is required" to operate the program, which can search through a repository of up to one million people. Chinese authorities are increasingly using facial recognition to police their citizens, including the Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang.

Microsoft has nurtured a close relationship with Chinese entities over the course of nearly three decades, counting more than 17,000 partners in the authoritarian country. Despite the pandemic, Microsoft has continued to recruit even more local business partners. In December, Microsoft said it partnered with Huawei's spinoff company to build laptops in the country.

Microsoft also built its largest R&D base outside of the United States in China, employing more than 3,000 engineers and researchers located across four separate Chinese cities. The American company said its Chinese R&D division will contribute to China's prosperity.

"Microsoft Asia-Pacific R&D Group's teams are spread across the region … Located in tech parks and recognized hubs for innovation, these campuses are strategically positioned to take advantage of— and contribute to— China's rapid transformation to an innovation economy," the company said on its website.

Microsoft Responds to China Cyber Attack by Expanding Business in China - Washington Free Beacon

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Calls for Scottish minister to provide assurance over potential steel company meltdown

The future of Scotland’s surviving steel and aluminium plants have been thrown into doubt after the collapse of a finance firm, which also potentially exposes the Scottish Government to its massive losses after it guaranteed to underwrite a hydro-electric power station and aluminium smelter near Fort William in a deal to save the plants.

Sanjeev Gupta at the Lochaber plant.

Demands have now been made for economy secretary Fiona Hyslop to appear in Parliament to explain the the impact of Greensill Capital entering administration on the Liberty Steel businesses in Scotland.

It is understood that billionaire steel tycoon Sanjeev Gupta, who owns Liberty Steel, owes Greensill more than £3 billion.

However, he has moved to quell concerns, telling workers’ unions that his parent firm GFG Alliance was in the process of securing alternative funding and would survive the collapse of its major backer.

Mr Gupta, who was hailed as the “saviour of steel”, said some of Liberty Steel's UK operations were loss-making and this needed to be addressed.

Speaking after crisis talks with unions following specialist bank Greensill Capital going into administration, Mr Gupta said his group was taking "prudent steps" to manage cash and was seeking new funding.

The failure of Greensill has left many fearing that thousands of jobs at Liberty Steel’s assets in the UK could be at risk. These include those who work at the Lochaber aluminium smelting plant, to which the Scottish Government has provided more than £500 million of guarantees, and the steel plant in Motherwell.

It is believed Mr Gupta persuaded the Scottish Government to give a 25-year guarantee tied to the hydro-electric power station and aluminium smelter.

Using the guarantee, which committed the Scottish Government to buying the plant's electricity if the smelter shut down, finance firm Greensill issued about £575m of top-rated bonds in 2017 to Swiss fund manager GAM.

In return, Mr Gupta pledged to save 170 jobs at the smelter and create 2,000 more at a separate aluminium-wheel factory, which would make two million aluminium wheels a year by 2020.

The factory has not been built and it is understood Mr Gupta is considering opening a water bottle factory instead.

However, after administrators were appointed on Monday, Greensill said in a court filing that Mr Gupta's operations were in "financial difficulty" and defaulting on debt.

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said it was now vital that Ms Hyslop make a statement to Parliament on the future of Liberty Steel’s Scottish sites.

"The Scottish Government once again find themselves mired in murky business,” he said.

"When the Government provided guarantees in December 2016, they made big promises about a shining future for the Lochaber smelter. Now it seems that the smelter's parent firm are in trouble and Scottish taxpayers could be on the hook.

"Just as with the BiFab yards in Fife, the Scottish Government are good at handing out money to financiers and hopeless at providing high wage, highly-skilled jobs for Scottish workers.

"The economy secretary needs to come to Parliament and explain what's next for workers and taxpayers."

Scottish Conservative Highlands and Islands MSP Jamie Halcro Johnston said the news of the collapse of Greensill had come as a “complete shock” as just "a matter of weeks ago came the positive news of an expansion at Lochaber”.

"It is a vital local industry which employs almost 200 workers and it's incumbent on the SNP to explore all options to ensure the survival of this site and those in Motherwell and elsewhere in the UK,” he said. “We need to do everything possible to preserve jobs."

His colleague, Scottish Conservative finance spokesperson Murdo Fraser, said the government’s finance minister Kate Forbes needed to “provide urgent clarity, specifically in relation to how much taxpayers' money may be at risk and what is being done to address that”.

"As seen with BiFab, the ferries fiasco and other scandals, this SNP Government has a reverse Midas touch when it comes to business,” he said.

"They must explain what is going on, the terms of these agreements and do everything possible to insulate public funds from unnecessary loss."

Greensill Capital, which has funded Mt Gupta's businesses expansion, was tipped into administration last week when one of its main backers, Credit Suisse, suspended £7.2bn of investment funds.

Greensill had used that investment to fund its supply chain finance deals, which provided huge sums to Mr Gupta's business.

In a statement after a meeting with union representatives, a spokesperson for GFG said: “Sanjeev had a productive meeting with the unions to discuss the plan to make the parts of the UK businesses facing weak market conditions more financially sustainable and address the disruption caused by the situation at Greensill.

“Liberty Steel Group has provided significant support to the UK speciality steel business, which has seen the demand for some products fall by 60 per cent following the downturn in the aerospace sector due to Covid-19.

“As part of the prudent steps we are taking to manage cash, we are discussing new opportunities with customers and suppliers to improve cash flow and looking to secure additional working capital facilities to support the business.”


In a joint statement, unions Community, GMB and Unite said: “The meeting was positive and constructive and it is clear Mr Gupta intends to secure a refinancing of the debt to provide the business with the necessary liquidity going forward.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Funding sources available to the GFG Alliance are commercial matters for the business.

“The Scottish Government has a comprehensive security package relating to the guarantee Scottish ministers provided to the Lochaber aluminium smelter in 2016.

“We maintain regular dialogue with the GFG Alliance covering a range of its industrial interests in Scotland across steel, aluminium and renewable energy production.”

#SPACERACE2.0

Russia and China are going to build a Moon base together, and NASA isn’t invited

A shot of the lunar surface. Image source: NASA

By Mike Wehner @MikeWehner
March 9th, 2021 BGR

The United States and Russia might be old Cold War enemies — and tensions between the two countries in the present day aren’t exactly great, either — but when it comes to space exploration, NASA and Russia’s Roscosmos have long been allies. That relationship, like any, has not been perfect, but it’s still a bit of a shock to see that Russia now plans to start a lunar base and, instead of NASA, it is choosing China’s space program as its partner.

As Ars Technica reports, the agreement was announced by Roscosmos, with the heads of the Chinese National Space Administration and Russia’s Roscosmos signing off on the deal. The facility is to be known as the “International Lunar Science Station,” and while many of the details are still to be worked out, NASA isn’t currently in the loop.

It’s no secret that China is rapidly advancing its space exploration programs. The CNSA is attempting to make up for decades US and Russian space superiority and, to be totally fair, it’s doing one heck of a job. China has already accomplished a number of “firsts,” including landing a spacecraft and rover on the far side of the Moon for the first time in history, as well as returning lunar samples from the surface of the Moon remotely in a matter of days.

China has said that it wants a constant presence on the Moon, but plans were scarce. Now, with Russia and China shaking hands on a deal to build a lunar base, it would seem as though there’s nothing standing in either country’s way. This, of course, puts NASA and the United States in a very difficult spot.

The International Space Station exists because of both the United States (NASA) and Russia (Roscosmos). Partner organizations like the European Space Agency and Japan’s JAXA have also played a part, but the orbiting laboratory wouldn’t exist in its current state without both NASA and Roscosmos doing most of the planning, upgrading, and heavy lifting. China is not allowed on the International Space Station, and that’s a decision that was made early on. In recent years, the European Space Agency has tried to mend ties between the scientific bodies in the US and China, asking that China be allowed to send astronauts to the ISS and conduct science there. The United States said no.

So, now that Russia and China are going to play ball in space — with China, the ESA, and Russia all conducting various missions in partnership with one another over the years — NASA is essentially the odd one out. NASA has its own plans for a return to the Moon with the Artemis program, but Russia has not pledged to follow the “Artemis Accords,” which is an agreement between partner nations to share scientific data and abide by a specific code of conduct. China never had a chance to pledge its signature due to NASA being prohibited from working with China as part of a law passed by Congress in 2011.

Mike Wehner has reported on technology and video games for the past decade, covering breaking news and trends in VR, wearables, smartphones, and future tech. Most recently, Mike served as Tech Editor at The Daily Dot, and has been featured in USA Today, Time.com, and countless other web and print outlets. His love of reporting is second only to his gaming addiction.