AUSTRALIA
A Victorian logging company just won a controversial court appeal. Here’s what it means for forest wildlife

The ruling means logging is set to resume, despite the threats it poses to wildlife.

By Brendan Wintle, Laura Schuijers and Sarah Bekessy
-May 17, 2021
SOURCE The Conversation


Australia’s forest-dwelling wildlife is in greater peril after last week’s court ruling that logging — even if it breaches state requirements — is exempt from the federal law that protects threatened species.

The Federal Court upheld an appeal by VicForests, Victoria’s state timber corporation, after a previous ruling in May 2020 found it razed critical habitat without taking the precautionary measures required by law.

The ruling means logging is set to resume, despite the threats it poses to wildlife. At particular risk are the Leadbeater’s possum and greater glider — mammals highly vulnerable to extinction that call the forests home.

So let’s take a look at the dramatic implications for wildlife and the law in more detail.
Why is this ruling so significant?

The Federal Court agreed VicForest’s logging failed to meet its environmental legal requirements. In fact, the Federal Court dismissed every single ground of appeal but one. And it takes only one to win.

The ground that won the case was that the federal environmental law designed to protect threatened species — the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act — did not apply to the logging operations due to a forestry exemption.

To understand the significance of these issues, it’s important to know a bit about the context.



In fact, they said that it doesn't matter what the loggers actually do – their exemptions from the EPBC Act remain.— Michael Slezak (@MikeySlezak) May 10, 2021

In the 1980s and ‘90s, forestry was passed to the states to regulate. So-called regional forest agreements (RFAs) were struck between federal and state governments. The idea was that forestry would be conducted under these state-led RFAs, avoiding federal scrutiny.

This was meant to streamline procedures, and offer a compromise between sometimes conflicting objectives: conservation and commercially profitable forestry.

However, states weren’t necessarily meant to have absolute control, and a check-and-balance system was put in place. If a logging operation doesn’t follow the RFA requirements, then the federal law is called in.

That way, states have control, but there’s a backup safety net for threatened species (which the federal government has an obligation to protect under international law).

This backup safety net is what the original case was testing. Friends of the Leadbeater’s Possum sued VicForests, arguing the logging operations breached the Victorian RFA, and the organisation won the case.

Bridget McKenzie introduced a bill seeking to strengthen logging’s exemption from federal scrutiny. AAP Image/Lukas Coch

In response to the original decision against VicForests, Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie introduced a private members bill, seeking to strengthen logging’s exemption from federal scrutiny.

If passed, the bill would make forestry activities within RFA areas exempt from scrutiny under the EPBC Act, regardless of whether they follow RFA rules.

Both the court decision and the bill respond to a need for industry certainty and seek to minimise opportunities for legal action against logging under the EPBC Act. But they remove any certainty for environmental protection.
What does this mean for wildlife?

RFAs were established with the best of intentions. But unfortunately, they haven’t been working to protect wildlife — a point made clear in the EPBC Act’s recent ten-year independent review.

As former competition watchdog chair Professor Graeme Samuel, who led the review, said in his final report:


there are fundamental shortcomings in the interactions between RFAs and the EPBC Act.

The RFAs haven’t been updated as they were meant to be, despite dramatic changes in the environment, such as from mega-fires, and the warming and drying climate. These factors totally change the game for forestry and forest-dependent wildlife, such Leadbeater’s possum and the greater glider, which are declining dramatically.

Leadbeater’s possums rely on old tree hollows. AAP Image/ Australian National University, Tim Bawden

We are currently experiencing a global mass extinction event, and Australia is a global extinction leader. Australia is responsible for 35% of all modern mammal extinctions globally and has seen an average decline of 50% in threatened bird populations since 1985.

Cutting down trees may seem insignificant to some, in the scheme of things. But small effects can accumulate into huge declines, like a death by a thousand cuts.

Both Leadbeater’s possum and the greater glider depend on large old trees with hollows (that take more than 100 years to develop) for shelter. Without many of these trees, they cannot survive.

Logging in Victoria has led to a decline in the number and extent of these particular trees, and reduces future large tree numbers. This makes the animals more vulnerable.

To avoid extinctions, we can’t afford to lose more ground by continuing practices that damage or remove habitat.
The writing is on the wall

But things could be changing soon. The Victorian government plans to ban native timber harvesting from 2030. This happens to be the same year a decades-old contract with a wood pulp and paper company expires, currently binding the state to provide pulp logs by a legislated supply agreement.

After 2030, paper, pulp, and timber products would be logged from plantations rather than native forests. The writing is already on the wall.

An anti-logging protest in Toolangi State Forest in response to VicForests winning their appeal in the federal court. Kira Whittaker

Whether it’s the federal or state governments in charge, forest management needs to be scientifically robust, with strong compliance, enforcement and governance. Otherwise, as we’ve seen, there’s a significant risk of slippage and loss of trust.

Even before the mega-fires of 2019-20, most Australians didn’t support native forest logging. After the fires, their worries increased, with a majority expressing concerns that Australia’s unique environment might never be the same.

And as a result of rising community expectations on how the environment is treated, some businesses have pivoted.

Many companies now see being associated with environmentally poor outcomes as risky. Bunnings, for example, has already banned VicForests’ native timber. The World Economic Forum places biodiversity loss in the top five risks to the global economy. And a global taskforce is being established that could eventually see environmental disclosures as a new norm.

It’s clear the status quo has led to an alarming rate of species decline. This decline will only be locked in further if legal exemptions make it impossible to hold law-breakers to account

Why strongmen are losing the fight against Covid

One big lesson from the Covid crisis: lying makes it worse.
By Robert Reich
-May 18, 2021

SOURCE Robert Reich


A hospital in Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, is being charged under the country’s National Security Act for sounding the alarm over a lack of oxygen that resulted in Covid deaths. The hospital’s owner and manager says the police have accused him of “false scare-mongering,” after he stated publicly that four of his patients died on a single day when oxygen ran out.


Since Covid-19 exploded in India, the prime minister, Narendra Modi, seems more intent on controlling the news than the outbreak. On Wednesday, India recorded nearly 363,000 Covid cases and 4,120 deaths, about 30 percent of worldwide Covid deaths that day. But experts say India is vastly understating the true number. Ashish Jha, dean of Brown University’s School of Public Health, estimates that at least 25,000 Indians are dying from Covid each day.

The horror has been worsened by shortages of oxygen and hospital beds. Yet Modi and his government don’t want the public to get the true story.

One big lesson from the Covid crisis: lying makes it worse.

Vladimir Putin is busily denying the truth about Covid in Russia. Demographer Alexei Raksha, who worked at Russia’s official statistical agency, Rosstat, but says he was forced to leave last summer for telling the truth about Covid, claims that the daily data in Russia has been “smoothed, rounded, lowered” to look better. Like many experts, he uses excess mortality – the number of deaths during the pandemic over the typical number of deaths – as the best indicator.

“If Russia stops at 500,000 excess deaths, that will be a good scenario,” he calculates.

Russia was first out of the gate with a Covid vaccine but has fallen woefully behind on vaccinations. Recent polling puts the share of Russians who don’t want to be vaccinated at 60 to 70 percent. That’s because Putin and other officials have focused less on vaccinating the public than on claiming success in containing Covid.

The U.S. is suffering a similar problem – the legacy of another strongman, Donald Trump. Although more than half of U.S. adults have received at least one dose of coronavirus vaccine, more than 40 percent of Republicans have consistently told pollsters they won’t get vaccinated. Their recalcitrance is threatening efforts to achieve “herd immunity” and prevent the virus’s spread.

Like Modi and Putin, Trump minimized the seriousness of the pandemic and spread misinformation about it. Trump officials ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to downplay its severity. He declined to get vaccinated publicly and was noticeably absent from a public service announcement on vaccination that featured all other living former presidents.

Trump allies in the media have conducted a scare campaign about the vaccines. In December, Laura Ingraham posted a story on Facebook from the Daily Mail purporting to show evidence that Chinese communist party loyalists worked at pharmaceutical companies that developed the coronavirus vaccine.

As recently as mid-April, Fox News host Tucker Carlson opined that if the vaccine were truly effective, there’d be no reason for people who received it to wear masks or avoid physical contact.

“So maybe it doesn’t work, and they’re simply not telling you that.”

Why then should anyone be surprised at the reluctance of Trump Republicans to get vaccinated? A recent New York Times analysis showed vaccination rates to be lower in counties where a majority voted for Trump in 2020. States that voted more heavily for Trump are also states where lower percentages of the population have been vaccinated.

The Republican pollster Frank Luntz claims Trump bears responsibility for the hesitancy of GOP voters to be vaccinated.

“He wants to get the credit for developing the vaccine. Then he also gets the blame for so few of his voters taking it.”

Trump’s Republican Party is coming to resemble authoritarian regimes around the world in other respects as well – purging truthtellers and trucking in lies, misinformation, and propaganda harmful to the public.

Last week the GOP stripped Representative Liz Cheney of her leadership position for telling the truth about the 2020 election. At last week’s congressional hearing about the January 6 attack on the Capitol, one Republican congressman, Andrew Clyde, even denied it happened.

“There was no insurrection,” he said. “To call it an insurrection is a bold-faced lie … you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.”

Biden says he plans to call a summit of democratic governments to contain the rise of authoritarianism around the world. I hope he talks about its rise in the United States, too – and the huge toll it’s already taken on Americans.


Robert Reich
http://robertreich.org/
Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fourteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "Saving Capitalism." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, co-founder of the nonprofit Inequality Media and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, Inequality for All.

Roundup verdict of $25M upheld in US appeals court
“It’s a slam dunk for plaintiffs. This proves these claims are viable in the tort system.”

By Amanda Mills
-May 18, 2021
SOURCE NationofChange



Late last week, a federal appeals court has upheld a $25 million verdict against the maker of RoundUp, a weedkiller linked to cancer.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by Monsanto Co., the manufacturer of the herbicide, ruling 2-1 that $20 million in punitive damages, “while close to the outer limits,” was constitutional.

Back in 2019, a jury awarded a California man, Edwin Hardeman, $5.3 million in compensation for his illness and $75 million in punitive damages because Monsanto had failed to warn users about the dangers of their product.

Hardeman would become the first person to prove in U.S. federal court that Roundup had caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) – and that in the process, he would help uncover damning secrets about the manufacturer, Monsanto, and its influence in science and government, reports The Guardian.

According to Popular Resistance, Monsanto, trying to overturn the punitive damages award, said it could not have known that glyphosate caused cancer in 2012. But the 9th Circuit disagreed, noting that “various independent scientific studies linking glyphosate and cancer were released by 2012.”

The court’s verdict is a victory for Hardeman, others who have suffered, and activists who have fought to hold Monsanto and Bayer (who bought out Monsanto) accountable.

“It’s a slam dunk for plaintiffs. This proves these claims are viable in the tort system,” says Leslie Brueckner, an attorney with Public Justice who helped with Hardeman’s appeal.

As reported by Reuters, this ruling was the first by a federal appeals court in a case linking Roundup and cancer and Bayer had said the case had the potential to “shape how every subsequent Roundup case is litigated.” Bayer has said that decades of studies have shown Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides that dominate the market are safe for human use.


Amanda Mills
NationofChange board member and activist.

'The IEA Is Starting to Get It': World Energy Body Praised for Finally Admitting Fossil Fuels Must Stay in the Ground

"Today's bombshell report from the International Energy Agency is easy to translate," said Bill McKibben. "Anyone who continues to engage or invest in fossil fuel development is wrecking the climate."

by

Kenny Stancil, staff writer

 Published on Tuesday, May 18, 2021 

by

Common Dreams

In Garzweiler, Germany, wind turbines are seen near an open-cast mining operation and a coal-fired power plant run by German energy giant RWE on March 15, 2021. (Photo: Ina Fassbender/AFP via Getty Images)

To avoid the most catastrophic effects of the climate emergency, countries around the world must immediately transition from extracting and burning fossil fuels to utilizing renewable sources like solar and wind, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday in a landmark report detailing what governments need to do to achieve a net-zero energy system by 2050.

"When this conservative institution is demanding an end to fossil fuels it really is time for governments to ditch the net-zero rhetoric and take immediate action to cut their support for polluting corporations."
—Anna Vickerstaff, 350.org

Described by Food & Water Watch policy director Mitch Jones as "a testament to both the power of the international climate movement and the urgency of the crisis we face," the IEA's new report, Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, stated that there is "no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net-zero pathway."

"It's huge to have the world's most influential energy modelers bolstering the global call to stop licensing and financing new fossil fuel extraction," Kelly Trout, interim Energy Transitions and Futures program director at Oil Change International, said in a statement. "Governments, banks, and big oil and gas companies can no longer use the IEA as a shield to claim that their support for fossil fuel expansion is consistent with the Paris Agreement."

While climate experts and justice advocates have long stressed the need to rapidly slash greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to prevent the average global temperature from increasing more than 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, the new report from the IEA—historically friendly to the fossil fuel industry's prerogatives—is particularly significant; it marks the first time the world's leading energy policy adviser has acknowledged that existing climate pledges are woefully inadequate and that approving new coal, oil, and gas projects is incompatible with drastically reducing the planet-heating pollution responsible for destabilizing Earth's climate.

"Finally the IEA is starting to get it: If we're to have a fighting chance of meeting the objectives of the Paris agreement, the world needs to phase out fossil fuels," Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, said in response to the IEA's 1.5°C-aligned net-zero scenario. "We can't even burn—or afford to burn—all the reserves we've currently got."

"To avert climate catastrophe and biodiversity devastation, and to maintain an 'unwavering policy focus on climate change in the net-zero pathway,' governments and regulators have to act and that means an end to licensing for new oil and gas now," Morgan added. "The IEA has spelled it out once and for all: if you're in a hole, stop digging."

Today's bombshell report from the Intl Energy Agency is easy to translate: anyone who continues to engage or invest in fossil fuel development is wrecking the climate.
Or, more simply: Keep It In the Groundhttps://t.co/sGQCdiV5rn

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) May 18, 2021

In a statement, Anna Vickerstaff, the United Kingdom team lead at 350.org, said that "in the past, the International Energy Agency has been hesitant to call time on the fossil fuel industry—not anymore."

"When this conservative institution is demanding an end to fossil fuels it really is time for governments to ditch the net-zero rhetoric and take immediate action to cut their support for polluting corporations," Vickerstaff continued. "The growing call for concrete action is impossible to ignore. It's time to end fossil fuels."

While a growing number of countries, including major economies like the United States and the European Union, have recently pledged to cut GHG emissions by at least 50% below 2005 levels by the end of this decade on the way to net-zero by midcentury, IEA executive director Fatih Birol told the New York Times in an interview that "the sheer magnitude of changes needed to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 is still not fully understood by many governments and investors."

"There's still a huge gap between the rhetoric and the reality," said Birol, who warned last month that despite the economic slowdown caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, global GHG emissions did not decline significantly in 2020 and are on pace to increase in 2021 due to an uptick in coal burning along with lackluster green recovery policies.

Emphasizing that there is still a viable path to net-zero emissions but that it is narrow and "hinges on a singular, unwavering focus from all governments—working together with one another, and with businesses, investors, and citizens—" the IEA explained the changes required to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

The report outlined "400 milestones to guide the global journey to net-zero by 2050," providing governments worldwide with a potential timeline to usher in an era of clean energy and stave off climate destruction. The report also stressed the need for internationally coordinated action, without which global carbon emissions "will not fall to net-zero by 2050." 

"Net-zero is being used by the world's biggest polluters and governments as a façade to evade responsibility and disguise their inaction or harmful action on the climate crisis."
—Landry Nientereste, 350.org

"For many rich countries, achieving net-zero emissions will be more difficult and costly without international cooperation," the report noted. "For many developing countries, the pathway to net-zero without international assistance is not clear. Technical and financial support is needed to ensure deployment of key technologies and infrastructure."

The report stated that "to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, annual clean energy investment worldwide will need to more than triple by 2030 to around $4 trillion," something the IEA said would "create millions of new jobs." To take one example, quadrupling global solar power by 2030 "is equivalent to installing the world's current largest solar park roughly every day" for the rest of the decade.

"The clean energy transition is for and about people," said Birol in a statement. "Our roadmap shows that the enormous challenge of rapidly transitioning to a net-zero energy system is also a huge opportunity for our economies."

"The transition must be fair and inclusive, leaving nobody behind," Birol added, alluding to the objective of meeting the needs of the nearly 800 million people who lack electricity and the 2.6 billion who lack clean cooking solutions. "We have to ensure that developing economies receive the financing and technological know-how they need to build out their energy systems to meet the needs of their expanding populations and economies in a sustainable way."

While the report noted that decarbonizing the global economy in the span of three decades necessitates "the massive deployment of all available clean energy technologies—such as renewables, electric vehicles, and energy efficient building retrofits—between now and 2030," the IEA also called for substantially increasing and reprioritizing research and development because "in 2050, almost half the reductions come from technologies that are currently only at the demonstration or prototype phase."

Although the report's call for halting investment in fossil fuels won praise from progressive advocates, the fact that the IEA's emissions reduction roadmap after 2030 relies heavily on nonexistent technologies such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) elicited criticism.

"Gambling the climate on a 4,000% increase in carbon capture and storage by 2030 is extraordinarily risky and, the IEA's own analysis shows, not necessary," said David Tong, a senior campaigner at Oil Change International. "Instead of banking on a consistently underperforming and still polluting technology, the IEA should be accelerating the phase-out of fossil gas and coal by relying on proven wind and solar solutions."

"We need the IEA to be a beacon pointing the way to a truly clean, Paris-aligned future," Tong added. "With today's report, that light is starting to appear, but it is not yet shining as bright as it must."

In addition, Landry Nientereste, the Africa managing director at 350.org, warned that "net-zero"—which allows companies like Shell and BP to "offset" their carbon emissions by planting trees—"is being used by the world's biggest polluters and governments as a façade to evade responsibility and disguise their inaction or harmful action on the climate crisis."

"There is a growing risk," Nientereste said, "that reports such as these are shifting the narrative away from the rapid and 'real' emissions reductions that climate justice requires."

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

Britain’s homes at risk of subsidence because of climate change, study shows

19 May 2021, 

Britain’s homes at risk of subsidence because of climate change, study shows

Millions of homes and properties could face subsidence in the coming decades as a result of climate change, the British Geological Survey has warned.

New maps from the RGS show the growing threat of damage to properties from shrinking and swelling of the ground without action to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, with London and the South East most at risk.

The analysis uses data on potential ground movement and long-term rainfall and temperature scenarios to project the impact of climate change from 1990 up to 2030 and 2070 under a worse-case scenario.

It finds that the number of properties across Britain highly likely or extremely likely to be affected by “shrink-swell” could rise from 3% or nearly one million in 1990 to 6.5% or more than 2.4 million in 2030.

By 2070, almost 11%, or more than four million properties, could be highly or extremely likely to face subsidence issues.

Map of regions projected to be affected up to 2070 (BGS/UKRI/PA)

Shrink-swell refers to changes in soil volume due to moisture changes in the ground, which could worsen as the UK faces more weather extremes as a result of rising global temperatures.

When clay-rich soils absorb lots of water, for example in wet weather, it can cause the ground to rise and structures to lift, which is known as heave, while in warmer, drier weather, soils can become very hard and the ground shrinks and cracks, causing subsidence.

The most susceptible areas are London, particularly northern and central boroughs and Kent in the South East, the analysis finds.

Patrick Gray, BGS head of digital products, said the analysis highlighted the areas most vulnerable to shrink-swell subsidence due to climate change.

“This is important information that can help communities and property owners to build resilience to future climate change,” he said.

In London, the number of homes and buildings highly or extremely likely to be affected could double from a fifth – more than 840,000 – back in 1990 to 43% or 1.8 million by the end of this decade.

By 2070, almost 2.4 million properties, some 57% of buildings in the capital, are very likely to face problems if greenhouse gas emissions remain high.

BGS geological engineer Lee Jones said, in the South East, many of the clay formations are too geologically young to have been changed into stronger mud rocks, leaving soil vulnerable to absorb and lose moisture.

“Added to that, Britain is seeing increasingly variable climates. In summer 2018 for example, we experienced some of the warmest and driest summer months in years, whereas 2019 was one of the wettest on record.

“Dry weather and high temperatures are a major factor in the emergence of shrink-swell subsidence and looking to the future, these increases in annual temperatures and variability in rainfall are very likely to continue.”

Subsidence can lead to financial losses for property owners, expensive remedial work, increased insurance premiums, lower house prices and even impacts on infrastructure such as transport and utility pipes.

But the BGS said property owners could take steps to limit the potential effects, such as seeking specialist advice before starting any major building work.

And they should be aware of the effects of laying drives, paths or hardstanding that is impermeable to water, and of planting or removing trees close to properties, which can all have an impact on soil moisture levels.

Publish internal review to help UK prepare for pandemic’s next stage – Ashworth

LUKE POWELL, PA19 May 2021, 

Publishing the Government’s internal review of its handling of the Covid-19 crisis will help the UK “prepare” for the next stage of the pandemic, the shadow health secretary said.

Jonathan Ashworth said that the publication of the document would ensure better scrutiny of the Government’s response to the Indian Covid-19 variant.

It comes as a separate report by the National Audit Office (NAO) found that the pandemic had “laid bare existing fault lines within society and has exacerbated inequalities”.

Shadow health secretary Labour's Jonathan Ashworth (Jonathan Brady/PA)

Labour will table a motion on Wednesday to require the Government to publish the internal review.

Mr Ashworth told Times Radio: “We need to learn lessons and prepare for the next stage.

“This isn’t about scoring points or anything like that, it’s about being aware we have got this particular variant spreading in parts of the country.

“It seems to be spreading quickly and we need to make sure the Government is doing all it can to quickly contain the spread.

“If we have the lessons learned document published it will help all of us better scrutinise the Government’s plans and response to this variant.”

The NAO report found the Government lacked a “playbook” for many aspects of its response to the pandemic, including managing a mass disruption to schooling.

It also said greater transparency was needed to ensure the Government “can assess whether it is making a difference”.

Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said an unreformed adult social care system, workforce shortages and the financial pressure felt by central and local government “all require long-term solutions” after the coronavirus crisis.

Labour will look to capitalise on the findings in the final debate on the Queen’s Speech on Wednesday, with the opposition party tabling a humble address calling on the Government to publish its internal review.

Mr Ashworth will tell MPs: “Boris Johnson promised us an irreversible road map to normality.

“With the spread of the B1617.2 variant threatening to hold us back, we need urgent action from ministers to contain this variant.”

BRITISH IMPERIALISM

British ‘policy of non-intervention’ was a key factor in Irish Famine, says President
‘Numerous interventions’ could have mitigated the worst effects of the Great Hunger

Sun, May 16, 2021, 
Ronan McGreevy


President Michael D Higgins listed “numerous interventions” that could have mitigated the impact of the famine. File photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill


The “devastating consequences” of the Irish Famine could have been avoided had the British government acted more decisively, President Michael D Higgins has said.

Speaking to mark National Famine Commemoration Day, President Higgins listed “numerous interventions” that could have mitigated the impact of the Great Hunger.

Britain could have prohibited the export of grain from Ireland, especially during the winter of 1846-47 and early in the following spring, when there was little food in the country and before large supplies of foreign grain began to arrive. Once there was sufficient food in the country, the government could have taken steps to ensure that this imported food was distributed to those in greatest need, he suggested.

It could have continued its soup-kitchen scheme for a longer time which was effective for just six months, from March to September 1847, despite it providing food for up to three million people, and proving to be both effective and inexpensive, Mr Higgins pointed out.

“Its decision to cull it prematurely was again a policy of non-interventionism, supporting the Whigs’ beliefs of how government and society should function.”

The remuneration that the government provided on its short-lived public works in the winter of 1846-47 should have been much higher if those toiling were ever to be able to afford the greatly inflated price of food and the Poor Laws should have been far less restrictive from the autumn of 1847 onwards.

The government could have restrained the ruthless mass eviction of 500,000 families from their homes, as landlords sought to rid their estates of pauperised farmers and labourers, the president stated.

“Last, and above all, the British government should have been willing to treat the Famine in Ireland as a crisis, an imperial responsibility, and to bear the costs of relief after the summer of 1847,” the President said.

“In an atmosphere of rising ‘Famine fatigue’ in Britain, Ireland at that point and for the remainder of the Famine was left to survive on its own woefully inadequate resources in a misguided effort to promote greater self-reliance and self-exertion among the poor.”

He said British government policy in Ireland had created the “conditions of such dismal hopelessness, of desperate dependence on the potato crop” in the first place.

“The Act of Union and the consequences of its restrictions, all of which was premeditated and preceded by what were barbarous Penal Laws, laws which were deliberate and methodical in their intent to deprive the vast majority of the Irish population of some of the most basic of human freedoms including religious practice or participation in the representative aspects of civil society,” he said.

“When blight struck, the people of the country were utterly vulnerable, dependent on what would be decided for them.”

In his speech, Mr Higgins also highlighted how 34 million people worldwide were currently in danger of famine particularly in Yemen which, according to the United Nations, was in “imminent danger of enduring the worst famine the world has seen in decades”.

Of 28 million Yemeni people, at least 20 million are in need of food and healthcare, four million are homeless, and millions more are threatened by ongoing military operations.

“These shocking figures stand as an indictment, not only on the protagonists of this proxy-conflict and their supporters, but on all of an international community who can, suffering from what Pope Francis has called the virus of indifference, look on and refuse to act,” the president said.

Sunday’s formal State ceremony included military honours and a wreath laying ceremony in remembrance of all those who suffered or perished during the Famine.

It is the second time that the commemoration has been held in Glasnevin Cemetery. The founder of the cemetery “the Liberator” Daniel O’Connell died on May 15th 1847.

Minister for Culture Catherine Martin recalled that “his last major act in the House of Commons in February 1847 was to make a powerful plea for relief for the victims of the Famine”.

The Marxist thesis is that the British Empire began with the invasion of Ireland in 1169 and that in the seven teenth century Britain forced the in digenous population of Ulster to emi grate and gave their land to Scottish immigrants—ancestral core of today's North Irish Protestant majority. The Marxist thesis stresses economic exploitation.

Karl Marx and the Irish - The New York Times

www.nytimes.com/1971/12/01/archives/karl-marx-and-the-irish.html

Marx and Engels on Ireland and the Irish Question

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/ireland/index.htm

[Record of a Speech On the Irish Question Delivered By Karl Marx to the German Workers’ Educational Association in London on December 16, 1867] Excerpts from Letters On Ireland, Written between 1867 and 1868 Marx to Sigfrid Meyer. 30 April 1867* 

Ireland is one of the few countries to be discussed systematically in Capital, Karl Marx's most important work. Ireland and the Irish were also discussed in Marx's lesser known economic writings and journalism. And famously, Engels' Condition of the Working Class in England devoted a chapter to the status of Irish migrant labourers in Industrial Britain. This paper discusses Marx and Engels' writings on Ireland and how they relate to three other important themes in their work: race, gender, and the nature of "Primitive Accumulation".

As with their writings on Jews or Indians, Marx and Engels rehearsed a number of common contemporary racial stereotypes about Irish people, specifically focusing on their supposed primitiveness, backwardness or even drunkenness and lack of hygiene. At the same time, however, Marx and Engels also saw the Irish in idealised terms: a revolutionary and masculine people who existed outside of the space-time of capitalism. Marx and Engels engaged in romanticised visions of Ireland and, this paper argues, race and gender (concepts not usually considered central to Marxian thought) played a strong role in that romance

Marx, Ireland, and the Racial History of Capitalism (concordia.ca)

More than 700,000 families in the UK forced to use a foodbank, figures show

Charity the Trussell Trust said hunger in the UK is not about food but about people not having enough money for the basics, such as energy, water, council tax, food, and other essentials

Emma Munbodh

Deputy Money Editor
14 MAY 2021
Around 2.5% of all UK households used a foodbank between 2019 and 2020 (Image: PA)

Some 700,000 families used a food bank in the year prior to the coronavirus outbreak, according to estimates from a study on food poverty.

This represents 2.5% of all UK households between 2019-20, the Trussell Trust said, with food bank users at the start of last year living on just £248 a month on average after paying for their housing.

The charity said hunger in the UK is not about food but about people not having enough money for the basics, with this amount needing to cover energy and water costs, council tax, food, and other essentials.

Its State of Hunger 2021 report found that 95% of those who needed help from Trussell Trust food banks in early 2020 were living in destitution - unable to afford to eat and stay warm and dry.

More than six in 10 working age people referred to a food bank were disabled, and single parent families were also more likely to need help, making up almost a fifth (18%) of referrals.

95% of those who needed help from Trussell Trust food banks in early 2020 were living in destitution, the charity said (Image: EKN)

More than six in 10 working age people that required support were part of single parent families (Image: West Lothian Courier)

At the middle of the year, nine in 10 households at food banks were in debt, while six in 10 had arrears on bills and owed money on loans.

And almost half (47%) of people using food banks were in debt to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

People experiencing poor mental health referred to Trussell Trust food banks grew from around half (51%) in early 2020 to almost three quarters (72%) in mid-2020.

The research, commissioned by the Trussell Trust and carried out by Heriot-Watt University, examined the groups disproportionately affected by hunger and the drivers behind food bank use.

Researchers surveyed 716 food bank users, 323 referral agencies, 20 managers, carried out in-depth interviews and conducted an additional survey of 436 people who used a food bank in summer 2020.

Nine in 10 households at food banks were in debt, while six in 10 had arrears on bills and owed money on loans (Image: PA)

The main reason people had such low income was due to benefits payments not covering the cost of living, according to the research.

This was more often than not due to systemic issues such as the five-week wait before receiving a first Universal Credit payment and low payments.

The charity said more people than ever are likely to need welfare help, and that the £20 increase to Universal Credit, temporarily introduced during the pandemic, should be made permanent.

The findings will be discussed by panellists including former government adviser on social policy Dame Louise Casey and Tory peer Baroness Philippa Stroud, chief executive of the Legatum Institute, at an All-Party Parliamentary Group event on destitution on Thursday.

Almost half of people using food banks were in debt to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

The charity that the £20 increase to Universal Credit, temporarily introduced during the pandemic, should be made permanent (Image: UGC)

READ MORE
Family who were left penniless by Universal Credit error told to 'try foodbank instead'

Trussell Trust chief executive Emma Revie said the Government must prioritise ending the need for food banks.

She said: "How can anyone in this country stay warm and dry and buy food on just £248 a month after rent?

"People struggling in extreme poverty are pushed to the doors of food banks because they do not have enough money to survive.

"Hunger in the UK isn't about food - it's about people not being able to afford the basics.

"We know we can change this. We need to change the conversation around poverty and take action together."

Dame Louise said the research was "deeply worrying", adding: "We have to stand together as we pull through this pandemic and not leave people behind, forced to rely on food banks and handouts to keep going.



"That is an abject failure by Government and all of us. Food aid should be a one-off in the UK, not a new form of charity.
138212091369

"It is in this Government's gift to end hunger, but it warrants a concerted cross-Government and cross-party action - a plan to end the need for food banks, delivered as an urgent priority."

A Government spokesman said: "We are already supporting families who are most in need, spending billions more on welfare and planning a long-term route out of poverty by protecting jobs through furlough and helping people find new work through our Plan for Jobs.

"We also introduced our £269million Covid Local Support Grant to help children and families stay warm and well-fed throughout the pandemic."

 Johnson & Johnson donates Ebola vaccine amid new outbreak; Ji Xing promises more than $127M for Milestone's nasal spray for rapid heart rate

Nicole DeFeudis

Associate Editor

As Johnson & Johnson continues to roll out its Covid-19 shot, the company is also focused on another vaccine.

J&J is donating up to 200,000 doses of its Ebola vaccine regimen developed with Bavarian Nordic to help health authorities deal with a new outbreak in Sierra Leone. The regimen, Zabdeno and Mvabea, was granted prequalification by the WHO in April, which will help accelerate its registration in countries where Ebola is a threat.

Officials in Guinea officially declared a new Ebola outbreak back in February, after the country recorded its first cases since the end of the 2014 to 2016 outbreak. It appears the new outbreak was caused by the same strain, and officials say it was likely introduced by a survivor. There have been at least 12 deaths, J&J announced.

“Johnson & Johnson’s vision is to help prevent Ebola outbreaks before they start,” CSO Paul Stoffels said in a statement. “WHO Prequalification of our vaccine regimen and the deployment to West Africa are important steps forward in reaching this goal and an important milestone for epidemic preparedness.”

Ji Xing promises more than $127M for Milestone’s nasal spray for rapid heart rate

Milestone Pharma hit a major snag last March when its nasal spray for episodes of rapid heart rate missed the primary endpoint. Now, more than a year later, it’s touting new data on its secondary endpoints and a partnership with Ji Xing Pharmaceuticals to develop the candidate in China.

ng $15 million upfront and making a $5 million equity investment for the rights to develop and commercialize etripamil, a fast-acting calcium channel blocker, in Greater China, the companies said on Monday. If all goes well, Milestone stands to receive up to $107.5 in milestones and royalties.

At ACC 2021, Milestone said etripamil had higher scores than placebo related to relief of specific symptoms associated with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT), including rapid pulse (p=0.002), palpitations (p<0.001), shortness of breath (p=0.008), dizziness (p=0.012), and anxiety (p=0.006), Milestone said at ACC 2021.

But last year, the drug failed on the primary endpoint in a Phase III study: a comparison of the nasal therapy with placebo over 5 hours in turning SVT to sinus rhythm. It fell far short of the mark on statistical significance with a value of 0.12. It also fell short on reducing trips for emergency care, with the same p-value.

“Etripamil holds the potential to enable patients to treat their episodes in the at-home setting and ultimately take control of their condition. We remain focused on the execution of our ongoing Phase 3 program and our vision to help patients suffering from episodes of SVT,” CEO Joseph Oliveto said in a statement.

PROFITEERING

'Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic': Shoppers Drug Mart, Loblaw faces backlash for selling $40 rapid COVID-19 tests in Ontario, Alberta

Elisabetta Bianchini
Tue., May 18, 2021

'Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic': Shoppers Drug Mart, Loblaw faces backlash for selling $40 rapid COVID-19 tests in Ontario, Alberta

People in Alberta and Ontario can now buy a $40 COVID-19 rapid test from Shoppers Drug Mart and Loblaw pharmacies, which provides results between 15 and 20 minutes.

Anyone who does not have any COVID-19 symptoms and has not been in contact with a positive COVID-19 case in the past 14 days is eligible for the test.

Do you think Shoppers should be allowed to sell rapid COVID-19 tests?

7,261votes

"To get through this pandemic, we all need to follow public health guidelines, get vaccinated, and continue testing and screening in order to stop the spread of COVID-19," a statement from Ashesh Desai, executive vice president, pharmacy and healthcare, Shoppers Drug Mart, reads. "As Ontario and Alberta begin their recovery from this third wave of COVID-19, rapid screening options can provide customers with an extra level of confidence."

Loblaw has stated that the test were purchased directly from the manufacturer.

After the announcement was made on Monday, several people took to social media to criticize the business under George Weston Limited for "monetizing the pandemic."

You can now buy a #COVID19 rapid swab for $40 at Shoppers Drug Mart in Ontario.

Why Shoppers specifically? You can only purchase it if asymptomatic? Could these tests not be used elsewhere, like workplaces? Who will access these?

Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic.

— Gaibrie Stephen (@SGaibrie) May 17, 2021



This is what happens when government procured tests are stalled in deployment. The tests get commercialized and profit margins are realized at the expense of perpetuating inequity https://t.co/owqHkoP35g

— Victor Leung (@VicLeungIDdoc) May 17, 2021



I'd be curious to know what the retail markup is on those $40.00 rapid tests Loblaws/Shoppers is selling.

You know, since Doug's throwing the book at pandemic price gougers and all.

— Barney Panofsky's Best Intentions (@mynamesnotgordy) May 18, 2021



Shoppers has been allowed to purchase and resell at a profit a valuable asset that sat on shelves for months when making it broadly (hell, even freely) available could have controlled major outbreaks. There's a hell of a lot to see here. https://t.co/BQ5YBNTAl5

— Joshua Hind (@joshuahind) May 18, 2021



Why are we monetizing a pandemic? Buying a covid rapid test at shoppers? Do we not think these should be at every work place- schools, restaurants camps? This is a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. @fordnation #onpoli

— Sarah Langford (@keepsinging2day) May 18, 2021



I support rapid tests but for EVERYONE. @ShopprsDrugMart could you go ahead and stop making #Pharmacy look so bad. Thanks. 3/3 https://t.co/CQ5PZDyLYO

— Kristen Watt - Pharmacist Mama - she/her #BLM (@PharmacistMama) May 17, 2021



My child's school certainly does not have rapid testing nor could it afford it if it had to go out and buy it.

And by anyone, I'm guessing you mean those that can afford it. Because at $40 a test from shoppers, this isn't exactly equitable healthcare.

— london 🇨🇦/🇵🇹 (@boylondon402) May 17, 2021



Excited to see rapid COVID19 tests finally hitting the shelves in Ontario

$40 per test is far too expensive for regular testing. They are <$5 in Germany, and free in some countries

Most needed in hardest hit areas with the least resources.
https://t.co/1bw4flTTl3

— David Juncker (@DavidJuncker) May 18, 2021

You can now buy a #COVID19 rapid swab for $40 at Shoppers Drug Mart in Ontario.

Why Shoppers specifically? You can only purchase it if asymptomatic? Could these tests not be used elsewhere, like workplaces? Who will access these?

Sounds like we’re monetizing a pandemic.

— Gaibrie Stephen (@SGaibrie) May 17, 2021



This is what happens when government procured tests are stalled in deployment. The tests get commercialized and profit margins are realized at the expense of perpetuating inequity https://t.co/owqHkoP35g

— Victor Leung (@VicLeungIDdoc) May 17, 2021



I'd be curious to know what the retail markup is on those $40.00 rapid tests Loblaws/Shoppers is selling.

You know, since Doug's throwing the book at pandemic price gougers and all.

— Barney Panofsky's Best Intentions (@mynamesnotgordy) May 18, 2021



Shoppers has been allowed to purchase and resell at a profit a valuable asset that sat on shelves for months when making it broadly (hell, even freely) available could have controlled major outbreaks. There's a hell of a lot to see here. https://t.co/BQ5YBNTAl5

— Joshua Hind (@joshuahind) May 18, 2021



Why are we monetizing a pandemic? Buying a covid rapid test at shoppers? Do we not think these should be at every work place- schools, restaurants camps? This is a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. @fordnation #onpoli

— Sarah Langford (@keepsinging2day) May 18, 2021



rollout). I support rapid tests but for EVERYONE. @ShopprsDrugMart could you go ahead and stop making #Pharmacy look so bad. Thanks. 3/3 https://t.co/CQ5PZDyLYO

— Kristen Watt - Pharmacist Mama - she/her #BLM (@PharmacistMama) May 17, 2021



My child's school certainly does not have rapid testing nor could it afford it if it had to go out and buy it.

And by anyone, I'm guessing you mean those that can afford it. Because at $40 a test from shoppers, this isn't exactly equitable healthcare.

— london 🇨🇦/🇵🇹 (@boylondon402) May 17, 2021



Excited to see rapid COVID19 tests finally hitting the shelves in Ontario

$40 per test is far too expensive for regular testing. They are <$5 in Germany, and free in some countries

Most needed in hardest hit areas with the least resources.
https://t.co/1bw4flTTl3

— David Juncker (@DavidJuncker) May 18, 2021

In the U.S. rapid antigen tests are available for purchase, with the prices varying across state, ranging from around $20 into even hundreds of dollars.

On April 9, the U.K. government announced that anyone in England can take a free rapid COVID-19 test, rapid lateral flow tests (LFDs), twice a week.

"Around 1 in 3 people who have COVID-19 show no symptoms, and as we reopen society and resume parts of life we have all dearly missed, regular rapid testing is going to be fundamental in helping us quickly spot positive cases and squash any outbreaks," a statement from the country's Health and Social Care Secretary, Matt Hancock, reads.