Moves to silence critical race theory have only amplified its virtues

BY SHANNON PRINCE, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/10/21 

© Twitter

Recently, a number of states have passed laws banning critical race theory — or what legislators with willful ignorance or outright malice misspeak of as critical race theory — as well as teaching about past and present racism in its systemic form.

As a woman of color committed to antiracism, I am delighted. And the reason for my delight can be found in the very history legislators seek to forbid.

One of the greatest titans of American history is the abolitionist, male women’s suffrage activist, and defender of civil rights for all peoples: Frederick Douglass. When he was a boy, the enslaved Douglass asked his mistress to teach him to read, which she did until the day she proudly shared his progress with her husband. As Douglass recounts in “My Bondage and My Freedom”:

“Master Hugh was amazed at the simplicity of his spouse, and, probably for the first time, he unfolded to her the true philosophy of slavery, and the peculiar rules necessary to be observed by masters and mistresses, in the management of their human chattels. Mr. [Hugh] Auld promptly forbade continuance of her instruction; telling her, in the first place, that the thing itself was unlawful; that it was also unsafe, and could only lead to mischief.”

Assessing his master’s words, Douglass said:

“Very well,” thought I; “knowledge unfits a child to be a slave.” From that moment I understood the direct pathway from slavery to freedom… The very determination which he expressed to keep me in ignorance, only rendered me the more resolute in seeking intelligence.”

There are times when the path to a nation that truly has liberty and justice for all seems indiscernible, when those committed to realizing Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream wonder how to make it come true. Well, now we know. As Douglass taught us, the knowledge that is forbidden to us is the knowledge that frees us. The instruction that we are told is unsafe, leads only to mischief and that is being made unlawful — that instruction is liberating. It offers the direct pathway to freedom. The proof of the revolutionary power of education that examines racism with candor and courage lies in the determination of those who seek to keep our children in ignorance. And that very determination should render us all the more resolute in seeking intelligence for them and for ourselves.

Think about it: If our children don’t know what systemic racism is, they may think that George Floyd’s murder was the result of — as a white adult described it to me — the actions of “one bad officer.” And they might then think that justice is served when that officer — Derek Chauvin — is removed from the force and convicted.

But if they are taught about the event through the lens of systemic racism, then they will learn that Chauvin had eighteen complaints against him — that after a half dozen, a dozen, and then still more grievances — someone other than Chauvin, likely multiple people, kept him on the force. They learn that someone looked at Chauvin’s record and decided to give him the responsibility of training other officers. They learn that Floyd was at least the seventh person Chauvin choked or knelt on: Three of them, including Floyd, were Black, two were Latino, one was Native American and the races of the other two are unknown. They learn that Chauvin is only now facing charges for a 2017 incident in which the federal government argues he hit a Black 14-year-old in the head with a flashlight so brutally the boy needed stitches, and then knelt on his neck and back for several minutes — even though the boy, like Floyd, was handcuffed, prone and unresisting. They will learn that other officers failed to treat this as a crime and while police chose not to take action to get Chauvin off the force, let alone keep him out of a position of authority, the police union did step in after all that inaction finally led to a murder — to spend $1 million on his criminal defense.

When children learn about systemic racism, they understand that just stripping Chauvin of his badge or even his freedom isn’t enough to achieve justice because there was an entire system that functioned to condone Floyd’s murder, that tried to grant his murderer impunity, and that, if not transformed, whose machinery will inevitably grind others to death.

You can’t change a system you don’t know exists. And that’s why these legislators are enacting these “peculiar rules.” They don’t want our children to know. They don’t want things to change.

But their plan backfired.

This time last year, systemic racism was an obscure concept. Thanks to the legislators banning it, it’s now a topic of popular conversation.

Looking back as a free man, a renowned leader, a man whose global repute was second only to that of Abraham Lincoln, Douglass mused, “In learning to read, therefore, I am not sure that I do not owe quite as much to the opposition of my master as to the kindly assistance of my amiable mistress.”

In learning about how racism has and continues to function — and, thereby, how to destroy it — I am not sure that we do not owe quite as much to the opposition of our legislators as we do to the theorists, historians and teachers brave enough not to place feelings over facts.

Shannon Prince is a lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner and a legal commentator. She is the author of "Tactics for Racial Justice: Building an Antiracist Organization and Community."

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Why it matters that climate change is shrinking birds

BY BRIAN WEEKS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/10/21   

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HIL

© Istock

Many of the benefits that humanity derives from the natural world, like the provisioning of oxygen, are priceless. Those ecosystem services that can have a dollar value assigned to them, for example the pollination of crops, generate far more value for humanity each year than the entirety of the global economy. Climate change can threaten these services through the loss of species or shifts in species’ size or abundance. For example, warming temperatures have reduced the size of many birds over the last four decades; this is emblematic of the scale of climate change impacts on the world’s biological diversity. There is an urgent need for action.

Shrinking birds are indicative of a much bigger problem

Scientists have long predicted that increasing temperatures would drive reductions in body size across the tree of life, but testing this requires huge amounts of data collected consistently over decades. This type of data is only available for a tiny fraction of the world’s species, including some North American birds.

Recently, a study based on over 70,000 North American bird specimens found that warming temperatures have been shrinking birds for the past 40 years. Because size determines organisms’ behaviors, survival and contributions to the functioning of natural systems, widespread shrinking of birds has important implications for the ecosystem services that birds provide to people.

North American birds are not the only group of species that are shrinking. Marine ectotherms, or cold-blooded animals (e.g., most fish), are getting smaller in response to warming temperatures. This group of species feeds billions of people around the world each year. Understanding the impacts of widespread size reductions on the productivity of this system is clearly of global significance.

While scientists have only been able to test whether there have been warming-driven size reductions for a small fraction of the world’s species, there is reason to believe that this may be a widespread problem. A long-standing observation, known as Bergmann’s Rule, holds that individuals tend to be smaller in the warmer parts of a species’ geographical range. In a temporal analog to Bergmann’s Rule, scientists have predicted that plants and animals will get smaller as humans warm the world.

While some large sets of species have uniformly gotten smaller as temperatures increased, there is also evidence that size responses to warming can be variable among species. However, the potential that not all species will shrink is not cause for comfort. If species in a community are responding to climate change in different ways, with only some getting smaller, the changes in relative size can impact how species relate to each other and the environment. These changes may have cascading impacts up or down food webs, again disrupting essential natural systems.

In addition to improving our understanding of which species are getting smaller as a result of increasing temperatures, further research is needed to refine our understanding of why higher temperatures are causing decreases in size. Both a better understanding of the patterns of warming-driven size reductions across the world’s species, and the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon are needed to predict future impacts of warming on the natural systems that support humanity.

 

The problem is complex, but the path forward is clear

We are warming plants and animals at a global scale, and how they respond will shape our future in untold ways. Despite the enormous importance of the impacts of climate change on the world’s biological diversity, we are remarkably limited in our capacity to monitor the effects of rising temperatures on most of the world’s species. This should change. The scope of the data necessary to understand biological responses to climate change exceeds the scale of what is feasible for individual researchers or even institutions to collect. A massive increase in investment in the natural sciences is needed to expand our ability to understand and predict the impacts of climate change on plants and animals. The development of large-scale coordinated efforts to collect data on natural systems should be a policy priority.

It is also important to recognize that the impacts of climate change are occurring in a world that has already been heavily modified by human activities. Species and ecosystems are reeling from the effects of habitat loss and the introduction of invasive species.

Efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change must go hand-in-hand with efforts to conserve and expand habitat and reduce the spread of invasive species if we are to reverse the ongoing loss of ecosystem services. This will only be achieved if policymakers recognize that the value captured in economic markets is dwarfed by the value of ecosystem services that are outside of those markets, and mitigating the combined impacts of climate change, habitat loss and invasive species on the natural systems that are essential to human persistence is the most important governance challenge of our time. Maintaining functional natural systems should not be an afterthought, it should be a central component of any policy initiative.

Addressing these challenges is urgent. Bird populations have declined so drastically that this year, there are 3 billion fewer birds in North America than there were in 1970 — the proverbial canaries in the coal mine are dropping dead all around us. The world’s biological diversity and the ecosystem services it provides to all of us are our natural heritage; we all stand to benefit from an improved understanding of the world around us, and the effective conservation of ecosystems and the services they provide.

Brian Weeks is an assistant professor in the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. His research focuses biotic responses to global change and the importance of biodiversity to ecosystem stability and functioning. Follow him on Twitter: @BriWeeks_MI

What it means if 'ecocide' becomes an international crime

BY JOJO MEHTA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/10/21 

© Getty Images

Ecocide means to destroy the environment, but when considered etymologically, from the Greek and Latin, it signifies to kill one’s home.

When we were first able to view, and photograph, the Earth from space, our planetary perspective changed. Suddenly “home” had a whole new meaning. Nowhere, as far as our technology has been able to discern, is there evidence of any planet like Earth — anywhere else that can sustain life as we know it.

In its recent 11,700-year period of climatic stability, that is what our planetary home has done, facilitating the spread and technological advance of human civilization. While benefiting many in terms of material comfort, life expectancy and societal support structures, this advance has increasingly taken place within a framework of thought that perceives nature as “other” — a resource to be exploited, or a foe to be conquered. The Oxford English Dictionary even defines nature as “opposed to humans.”

With this perspective, ever since the industrial revolution, we have been — at first unwittingly, now recklessly and even knowingly — disrupting the biological, chemical and atmospheric systems on whose stable interaction we intimately and profoundly depend. Greenhouse gas emissions are just one part of this story. Bit by bit, with each felled forest, polluted river system, species extinction, oil spill, toxic waste leak, nuclear or mining disaster, we are committing ecocide. Relentlessly, and with startling rapidity, we are killing our home — while exacerbating social injustice, racial inequality and resource conflict along the way.

And because our legal system doesn’t treat environmental destruction with the seriousness we are now beginning to understand it warrants, we are doing this with impunity.

The word “ecocide” was first used on the international stage by Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme at the UN environment conference in Stockholm (1972), when he stated that “destruction brought about... by large scale use of bulldozers and pesticides is an outrage sometimes described as ecocide, which requires urgent international attention.”

Nearly 50 years later, the world is at last beginning to pay that attention. Last month an expert panel of top international criminal and environmental lawyers, convened by the Stop Ecocide Foundation, proposed a legal definition of the term, suitable for adoption into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a fifth crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Responding to the explicit call of climate-vulnerable island nations Vanuatu and the Maldives, directly impacted by rising sea levels and heavy tropical storms, such a move would criminalize, “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.”

The warmth of response to this legal definition has been remarkable. Sparking articles in over 100 global publications in the first week, from the Financial Times to Der Spiegel and from Bloomberg to Le Monde, it has also prompted political action. From Bangladesh to the Caribbean to the UK (where an amendment to the government’s Environment Bill includes the newly released definition in full), diplomats and politicians are joining a conversation which already includes EU states such as France and Belgium and has the support of public figures as influential and diverse as Pope Francis and Greta Thunberg.

Since the International Criminal Court’s mandate is the prosecution of individuals, the addition of ecocide to the list of crimes considered “of most serious concern to the international community as a whole” would make key corporate and political actors personally liable to criminal prosecution in any ratifying state, should their decisions threaten severe and either widespread or long-term environmental damage — thus creating an enforceable deterrent to help prevent finance from flowing to projects that could destroy ecosystems. Nothing concentrates the mind like having one’s personal freedom on the line.

Moreover, ecocide law may prove to be not just a stick but also a carrot. Setting a criminal parameter will not only steer activity away from hazards — acting as a kind of health and safety law for the planet – but is likely to stimulate innovation and development in a healthy direction in a wide range of economic sectors. Many of the solutions we need to transition to sustainability are already available — renewable energy, regenerative agriculture, circular economy — but aren’t being supported or developed at scale while finance continues to flow towards the same old destructive approaches, leaving those who would do the right thing at a disadvantage.

Criminalizing ecosystem destruction at the highest level could also shore up and strengthen the whole edifice of environmental law, supporting all those working to improve regulation and best practice, from frontline activists to academics, scientists, NGOs and policymakers.

While it would be naive to believe that establishing this crime would be a silver bullet for all of our environmental woes, or even prevent all ecocides, it is difficult to see how our planet’s life-support systems can be adequately protected — or indeed Paris targets and UN Sustainable Development Goals realistically approached — without a “hard stop” intervention of this kind. This year’s NDC synthesis report from the UNFCCC certainly suggests that we’re not doing well without it. Goodwill agreements and raised ambitions are clearly not up to the task.

But perhaps the most powerful effect of defining and criminalizing ecocide as an international crime may be that of beginning to shift cultural and moral assumptions. Our understanding of our place in, and responsibility towards, the natural world is in dire need of a reality check. Calling out and condemning ecocide for what it is may be exactly what is required if we are to begin to transform our relationship with the Earth from one of harm to one of harmony. That may be the best way to ensure our children, and our children’s children, will still be able to call this beautiful planet “home.”

Jojo Mehta is co-founder and executive director of Stop Ecocide International and chair of the charitable Stop Ecocide Foundation. She co-founded the public campaign in 2017 (alongside legal pioneer the late Polly Higgins) to support making severe harm to nature an international crime and has overseen the growth of the global movement while coordinating legal developments, diplomatic traction and public narrative.

US has no plans to offer military assistance to Haiti: reports

BY JORDAN WILLIAMS - 07/10/21 

© Getty Images

The Biden administration reportedly has no current plans to offer military assistance to Haiti following the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse earlier this week.

A senior Biden administration official told Reuters and The New York Times late Friday that there were no plans to provide U.S. military assistance to Haiti at this time.

The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

Haiti requested security forces to guard critical infrastructure amid rising turmoil in the country following Moïse’s assassination.

Interim Prime Minister Claude Joseph instituted a “state of siege” in the nation after Moïse was killed at his home in Port-au-Prince early Wednesday morning.

A congressional source told The Hill on Friday that the request for forces was “generically mentioned.”

“It's kind of been framed in this bucket of U.S. security assistance where in reality the Haitian government made a request for U.S. troops,” the source said.

But another source said there was confusion over the request and noted that the French word for “troops” can also refer to police.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Friday that senior FBI and Department of Homeland Security officials would be dispatched to the country. She also said the U.S. would be providing financial resources.

Haiti has also requested forces from the United Nations Security Council, according to Reuters.

At least 19 people have been arrested following the assassination, including two Haitian Americans, James Solages and Joseph Vincent, and 17 Colombians.

The Colombian defense ministry confirmed Friday that 13 of its former soldiers are among the suspects, according to the Times.

EPA bans sale of COVID-19 disinfectant authorized under Trump

BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 07/09/21 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this week issued an order stopping the sale of a disinfectant that the Trump administration granted emergency authorization to combat COVID-19.

The agency said in a news release Thursday that its investigators determined Allied BioScience, the maker of the disinfectant, was marketing, selling and distributing it in “ways that were inconsistent” with law, regulations and the terms and conditions of emergency authorizations.

The agency also said it was revoking an emergency exemption for the chemical, known as SurfaceWise2, in Arkansas and Texas because of “company misconduct described above and scientific concerns regarding product performance.”

“Pesticides can cause serious harm to human health and the environment, which is why EPA requires their registration before being distributed for use,” said Larry Starfield, acting head of the agency’s law enforcement office, in a statement. “EPA is committed to holding companies accountable for not adhering to federal environmental laws.”

SurfaceWise2 was originally approved for use in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, including on some American Airlines aircraft, at airport facilities and at orthopedic facilities.

The Trump administration had touted its approval of SurfaceWise 2, with then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in November viewing a demonstration of its use in Texas.

“EPA had to adapt to the coronavirus outbreak by creating a new permitting process that could allow innovative new products to be quickly and effectively tested and deemed safe for use,” Wheeler said in a statement at the time. “This long-lasting disinfectant is a great innovation and could help the aviation industry in the coming months.”

Allied BioScience CEO Michael Ruley said in a statement to The Hill that the company was "fully complying" with the EPA's order.

"We intend to rectify and resolve this as soon as possible. We continue to work closely with the EPA to confirm the protection provided by SurfaceWise2," Ruley said. "We continue to work with the EPA on our full section 3 for national approval."

People typically are infected with the coronavirus after contact with respiratory droplets, and the risk of getting it through contact with surfaces is considered low, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In a statement provided to The Hill, an American Airlines spokesperson said the company had stopped using the product and will “continue to follow all EPA and federal guidance on this matter.”

WHY DOES ANYONE BANK WITH WELLS FARGO

Warren slams Wells Fargo decision to close customer credit lines

FORCED TO USE CREDIT CARD INTEREST 19.9%

BY CAROLINE VAKIL - 07/09/21 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) blasted Wells Fargo’s decision this week to close customers’ personal credit lines.

CNBC reported on Thursday that the bank alerted customers that existing lines of personal credit would be closed in the next few weeks and it was no longer offering the consumer lending product.

The letter also reportedly said that these closures “may have an impact on your credit score,” which was included in a frequently asked questions portion of the letter, CNBC reported.

“Not a single @WellsFargo customer should see their credit score suffer just because their bank is restructuring after years of scams and incompetence. Sending out a warning notice simply isn’t good enough – Wells Fargo needs to make this right,” tweeted Warren, who has been critical of big banks.

Previously, customers were able to draw thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in personal lines of credit to pay for things such as home renovations or to combine credit card debt with high interest rate

In 2018, the Federal Reserve told the bank it could not grow its balance sheet following a fake accounts scandal in 2016.

CNBC noted that with less credit available for a customer to use, it would likely mean that customers would have to draw more from available credit and hurt their credit score.

In a statement to The Hill, Wells Fargo spokesman Manny Venegas declined to comment on Warren's tweet but stated: "As we simplify our product offerings, we made the decision last year to no longer offer personal lines of credit as we feel we can better meet the borrowing needs of our customers through credit card and personal loan products."

"We realize change can be inconvenient, especially when customer credit may be impacted. We are providing a 60-day notice period with a series of reminders before closure, and are committed to helping each customer find a credit solution that fits their needs," he added.

Venegas said that information regarding customers' credit scores had been included "because we know that with the closure of any type of financial product, a customer’s credit may be impacted."

"We want to ensure customers are aware of this so they can monitor...Wells Fargo does not determine or know what factors are used to calculate an individual credit score; therefore, we are not able to estimate what, if any, impact this closure will have on a customer’s individual credit score," he added.

Venegas said the bank recommends customers make scheduled payments on time "to ensure positive (paid as agreed) credit bureau reporting."

MUERTA, MORTE, MORT, DEATH

Americans arrested in killing of Haiti president claim they were translators: judge
BY LEXI LONAS - 07/09/21 




Two Americans who were arrested in connection with the killing of Haiti’s president claimed they were translators for the group, according to a Haitian judge.

Judge Clément Noël said Friday the two American suspects, James J. Solages and Joseph Vincent, admitted to working as translators and plotted with the group for a month to attack Haitian President Jovenel Moïse, The New York Times reported.

The two Americans said the original plan was to kidnap the president and take him to the national palace, not kill him.

Solages admitted to yelling the attackers were U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency before the attack began.

Solages was in the country before as a former security guard at the Canadian Embassy in Haiti. He said he found the job to translate for the group online, the judge said.

The judge said Solages “replied in a very evasive manner” when asked questions about the larger plot, according to the New York Times.

Vincent admitted the plan was orchestrated by a man named “Mike” who spoke Spanish and English.

The attack was plotted at a hotel in Pétionville, the suspects said. Solages said he was in Haiti one month before the attack began and Vincent said he had been in the country with his cousin for six months.

Colombians involved in the attack were in Haiti for three months, according to the men.

Along with the Americans, Haitian Ambassador to the U.S. Bocchit Edmond told CNN it is clear the group had help from insiders.

“Indeed there were foreigners, but at the same time we have to recognize that they also have some help, internal help,” he said.

Six people were arrested after the attack while four were killed by Haiti’s National Police.

A new view of digital rights: Make them part of digital infrastructure

BY PRIYA VORA, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 07/09/21

© iStock

The proposed bipartisan infrastructure bill is still far from a done deal, but after the political wrangling over what is and isn’t “infrastructure,” at least one area of firm bipartisan agreement has emerged: broadband digital access is infrastructure, and if the U.S. lags behind, our economy will not remain competitive.

The proposed bill includes $65 billion to upgrade broadband nationally, though experts say that’s only a down payment on the goal of universal fast internet access. The broad agreement on broadband for all is a positive, overdue development.

But by itself, without better digital norms and governance, universal broadband access in the U.S. won’t do much to secure Americans’ digital rights, equitably distributed economic growth, or stronger competitiveness. Achieving those things requires another kind of digital “infrastructure” — data sharing systems that bake in users’ rights to privacy and control of their data.

Many other countries are already investing in them. Unless the U.S. does too, it will fall behind in the innovation economy.

Lina Khan, who came to prominence as a champion of digital rights, recently started her tenure as head of the Federal Trade Commission, which investigates antitrust violations, deceptive trade practices, and data privacy issues in the tech sector. Shortly after, the FTC’s landmark antitrust suit against Facebook was thrown out by a federal judge, sending Facebook’s market capitalization soaring passed $1 trillion. The suit could be refiled, but the ruling underscores the point that Big Tech has become so dominant, it has plenty of power and money with which to fight off regulation.

It’s not just Facebook, or even the “Big Five” (Google, Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, aka GAAFA). Most companies you interact with online collect and share your personal details almost entirely without your knowledge. The shady industry of data brokers aggregates myriad data points collected about you — not only from your browsing history, but also from your smart fridge, your farm equipment, and thousands of other devices — and sells those insights to governments and companies all over the world.

Good luck regulating that.

Beyond regulation, we need a different kind of digital infrastructure. If we want to unlock the opportunity for truly equitable economic growth, we need to build a digital ecosystem that enables all people to access this valuable new asset class asset and that respects their digital rights. If we want those rights to be enforceable and compatible with democratic values and fair, free markets, we’re going to have to define them clearly, and embed them directly into digital systems.

Other countries are far ahead of the U.S. in this respect. For example, since 2001 Estonia’s government database system X-Road has put citizens’ documents and data online, which users can retrieve for hyper-efficient, real-time government services. The information is stored using secure, end-to-end encrypted pathways, which ensures it is decentralized, lives locally and is controlled by the users, who decide what parts of their data others can and can’t see. It works so well and is so trusted that private companies, neighboring Finland and countries as far away as Mauritius and Zambia are replicating it. The U.S. is not one of them.

In 2017, as a visiting fellow at Stanford, Estonia’s former president expressed his shock at how anachronistic the U.S. remains in terms of basic transactions, which in Estonia and other countries have been conducted smoothly online for many years: “It’s like the nineteen-fifties — I had to provide an electrical bill to prove I live here!” he told The New Yorker. “You can get an iPhone X, but, if you have to register your car, forget it.

In fact, there are many such examples of countries that are lightyears ahead of the U.S. in building user control and trust into their systems.

India’s experimental data sharing system exchanges data not only across all government agencies, but also across regulated private sectors like healthcare, banking and education. It has instituted a new regulatory license for data fiduciaries known as “account aggregators,” whose job it is to manage people’s data flows in accordance with their wishes, where they can exercise control over their digital footprint, and easily change or revoke their consent to share their data at any time.

This new function holds breakthrough benefits for Indians from all walks of life. For example, it helps them get better treatment by letting them show confidential medical history to trusted care providers in real time. It enables them to qualify and secure better terms for loans because they can securely access and share their financial information. And it helps them land jobs by letting them show verifiable education credentials to prospective employers.

India’s system doesn’t just block suspect use of people’s personal information; it opens up economic opportunity — so people can reap the benefits of the data they generate. For example, it levels the playing field for start-up companies, so they can access data previously monopolized and monetized by the big players alone.

The EU is taking a close look at India's approach as a meaningful framework for defending Europeans' digital rights (codified in the EU's General Data Protection Regulation).

But for Americans who have become used to all kinds of data breaches and inscrutable terms and conditions that leave them virtually no practical control over their data, this all sounds radical. A trustworthy fiduciary structure dedicated to giving users control of their data and letting them enjoy its benefits — as opposed to companies wresting control from them and exploiting it for their own profit — is hard for us to imagine. That should change.

If the EU is taking inspiration from India's approach, why can't the U.S.? Isn’t the whole point of infrastructure spending to expand and extend opportunity to all?

Achieving that in the U.S. depends on building a trustworthy, non-exploitative digital environment that respects users’ rights and needs.

Digital infrastructure doesn’t have to be run by the public sector to serve the public good, but so far, Big Tech hasn’t shown an inclination to deliver services that do. On the contrary, it has spawned a frightening, unaccountable system that extracts and exploits data without meaningful consent, and leaves people unable to control or benefit from it.

So as long as the U.S. government is agreeing to spend many billions on improving and expanding broadband infrastructure, let’s also agree that at the same time, we should also invest in approaches to digital governance that expand user rights and create a more equitable data economy. Building trust and rights, not just cables and servers, is critical infrastructure for U.S. competitiveness and democracy.

Priya Vora is the co-founder of Future State and the Africa Data Leadership Initiative, programs affiliated with the United Nations. Previously she launched the Financial Services for the Poor program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ocasio-Cortez slams infrastructure critics as New York suffers from Elsa-related flooding
BY CAMERON JENKINS - 07/09/21 

© Greg Nash


New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) is slamming critics of President Biden's multitrillion-dollar infrastructure plan and the "Green New Deal" as tropical storm Elsa wreaked havoc on her state.

The progressive lawmaker responded to videos of flooding in subway stations and on New York's Major Deegan Expressway as examples of why the legislation is needed.

In one video, cars appear stranded in a river of floodwater on one side of the expressway as other vehicles attempt to maneuver around the standing water and some drive through it on the other side.

"I’m so glad the filibuster is here to fix this oh wait," Ocasio-Cortez said, a sarcastic reference to growing frustration with the filibuster on the left as Democrats struggle to get major legislation through the 50-50 Senate.

Ocasio-Cortez also condemned those who have referred to the Green New Deal as "unrealistic," as climate change heightens natural disasters across the country.

“Instead we will do the adult thing, which is take orders from fossil fuel execs &make you swim to work,” she tweeted.




Ocasio-Cortez helped introduce the Green New Deal in 2019. The climate proposal aims to move the nation toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, focus on creating a renewable energy power grid and invest in high-speed rail roads and support of family farming.

New York faced intense downpours Thursday as tropical storm Elsa pummeled the Northeast. Several local news outlets took to social media to share images of flash floods and high water.





The tropical storm made landfall in Florida on Wednesday.

Redefine infrastructure for a resilient future

BY ANNA FRIEDMAN AND JEB BRUGMANN, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS — 07/09/21 

© Getty Images

In February of this year, Texans faced a triple threat. There was the ongoing pandemic, with its devastating toll on lives and jobs. Then came the winter storms that crippled the state’s poorly prepared electrical grid. When the grid went down, families across the state were left without water, food or heat.

We live in a time of cascading crises. Millions of American families lack the underlying physical and economic support systems that could help them contend with the economic, environmental, health and social strains presented by these increasingly common challenges. That is why we must invest in infrastructure to enhance our resilience to the threats of today, and the uncertainty of tomorrow.

President Biden's approach to infrastructure investment reflects these new realities. About half of the administration’s initially proposed infrastructure investments were directed towards buttressing traditional infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water systems, shipping ports and power grids. Federal investments in these forms of traditional infrastructure have also been incorporated into the recently negotiated bipartisan infrastructure framework.

But stopping here would be shortsighted. We’ve all witnessed first-hand over the past year that the hazards, vulnerabilities and productivity requirements of this century are dramatically different from those of the decades — let alone centuries ­— before. Historically, infrastructure investments have addressed each era’s unique challenges, which can, broadly speaking, be broken down into two categories: protective and economic.

Early protective infrastructure such as levees and seawalls enabled the establishment of our coastal port cities, facilitating trade and undergirding our manufacturing economy. Each generation of protective infrastructure reflected the very different hazards of the time. Beginning in the late 19ththcentury we built sewer and wastewater treatment systems to eliminate the risk of a mass health crisis. Military infrastructure, such as the shoreline bunkers of World War II, provided defense from Nazi invasion. Economic infrastructure includes investments in road, rail and water networks that increase the efficiency of markets and drive the nation’s potential to support a high quality of life.

While these two kinds of infrastructure have continuously evolved to take on new forms, their functions have remained largely the same. The past year has demonstrated vividly the need for additional investments in both protective and economic infrastructure that addresses the unique conditions of our time.

For instance, the intersecting health impacts of the pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis, coupled with increasingly severe and frequent climate events, clearly threaten the United States’ ability to maintain its historic economic productivity — while pushing the American dream further out of reach for millions. Addressing these challenges requires significant investment in modernizing the country’s electrical grid, expanding broadband networks, building our public health system, and mitigating crisis-level business and household economic losses in the face of catastrophic events.

The most catalytic investments in infrastructure accomplish both protective and economic goals simultaneously, and that approach is at the heart of the original Biden plan.


For instance, Biden’s proposed investment of $400 billion in-home care services for older and disabled Americans is the kind of forward-looking infrastructure designed for this increasingly complex era. With an aging population, more and more Americans will require these services, and families overwhelmingly prefer to care for their loved ones at home and in their communities, as opposed to in a long-term care facility. More and more families face an agonizing choice between expensive care services and leaving the workforce to care for a loved one.

Biden’s approach transforms this systemic challenge into an opportunity. The proposal would make home-based care more affordable for the growing number of Americans who will need these services, keeping them out of distant facilities and closer to their families. At the same time, it would lay the groundwork for economic growth, enabling more family members to stay in the workforce while also catalyzing the growth of an automation-resistant home health care sector of our economy.

The bipartisan infrastructure framework is encouraging after years of gridlock. But it is only a promising start: Additional investments beyond traditional infrastructure will be needed to grapple comprehensively with the unique physical, economic, technological and social challenges that we have been witnessing daily.

Much of the attention on the Biden plan has been on the climate crisis — and justifiably so. But the genius in this approach is the expanded viewpoint on how infrastructure investments can reach individual lives.

This is a hopeful moment for our country. With the end of the pandemic in sight, we are poised to enter a new era with new possibilities. However, we cannot forget about the underlying fragility that the intersecting crises of the past year exposed — the fragility not only of our roads and systems but of families pushed to the brink both economically and socially, after decades of underinvestment.

Now, more than ever is the time to redefine — and fortify — the critical systems we call “infrastructure.” By making smart investments in both protective and economic infrastructure designed for our current challenges, we will be better prepared to weather future crises — whatever they might be.

Anna Friedman is an associate director and Jeb Brugmann is a founding principal with Resilient Cities Catalyst, a nonprofit comprised of urban practitioners and resilience experts with deep experience working in cities and regions around the world.