IT'S WHAT ALBERTA OIL PATCH WORKERS MAKE
60% of millennials earning over $100,000 say they're living paycheck to paycheck

hhoffower@businessinsider.com (Hillary Hoffower)

 

Provided by Business Insider High-earning millennials are stretching their paychecks. Edward Berthelot/Getty Images

60% of millennials earning over $100,000 say they're living paycheck to paycheck in a new survey.

Some of these millennials - known as HENRYs - prefer a comfortable, expensive lifestyle.

But $100,000 also doesn't go that far in today's economy.

High-earning millennials are feeling broke.

Sixty percent of millennials raking in over $100,000 a year say they're living paycheck to paycheck, according to a new survey by PYMNTS and lending company LendingClub which analyzed economic data and census-balanced surveys of over 28,000 Americans.

It found that the more than half (54%) Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. And nearly 40% of high-earners - those making more than $100,000 annually - say they live that way.

That means high-earning millennials aren't the only ones feeling stretched thin, but they feel that way more than their six-figure making peers. Living on constrained budgets may therefore have less to do with income and more to do with expenses, the report says.

That's partly due to lifestyle choices. Many of these millennials are likely HENRYs - short for high earner, not rich yet. The acronym that was invented back in 2003, but has come to characterize a certain group of 30-something six-figure earners who struggle to balance their spending and savings habits.

HENRYs typically fall victim to lifestyle creep, when one increases their standard of living to match a rise in discretionary income. They prefer a comfortable and often expensive lifestyle that leaves them living paycheck to paycheck.

Read more: Here's why so many millennials making 6-figure salaries still feel broke

Video: From $0 income to a $97,000 salary, here's how this CEO spends his money (CNBC)

A $100,000 salary isn't what it was

The economy is also a huge factor behind six-figure-earning millennials feel so broke.

As the report reads, "Living paycheck to paycheck sometimes carries connotations of barely scraping by and of poverty. The reality of a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle in the United States today is much more complex, and the current economic environment has made it even more complicated."

It cited the example of a college-educated 35-year-old earning more than $100,000 while juggling a mortgage, student-loan debt, and a child, which could leave them with little savings for big purchases or unexpected emergencies.

The generation is facing an affordability crisis. Income increases simply have not kept up with an exponential increase in living costs, and the pandemic hasn't helped matters by throwing job loss and pay cuts into the mix.

The cost of education has also more than doubled since the 1970s, leaving many millennials racked with student debt. Priya Malani, the founder of Stash Wealth, a financial firm that works with HENRYs, previously told Insider that 40% of her clients had student loans - they owe $80,000 on average.

As a byproduct of this increased cost in living, the middle class has been shrinking. Pew Research Center defines the US middle class as people earning two-thirds to twice the median household income, earning about $48,500 to $145,500 in 2018, per most recent data available.

That means a six-figure salary is no longer what it used to be. In today's economy, $100,000 is considered middle class in the US.

Read the original article on Business Insider

NO UNION? DIRECT ACTION GETS THE GOODS

A McDonald's worker reportedly quit their job by posting an angry sign at a local drive-thru, as the 'rage-quitting' trend continues to rise

ztayeb@businessinsider.com (Zahra Tayeb) 

 The sign was apparently posted in Louisville, Kentucky. Twitter/Great Ape Dad

A McDonald's employee reportedly resigned by posting an angry note in a local drive-thru.

The worker apparently hated the job so much, they closed up shop early Saturday night.

The note captures the trend of employees 'rage-quitting their jobs in a tightening labor market.

A McDonald's employee who worked at a branch in Louisville, Kentucky, apparently quit their job by posting a sign at a drive-through on Saturday night.

A photo of the sign read: "We are closed because I am quitting and I hate this job." It was shared on Twitter by a user, Great Ape Dad, who spotted the posting the following morning.

He later explained in a follow-up tweet that the sign was stuck up by a night shift manager who had "suddenly quit" the night before and closed up shop early, Today reported.

Great Ape Dad told Today he was en route to pick up the new BTS meal for his wife, when he came across the note. "I took a picture, uploaded it to Twitter, not thinking much of anything about it," he said. "And much to my surprise, it's had quite a success."

Apparently, employees were unaware of the note until he pointed it out to them.

"I used to work in the service industry myself," the user added. "I think that people are just frustrated, especially the working-class people who are there in the front line … things that are in a boiling point where I can definitely see where someone on a Saturday night that doesn't want to be working the drive-thru - wants to just call it quits."

McDonald's did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment on this story.

US employees are increasingly "rage-quitting" their jobs as a tightening labor market means that companies must reckon with the often unfavorable conditions and low pay they are offering.

Frustrated employees are often choosing to depart their roles, rather than wait around and hope things will change.

In an interview with Insider's Áine Cain, a former employee at Dollar General rage-quit her job in the springtime of 2021, after finding her drowning in an increasingly fraught work environment.

"By the time you get down to that lowly stay-at-home mom that just wanted a part-time job - who is earning less than a hundred dollars a week because she's making $7.25 an hour and only working 10 hours a week - it's not worth it," the employee told Insider.

Read the original article on Business Insider

A MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT A LIVING WAGE

An Amazon worker says she's homeless because she can't afford NYC rent with the $19 she's paid per hour: Report

tsonnemaker@insider.com (Tyler Sonnemaker) 22 hrs ago

Amazon has touted its $15 minimum wage and pushed for increases at the national level.

But Vice reported that a worker in New York City making $19.30 per hour still can't afford rent.

The woman says she lives in her car in the company's parking lot and struggles to make ends meet.

An Amazon employee who works at the company's warehouse on Staten Island in New York City says she lives in her car in the building's parking lot because she can't afford rent in the city with the $19.30 she makes per hour, Vice News reported Friday.

The woman, Natalie Monarrez, has been homeless since 2019 after struggling to find affordable permanent housing while working for two other Amazon warehouses in New Jersey that paid her even less, according to Vice.

"Jeff Bezos donates to homeless shelters for tax write-offs and PR. He needs to know that some of his own workers (without family or a second income) can't afford rent," Monarrez told Vice.

"Jeff Bezos has no idea that his workers are homeless, especially in New York, and I'm not the only one. I'm hoping executives will agree to pay workers more and that they know older workers have the right to be promoted like everyone else," she added.

While rents in New York City have fallen about 12 percent since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, it remains one of the most expensive places to live in the country. The median asking rent for a one bedroom in New York City in June was about $2500, according to a Zumper analysis.

Amazon did not respond to Insider's request for comment on this story.

Amazon has frequently touted its $15 per hour minimum wage, which it introduced in 2018 following pressure from Sen. Bernie Sanders, as evidence that it treats workers well.

But Bloomberg reported in December that in 68 counties where Amazon opened its largest type of warehouse, average industry pay dropped by 6%, and that a study from the Government Accountability Office found that more than 4,000 Amazon employees are on food stamps in just nine states - trailing only Walmart, McDonald's, and two-dollar store chains. Amazon disputed Bloomberg's analysis, telling the publication that most of its hires come from retail jobs that typically pay less than warehouse jobs.

Amazon has also avoided paying taxes that fund food stamps and other social safety net programs from which its workers benefit.

Despite earning more than $10 billion in annual net income every year since 2018, Amazon paid little or no federal income taxes in those years. Amazon previously told Insider that it "pays all the taxes we are required to pay in the US and every country where we operate."

CEO Jeff Bezos, despite growing his wealth by $127 billion from 2006 to 2018, paid zero federal income taxes in at least two of those years, ProPublica reported.

Amazon has also been plagued by extensive reports over the years of grueling working conditions, injury rates far higher than the industry standard, and labor law violations.

In April, Bezos said that the company was working "to do a better job for our employees" and that it would invest over $300 million in 2021 to make warehouses safer. He added that the company needed "a better vision for how we create value for employees - a vision for their success.

Last year, workers spoke out repeatedly about what they said was Amazon's failure to protect them during the pandemic - and in some cases, faced racially-charged smear campaigns as well as illegal retaliation and terminations.

Following an unsuccessful attempt by Amazon workers in Alabama to unionize, workers at Monarrez's warehouse, which Amazon calls JFK8, have also sought to unionize, led by Chris Smalls, an organizer the company fired in March 2020.

Read the original article on Business Insider

THIRD WORLD USA
Meet 2 Americans who just lost unemployment benefits as thousands of workers are cut off from $300 per week

insider@insider.com (Juliana Kaplan,Joseph Zeballos-Roig)   

Carlos Ponce joins a protest in in Miami Springs, Florida, asking senators to continue unemployment benefits past July 31, 2020. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

As of June 19th, a dozen states have prematurely ended their federal unemployment benefits.

Those $300 weekly benefits weren't set to expire until September, but 25 GOP-led states have opted out.

Workers in Missouri and Alabama, two states where benefits ended, tell Insider they need assistance.

Eight more states are ending their federal unemployment benefits today, June 19th, cutting off between 400,000 and 500,000 people from government aid ahead of their scheduled expiration in September.

Those states are Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. That means a dozen have pulled out of enhanced unemployment insurance early. At least 13 more will join them in the coming weeks.

It's setting up a premature fiscal cliff for approximately 4 million workers, many of whom were set to receive federal benefits through September. But federal pandemic-era programs also expanded who's eligible to receive benefits, and the duration. That means some Americans won't just lose $300 a week. They'll lose their entire incomes.

Karen Allen, 52, of Missouri, lost all of her benefits last week. "I kind of feel like the rug got jerked out from under me, and now people want to point fingers at me like, well, why don't you go to work at the gas station for $9 an hour?"

She said she doesn't feel like she's above working such a job, but she doesn't want to work part-time with no benefits "and take a chance on dying, basically. I just feel like I'm stuck." She's not alone.
Some states have already ended their benefits

Missouri ending federal unemployment benefits yanked aid for 340,000 people.

Allen, 52, had been collecting unemployment since January 2020, after the staffing firm she worked for closed down her branch in late 2019; she stopped working in November.

But Allen has a rare auto-immune disease. She said that her neurologist told her to lay low during the pandemic and self-quarantine. She was also advised to hold off on getting a vaccine

© Courtesy of Karen Allen Karen Allen. Courtesy of Karen Allen

"Here I am, absolutely willing and able to work. It's just it could kill me," she said. She was hoping that extension of expanded benefits through September would give her some leeway in terms of vaccine or safety progress. She was on Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), a federal program that expands how many weeks workers can receive benefits. On June 12, that program expired in Missouri.

Video: 4 states cut off unemployment benefits early, others states expected to follow (TODAY) Duration 2:02

Benefits are winding down today in Alabama. Shaina Cruz, 34, will lose all of hers. A graphic designer, Cruz was laid off in March 2020. She said it took about a month-and-a-half for her to start receiving unemployment benefits. She's been on PEUC up until now, and said the benefit cut-off comes at a "horrible" time.

She's facing down eviction at the end of the month - which is also when the federal eviction moratorium is set to end. She already lost her car because she couldn't keep up with payments, and said it's difficult to apply to a job when she has no idea where she'll be in two weeks

.

Courtesy of Shaina Cruz Shaina Cruz. Courtesy of Shaina Cruz

"I'm frustrated with it, just because I feel like the whole reason it's been ended is just because of all these people on Facebook saying, 'Oh, nobody wants to work anymore,'" Cruz said. "And it's like, that's not the case. I would gladly be working. I cried when I lost my job."

Possible legislation on the way

Some lawmakers and advocates have argued that the Department of Labor is obligated to continue paying out PUA, including Sen. Bernie Sanders.

But the Labor Department has concluded that there's likely not much it can do, and the White House has said that states have "every right" to cut off aid in a sharp change of course after defending benefits a month ago.

Some Democrats are eyeing revamping the dilapidated systems as part of Biden's multitrillion-dollar infrastructure package.

"We ought to cut to the bottom line here," Wyden said in an interview. "This highlights the need for a comprehensive unemployment reform package."

"I talk to the administration about these unemployment reforms constantly," he added. He previously suggested he wanted to draft a legislative fix but did not specify if he was still pursuing that measure.

Some are already taking legal action. In Indiana, two law firms have filed a lawsuit against the state for prematurely terminating benefits - and have asked for a preliminary injunction to pause benefits being halted as the case progresses.

But in Alabama, there's no relief on the way.

"I'm still just screwed, basically," Cruz said. "Like I literally have no idea where my family is going. I'm trying to get enough money to rent a storage unit right now just to put all my stuff in."

 Business Insider

NATIONALIZE UI BENEFITS

The US job market is about to turn into a giant science experiment - with millions of Americans as guinea pigs

george@bespokeinvest.com (George Pearkes) 

© Joe Raedle/Getty Images Carlos Ponce joins a protest in in Miami Springs, Florida, asking senators to continue unemployment benefits past July 31, 2020. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Half of US states are cutting off enhanced unemployment benefits over the next few weeks.

This is going to throw millions of Americans into a real-world economic experiment that could hurt many people.

Biden and the federal government could step in, but America's misguided tradition of a hands of federal government is stopping them.

This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.

Partisan politics, Congress' legislative language, and interest group lobbying are about to turn America's 160 million workers into guinea pigs. We're all about to be part of a huge study on whether unemployment insurance keeps people out of the labor market.

The biggest variable in this 50-state experiment is the new unemployment benefits created during the pandemic. Republican governors in nearly two dozen states are rolling back key benefits that helped people through the downturn: expansions in unemployment insurance to workers not previously covered, increased length of coverage for unemployed workers, and topped-up weekly payments are some of the initiatives

These GOP lawmakers argue that the benefits are no longer needed now that the pandemic is receding and ending them will push Americans back to the labor market. On the other hand, some economists and progressive Democrats argue that the benefits are not generous enough to discourage people from finding work, and that removing them is needlessly cruel to beneficiaries.

While experimentation within states can generate superior solutions, it can also have its downsides in states that eschew equity. In these cases, federal power is the last line of defense for marginalized people, but Washington has a long history of abandoning them instead of taking a stand.

50 laboratories: a Brandeis legacy

In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

This notion that policy experimentation at the state level could land on the right answer faster than top-down public policymaking from Washington has been a popular justification for a light touch from the federal government. The "50 laboratories" theory has also helped social scientists study the effects of policy change by observing the differences between states.

Brandeis' famous quote came in a dissent to a Supreme Court decision which effectively rolled back a state's effort to forge its own path, in this case Oklahoma was attempting to set new regulations on businesses operating in the state. Brandeis disagreed with the majority, which said Oklahoma could not impose its own rules on an ice manufacturer.

Brandeis was the son of an abolitionist Kentucky family and a progressive Boston lawyer, arguably the father of the legal concept of "right to privacy" in the United States and a key anti-corporate voice who supported government intervention against concentrated monopoly power. He played a role in the development of the Federal Reserve and defended workplace and labor law in court.

Brandeis supported the idea that Oklahoma be allowed to regulate an ice manufacturer, but argued for it in a language more consistent with conservative ideals of state sovereignty or business supremacy that has since been co-opted in the popular imagination. No need for federal intervention if a state enacts harmful policy - they'll eventually see the light! This attitude was also visible late in Brandeis' career in several decisions that took teeth out of The New Deal during the Roosevelt Administration.
Progressive passivism in policy

The American system is generally loath to enforce national standards on states. One good example is Medicaid, the country's low-income healthcare system. Instead of being run by the federal government, Medicaid is technically voluntary and administered by states. The federal government only encourages participation in its various programs through substantial funding incentives.

This has left some states to ignore Medicaid programs that could be a huge help to their citizens. As recently as 1981, Arizona did not participate in Medicaid at all and 13 GOP-run states have refused to implement a huge expansion of the program passed in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act.

A similar situation is now playing out with the stepped-up funding for unemployment insurance programs administered by states. These new efforts expanded eligibility for unemployment insurance to gig workers, raised payouts, and extended the number of weeks that workers would be eligible for income support.

With labor markets still sorting through the giant shock of COVID, these benefits have been the target of businesses who rely on large pools of low cost labor. Restaurants especially have railed against the payouts, arguing that the benefits are causing a "labor shortage" and raising their labor costs. Service industry groups have lobbied aggressively to kick people out of the UI system so they can get back to their preferred labor market - one where there is a large pool of people who are willing to accept low wages.

Evidence from the JP Morgan Institute and Indeed.com show little evidence that cutting off expanded UI is likely to fuel large increases in labor supply. But that hasn't stopped more than half of the governors in the country from refusing free money from Washington and halting payments to the unemployed in a brutal form of economic shock therapy.

As the various phase-outs of expanded UI roll in over the next few months, we will be able to compare labor market outcomes in states that do or don't phase out benefits. The 50 laboratories will be working away to the benefit of greater labor market understanding. But the small gain of having a few real-world experiments for academics to be able to write papers about pales in comparison to the human cost of culling unemployment insurance.

Biden and Brandeis: birds of a feather

Allowing this sort of experiment - with American workers as the subject - isn't set in stone. The Biden Administration could at least be pitching a fight against this outcome but has so far not stepped into the fray. As noted by Senator Bernie Sanders in May, the text of the CARES Act -which the UI expansion is built on - says the Department of Labor "shall provide" benefits to individuals, which could be interpreted as mandating payments regardless of what states want. But nobody in the administration has tried to force this issue with states refusing payouts.

Both Brandeis and Biden share a belief that the right argument will win out eventually, and that outright exercise of power by the federal government should be used carefully. Their cautious and light touch approach has direct costs that must be acknowledged in an era where exercise of political power on behalf of those without it is a forgotten habit.
Read the original article on Business Insider

Chipotle gave huge payouts to its CEO and shareholders, then blamed workers for price increases - here's what's really going on
insider@insider.com (Paul Constant) 

© Provided by Business Insider Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Paul Constant is a writer at Civic Ventures and cohost of the "Pitchfork Economics" podcast with Nick Hanauer and David Goldstein.

In the latest episode, they spoke about Chipotle's announcement to increase menu prices by about 4% to cover increased employee wages.

Constant points out, however, the price increase could be to cover the $24 million raise recently given to CEO Brian Niccol.

Last week, the "New York Times" ran a story about a small menu price increase at a fast-casual food chain. Written by Julie Creswell, the piece began, "Executives at Chipotle said on Tuesday that the fast-food chain had raised menu prices by about 4% to cover the cost of the increased employee wages."


Headlined "Chipotle will increase its menu prices as labor costs rise," this story is confusing for a few reasons.

Price increases and wages

Firstly, the New York Times is not traditionally in the business of reporting on price increases in restaurants. And a 4% increase doesn't seem newsworthy at all - Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol admits in the last paragraph of the piece that the increase amounts to "quarters and dimes that we're layering in" to existing prices.

So the only reason this story could possibly be considered worthy of the Times's world-famous "All the News That's Fit to Print" slogan is Chipotle's claim that the price increases were directly caused by increased worker pay. The chain recently raised its starting wages to an average of $15 per hour - but only in a fraction of its restaurants. Creswell writes that the "pay increases apply only to [Chipotle's] 650 company-owned restaurants; the vast majority of its nearly 14,000 restaurants in the United States are independently owned."

So with all that information in mind, the hook of this New York Times story seems to be that Chipotle's executives are blaming a tiny menu price-bump on a starting-wage increase that's been enacted in roughly one out of 20 of its restaurants.

Video: Why Chipotle raising prices may be a good thing for its stock (Yahoo! Finance)

What's disappointing is that Creswell seems to be repeating Niccol's claims without doing any investigation into Chipotle's finances. Chipotle never supports its claims that the price increase is due to wage increases, and Creswell never mentioned that Chipotle paid Niccol $38 million last year - an all-time high.

Joanna Fantozzi at Nation's Restaurant News reports that Niccol's 2020 salary was "set to be just $14.8 million but financial targets were waived in light of the company's stellar performance during the pandemic." So Chipotle's executives gave its CEO a $24 million dollar raise, which means that Niccol earned "2,898 times more than the median Chipotle worker's salary of $13,127."

Why didn't Chipotle's board mention Niccol's $24 million raise as a possible reason for its menu price increases? Creswell doesn't say. She also doesn't note that as of the first quarter of 2021, Chipotle was sitting on $1.2 billion in cash and equivalents.

The Times story also doesn't mention that the company is now in the middle of a huge stock buyback campaign. Sakshi Agarwalla writes at Seeking Alpha that "In an effort to enhance shareholders' value, [Chipotle] restarted its stock repurchase plans and have announced additional $100 million for stock buyback, bringing to a total $153.8 million repurchase plan. At the end of the first quarter, [Chipotle] repurchased 61.2 million shares worth $87.2 million."

Stock buybacks and wealth transfer

You can learn more about stock buybacks in this week's episode of "Pitchfork Economics" with special guest Senator Cory Booker, but the shorthand is this: Stock buybacks, which were illegal before 1982, have proven to be one of the most efficient mechanisms of wealth transferral from workers to the wealthy over the last 40 years.

The richest 10%of American households own 84% of the stock in this country, and the top 1% holds about 38%. So Chipotle takes profits that could go to keeping menu prices low and employee wages high and instead hands them off to wealthy shareholders, no strings attached.

Despite the fact that Chipotle has dedicated nearly $200 million to executive and shareholder payouts in the last few months, the New York Times credulously reprinted the company's claims that an average $15/hour starting wage in 650 restaurants is the reason why the company is increasing menu prices by 4%. To be clear, I'm only singling the Times out as an example here because they're the gold standard of journalism - the truth is that a number of outlets repeated Chipotle's claims without investigating the numbers.

The complete failure of many legitimate news sources to interrogate these claims should be a learning moment for business journalists. If you're simply repeating the information given to you in a press release from a corporation's PR department, you're not in the news business - you're volunteering for the company's marketing campaign.

 Business Insider

First-of-a-kind study reveals Canada’s most vulnerable eco-regions
Nathan Howes 

WEATHER NETWORK

JUNE 19/2021

Embedded content: https://players.brightcove.net/1942203455001/B1CSR9sVf_default/index.html?videoId=6237786286001

Conservation isn't just about saving Canada's endangered species, it's also about restoring and protecting nature, so future generations can continue to reap the benefits it provides.

That's why the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) has conducted and released the first study of its kind in the country's most populated sector -- the Conservation Assessment for Southern Canada (CASC). The organization reviewed 77 ecological regions including nine crisis eco-regions, where wildlife and their habitats are the most diverse and under the greatest threats.

SEE ALSO: Canadians explore nature more to relieve COVID-19 pandemic stress

The analysis focused on endangered species and habitats, land use and wildlife corridors. Eco-regions were classified based on their biodiversity and threats compared to other eco-areas in Southern Canada. The regions cover many of the major cities, such as Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Edmonton and Vancouver, along with many smaller communities.

The study was published in the journal Biodiversity and Conservation. The full analysis and details of the eco-regions including nine crisis territories can be found here.

The eco-regions are a "great way of looking at our country through an ecosystem lens," said Dan Kraus, NCC's senior conservation biologist, who recently spoke to The Weather Network about the study.

© Provided by The Weather Network

Backus Woods nature preserve in Walsingham, Ont. Photo: Nature Conservancy of Canada.

"That way we’re able to rank these eco-regions in terms of what’s happening, what are some of the opportunities for conservation and identify places where maybe we need to accelerate our efforts to protect wildlife and wild spaces," said Kraus.

"Southern Canada is where most endangered species are and where most Canadians live. As a result, it’s where our wildlife and habitats are at the greatest risk.”

CRISIS REGIONS, AREAS WITH HIGHEST NUMBER OF THREATENED SPECIES

The nine crisis eco-regions identified represent less than five per cent of Canada. They are situated in Canada’s most heavily settled landscapes, where 70 per cent of people live, according to NCC. More than 60 per cent of Canada’s species at risk are found in these eco-regions, which generally have few existing protected areas or remaining natural areas.

Southwestern Ontario contains more than 130 of Canada’s most endangered species -- the highest of anywhere else in the country, according to the study. Other regions with a high number of species of national and global concern include parts of Vancouver Island, particularly the eastern sections, the Prairies and portions of the Maritimes including southwestern Nova Scotia and P.E.I.

© Provided by The Weather Network

Sharp-tailed snake. Photo: Marsgal Hedin.

Although the NCC began developing conservation assessments for broad areas in Canada 20 years ago, the group decided to examine the southern half of the country as a whole would help put its work into context and how it contributes to the protection of local and national biodiversity, Kraus said.

“It would also be great for the people if they can identify the ecological region they live in because ultimately the decisions about conservation, the decisions about the species we save and species we lose will be up to the people living in those regions,” said Kraus.

STUDY ALSO HIGHLIGHTS 'BRIGHT SPOTS' ACROSS CANADA

The study may paint a grim picture about the state of Canada's biodiversity in many regions, but it also has an optimistic tone to it -- to highlight "bright spots across the country where conservation is working and working well, including many Nature Conservancy of Canada projects," Kraus said.

© Provided by The Weather Network

Foxner Nature Reserve, N.B. Photo: Mike Dembeck.

"Our challenge now is to replicate some of those success stories and to amplify them, and to stop the loss of habitats and species in our country," said Kraus.

The next 10 years are going to be the “most exciting in Canada’s history for conservation,” Kraus said, as the federal government has some “ambitious” plans in terms of expanding the parks and protected areas.

“Nature Conservancy of Canada will use studies like this to help direct us to the places where conservation work is not just important, but urgent. The decisions we make in the next 10 years are going to have an effect on nature in our country forever,” said Kraus.

Thumbnail courtesy of Nature Conservancy of Canada, of the Clayoquot Island Preserve in British Columbia.

Nathan Howes can be followed on Twitter: @HowesNathan.

ATTENTION WOLF KILLERS

Culling cutlines, not wolves, key to preserving caribou herds: researcher

New research suggests wolves can be steered away from the endangered caribou herds they prey on by making the man-made trails they use to hunt harder to move along.

 Provided by The Canadian Press

The recently published study adds to the debate over whether governments should depend on shooting and poisoning wolves to protect caribou, said lead author Jonah Keim.

"It's probably one of the most challenging conservation issues in the Northern Hemisphere," said Keim, an independent researcher based in New York state.

Woodland caribou herds in Alberta and British Columbia have been declining for decades. Scientists blame habitat loss — since 2000, B.C. and Alberta have lost at least 33,000 square kilometres of old-growth forest — and increasing predation as wolves and bears follow roads and seismic lines into landscapes that once offered caribou refuge.

Governments, with scientific support, have turned to maternity pens, captive breeding and killing hundreds of wolves in an effort to keep caribou around.

Maybe there's another way, Keim thought. Maybe the problem isn't the wolves — it's the artificial trails they're taking advantage of.

"How do we get at movement?" he asked.

Keim and his colleagues set up motion detector cameras on logging roads, seismic lines and game trails throughout the Parker caribou range in northeast B.C. The team recorded movements of animals past those cameras for a year.

They measured which of those features were easiest to travel by timing themselves as they walked them. They considered which ones lead into the marshy wetlands that caribou like and which went to higher ground favoured by moose and deer.

Then, they made the easy trails into the best caribou habitat harder to move through.

"We hinged trees from the sides of the features into the seismic line," Keim said. "(We) did soil mounding to create hummocks. We tried to make the feature as difficult to move down as was the adjacent habitat beside it."

They sat for another year and let the cameras roll. Then they compared the incidence of wolves or bears and caribou using the same trail on the same day to what it was before the treatment as well as to an untreated control area.

"We were able to reduce the encounter rate between wolves and caribou by 85 per cent," said Keim.

Dave Hervieux, an Alberta Environment caribou specialist, said Keim's results are consistent with other studies but only address half the problem.

"Unnaturally high and unsustainable levels of wolf predation on caribou are due to both increases in wolf travel and increases in wolf numbers," he wrote in an email.

"Linear feature restoration is a key action. However, our conclusion is that it is unlikely that linear feature restoration, as a sole action, will provide sufficient protection in the near-term for endangered woodland caribou populations."

Hervieux said the government is working with industry to restore forest cover to seismic lines, pipelines and roads.

Still, Keim said focusing "encounter management" could go a long way to reducing Alberta's and B.C.'s dependence on the annual killing of wolves.

"We know that predator removal is socially and ethically controversial and it may not be solving the true problem."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 19, 2021.

Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

Experts urge caution as Canada’s COVID-19 waste washes up on coastlines

Twinkle Ghosh 

Each year, nearly eight million tonnes of plastic pollution enters the oceans from all over the world, but for the first time in 27 years, Canadians are witnessing an unusual clutter of masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) kits washing up along the country's shorelines.

© EPA/DIEGO AZUBEL A protective mask lies next to cigarette butts on a street.

Play "Microscopic plastics polluting our waterways"

According to Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup’s annual “Dirty Dozen” 2020 report, some 15,000 volunteers removed over 41,000 kilograms of litter from Canadian coasts and listed finding discarded COVID-19-related supplies among them.

Read more: Plastic pollution crisis — How waste ends up in our oceans

"This is the first time that we've seen it recorded and sort of statistically significant numbers too," Laura Hardman, leader of plastic-free oceans at Ocean Wise, told Global News Thursday.

"We just need to remember that as a society, as a whole, that whatever we dispose, whatever leaks out into our environment has implications."

The organization didn’t have a category on its data cards last year to formally track the amount of PPE-related litter but has added one for 2021, given the situation.

Play "All-female crew sailing globe to raise plastics awareness"

"I would really, really be asking for people to think responsibly about their personal impacts and to think about not only how they are disposing of masks, but also how they are using them, how they are ensuring that they don't get lost, that they don't leak out into the world," Hardman said.

While disposable masks may look like they are made of paper or natural fabric, they are manufactured using polymers that sometimes take decades or centuries to decompose.

Read more: Swirling pile of trash in Pacific Ocean is now 3 times the size of France

"That's an important consideration," Dr. Shoshanah Jacobs, associate professor in the department of integrative biology at the University of Guelph, told Global News Thursday. "These are new sorts of pollutants that are being introduced into the environment... So, we don't really know about how they'll kind of spread around quite, quite yet."

That does not, however, mean that public health should be compromised and people should give up on masks and PPEs Jacobs said.

"But surely we could have anticipated the need to provide proper disposal outlets and venues and also proper messaging to the public with respect to how we manage these important health-saving devices to ensure that it doesn't compromise the environment."

"If people are comfortable and able to use reusable masks, obviously that's a great thing," Jacobs said, but emphasized the need "to be supporting people" who are not, and guiding them on "proper disposal" of the single-use masks.

Hardman agreed.

Caught off guard

At the onset of the pandemic, Hardman said Canadians were caught off guard and were very "quick to react and we were put in a position where we had to change our behaviour."

As a result, she noted, a lot of single-use masks were given out initially. And whilst that was a great initiative, she said, "one of the things that we need to do as a society is to keep thinking about when single-use is necessary and when we can opt for a reusable alternative."

"I feel that, again, this is a message that continually needs to be, it should be, reinforced," Hardman said.

"It is for all of us to take responsibility for what we are, what we are purchasing and that we are handling it and we are disposing of it correctly, by making sure that we are putting the right things in recycling streams and are always doing it right."

"Canadian entrepreneur working to turn plastic waste into clean fuel"

For Jacobs, it's not really "a littering problem."

"It's a mask and PPE disposal problem. It may also be that people just really don't know how," she said.

The question we need to ask here, she said, is if "we need to have separate receptacles for PPEs, can they go in regular garbage or do we need to launch an education program" to make people aware of how to handle these products.

At this point, Jacobs said, it is of utmost importance that we follow "the guidelines or the advice of municipalities that are involved in waste management."

Video: Scientists find microplastics deep in Arctic ice

While recycling schemes differ between municipalities, Hardman said most of them are "very good" at keeping their websites updated.

"You can see very clearly what material can be recycled within a jurisdiction," she said. "So I think it is for the citizens to make sure that we are checking up on that. It is for municipalities to keep that information up to date, and it is for businesses to provide us with clear and transparent information about how a certain material can be handled."
How big is our plastic problem?

According to the United Nations, more than eight billion tons of plastic have been produced globally over the last 65 years, of which only a fraction has been recycled.

In 2020 alone, the proportion of single-use food packaging litter found on Canadian coastlines doubled. According to the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup report, single-use food and beverage litter jumped "from 15.3 per cent of all litter in 2019 to 26.6 per cent in 2020.”

Read more: Whale dies after 80 plastic bags found crammed in its stomach

Once plastic gets into the ocean, it can be hard to filter it back out. Instead of biodegrading, most plastics simply break into smaller fragments until they become known as micro-plastics, which are less than five millimetres in size.

By 2050, the World Economic Forum predicts that the oceans will hold more plastic than fish. The biggest polluting countries of the world so far are all in Asia, with China contributing the most.

Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka are among the top five. Canada and the United States not far behind.

Montreal police filmed kneeling on Black teen's neck

Duration: 01:41 

The video was filmed by a passerby in front of a bus stop in the city's Villeray district on June 10.

 cbc.ca