|
|
|
Sunday, August 01, 2021
Greta Thunberg condemns Science Museum for allegedly signing ‘gagging clause’ with Shell
Greta Thunberg
MORNING STAR JULY 31,2021
TEENAGE climate activist Greta Thunberg has condemned the Science Museum for allegedly signing a “gagging clause” with its sponsor Shell.
She spoke out after emails released by campaign group Culture Unsustained appeared to show an agreement “not to damage the goodwill and reputation” of the oil giant.
The London museum has come under fire after choosing Shell to sponsor its Our Future Planet exhibition, featuring a solution to the climate crisis, which triggered protests and a sit-in by young activists last month.
Culture Unsustained described the deal as “highly problematic” because it created a “chilling effect” discouraging museum staff from speak out against Shell’s role in the climate emergency.
The group’s co-director, Jess Worth, said the decision “puts other staff in a very difficult position and this should be of great concern to the museum sector as a whole.”
Culture Unsustained also accused the museum of having sought sponsorship from a range of other oil and gas firms, including BP, Exxon, Chevron and Saudi Aramco.
Ms Thunberg, who started the school strike for climate movement, said in a Twitter post that the Science Museum had “just killed irony (and their own reputation).”
The Science Museum Group has rejected the claims that its curators were influenced by external sources, branding them “unsubstantiated.”
Acting director and chief executive Jonathan Newby said: “At all times, the Science Museum retains editorial control of the content within our exhibitions and galleries.
“We entirely reject the unsubstantiated claim that our curators were in any way inhibited in carrying out their vital role in an expert, independent and thorough manner.”
A Shell spokesperson said that the oil giant “fully respects” the museum’s independence.
In June, young climate protesters accused the Science Museum of “intimidation” after police allegedly threatened to arrest activists staging an occupation of the site.
Greta Thunberg
MORNING STAR JULY 31,2021
TEENAGE climate activist Greta Thunberg has condemned the Science Museum for allegedly signing a “gagging clause” with its sponsor Shell.
She spoke out after emails released by campaign group Culture Unsustained appeared to show an agreement “not to damage the goodwill and reputation” of the oil giant.
The London museum has come under fire after choosing Shell to sponsor its Our Future Planet exhibition, featuring a solution to the climate crisis, which triggered protests and a sit-in by young activists last month.
Culture Unsustained described the deal as “highly problematic” because it created a “chilling effect” discouraging museum staff from speak out against Shell’s role in the climate emergency.
The group’s co-director, Jess Worth, said the decision “puts other staff in a very difficult position and this should be of great concern to the museum sector as a whole.”
Culture Unsustained also accused the museum of having sought sponsorship from a range of other oil and gas firms, including BP, Exxon, Chevron and Saudi Aramco.
Ms Thunberg, who started the school strike for climate movement, said in a Twitter post that the Science Museum had “just killed irony (and their own reputation).”
The Science Museum Group has rejected the claims that its curators were influenced by external sources, branding them “unsubstantiated.”
Acting director and chief executive Jonathan Newby said: “At all times, the Science Museum retains editorial control of the content within our exhibitions and galleries.
“We entirely reject the unsubstantiated claim that our curators were in any way inhibited in carrying out their vital role in an expert, independent and thorough manner.”
A Shell spokesperson said that the oil giant “fully respects” the museum’s independence.
In June, young climate protesters accused the Science Museum of “intimidation” after police allegedly threatened to arrest activists staging an occupation of the site.
Eliminating Carbon Emissions by 2050 Would Save 74 Million Lives This Century: Study
There is "a significant number of lives that can be saved if you pursue climate policies that are more aggressive than the business-as-usual scenario."
A person in India is hospitalized on June 4, 2019 after suffering heat stroke amid temperatures of 50°C (122 °F) in Churu, a city in the state of Rajasthan.
Providing further evidence of the deadly consequences of the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and the far-reaching health benefits of decarbonization, new research out Thursday shows that eliminating greenhouse gas emissions within the next three decades would save tens of millions of lives around the world.
Roughly 74 million lives could be saved this century if the emission of heat-trapping gases is cut to zero by 2050, compared with a far more lethal scenario in which society fails to limit global temperature rise to less than 4°C. That's according to Daniel Bressler, a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University's Earth Institute whose peer-reviewed journal article, "The Mortality Cost of Carbon," was just published in Nature Communications.
There is "a significant number of lives that can be saved if you pursue climate policies that are more aggressive than the business-as usual scenario," Bressler told The Guardian. "I was surprised at how large the number of deaths [is]. There is some uncertainty over this, the number could be lower but it could also be a lot higher."
Bressler acknowledged that his projections of excess deaths from carbon emissions "may well be 'a vast underestimate' as they only account for heat-related mortality rather than deaths from flooding, storms, crop failures, and other impacts that flow from the climate crisis," the newspaper noted.
For instance, a study on fossil fuel-related air pollution—not extreme heat—published in February found that exposure to particulate matter from dirty energy emissions killed an estimated 8.7 million people in 2018 alone, accounting for 18% of total global deaths that year.
The new study released Thursday builds upon a concept called the "social cost of carbon," a measurement created by Nobel prize-winning economist William Nordhaus to estimate the economic and environmental damage associated with pumping one metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
"Nordhaus came up with a fantastic model, but he didn't take in the latest literature on climate change's damage upon mortality," said Bressler, who added that "there's been an explosion of research on that topic in recent years."
As NPR noted Thursday: "The connection between a hotter planet and human death and disease has become clearer, thanks to a series of research papers. A study published in 2021 found that about a third of heat-related deaths worldwide can be directly attributed to human-caused climate change. A 2020 Lancet report warned that climate change is the biggest global public health threat of the century."
Those findings, however, "have not been factored into one of the three major computer models that scientists, economists, and the federal government use to calculate" the social cost of carbon, NPR reported, meaning that "policymakers may be underestimating the cost of climate change to human life."
Bressler's research seeks to fill that gap, and "he hopes the findings will be helpful to a federal working group currently reassessing how the government calculates the costs and benefits of climate policies," the news outlet added.
According to Nordhaus' DICE model, the 2020 social cost of carbon is $37 a metric ton, but when Bressler accounts for the mortality cost, this figure climbs to $258 a ton.
Bressler pointed out that a more accurate assessment of the negative consequences of carbon is especially important now that Congress and state governments are contemplating major investments to upgrade the nation's infrastructure and slash U.S. emissions in half from 2005 levels by 2030.
After analyzing the temperature-related mortality impacts of carbon pollution, Bressler concludes that for every 4,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 2020, one person will die prematurely from a heat-related illness between 2020 and 2100. He notes that "4,434 metric tons is equivalent to the lifetime emissions of 3.5 average Americans, 146.2 Nigerians, and 12.8 average world people."
In a study last year on "carbon inequality," Oxfam and the Stockholm Environmental Institute found that the world's richest 1% emit more than twice as much carbon dioxide as the poorest 50% of humanity. While 63 million people were responsible for 15% of global emissions between 1990 and 2015, 3.1 billion were responsible for just 7%.
Vast global disparities in greenhouse gas emissions are undeniable and a reflection of massive levels of inequality between wealthy and impoverished countries. However, given the high levels of inequality within rich countries—and the presence of a small class of "super-emitters" as well as the U.S. military's enormous "carbon bootprint" —it would be misleading to suggest that every person in the Global North contributes equally to causing the climate crisis.
Bressler's data show that a coal-fired power plant is much deadlier than the emissions associated with an average American: "The mortality cost of carbon implies that removing (adding) a year's worth of carbon dioxide emissions from an average coal-fired power plant in the United States in 2020 saves 904 lives (causes 904 excess deaths) in expectation from 2020 to 2100."
Bressler told The Guardian that ordinary working people "shouldn't take their per-person mortality emissions too personally. Our emissions are very much a function of the technology and culture of the place that we live."
For that reason, progressives have long argued that policymakers should focus on implementing society-wide changes to reduce inequality and carbon pollution simultaneously, by creating millions of unionized jobs in the renewable energy sector and providing an abundance of low-carbon public goods rather than perpetuating high-carbon forms of individual consumption.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
There is "a significant number of lives that can be saved if you pursue climate policies that are more aggressive than the business-as-usual scenario."
A person in India is hospitalized on June 4, 2019 after suffering heat stroke amid temperatures of 50°C (122 °F) in Churu, a city in the state of Rajasthan.
(Photo: Money Sharma via Getty Images)
KENNY STANCIL
KENNY STANCIL
July 29, 2021
COMMON DREAMS
Providing further evidence of the deadly consequences of the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and the far-reaching health benefits of decarbonization, new research out Thursday shows that eliminating greenhouse gas emissions within the next three decades would save tens of millions of lives around the world.
Roughly 74 million lives could be saved this century if the emission of heat-trapping gases is cut to zero by 2050, compared with a far more lethal scenario in which society fails to limit global temperature rise to less than 4°C. That's according to Daniel Bressler, a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University's Earth Institute whose peer-reviewed journal article, "The Mortality Cost of Carbon," was just published in Nature Communications.
There is "a significant number of lives that can be saved if you pursue climate policies that are more aggressive than the business-as usual scenario," Bressler told The Guardian. "I was surprised at how large the number of deaths [is]. There is some uncertainty over this, the number could be lower but it could also be a lot higher."
Bressler acknowledged that his projections of excess deaths from carbon emissions "may well be 'a vast underestimate' as they only account for heat-related mortality rather than deaths from flooding, storms, crop failures, and other impacts that flow from the climate crisis," the newspaper noted.
For instance, a study on fossil fuel-related air pollution—not extreme heat—published in February found that exposure to particulate matter from dirty energy emissions killed an estimated 8.7 million people in 2018 alone, accounting for 18% of total global deaths that year.
The new study released Thursday builds upon a concept called the "social cost of carbon," a measurement created by Nobel prize-winning economist William Nordhaus to estimate the economic and environmental damage associated with pumping one metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
"Nordhaus came up with a fantastic model, but he didn't take in the latest literature on climate change's damage upon mortality," said Bressler, who added that "there's been an explosion of research on that topic in recent years."
As NPR noted Thursday: "The connection between a hotter planet and human death and disease has become clearer, thanks to a series of research papers. A study published in 2021 found that about a third of heat-related deaths worldwide can be directly attributed to human-caused climate change. A 2020 Lancet report warned that climate change is the biggest global public health threat of the century."
Those findings, however, "have not been factored into one of the three major computer models that scientists, economists, and the federal government use to calculate" the social cost of carbon, NPR reported, meaning that "policymakers may be underestimating the cost of climate change to human life."
Bressler's research seeks to fill that gap, and "he hopes the findings will be helpful to a federal working group currently reassessing how the government calculates the costs and benefits of climate policies," the news outlet added.
According to Nordhaus' DICE model, the 2020 social cost of carbon is $37 a metric ton, but when Bressler accounts for the mortality cost, this figure climbs to $258 a ton.
Bressler pointed out that a more accurate assessment of the negative consequences of carbon is especially important now that Congress and state governments are contemplating major investments to upgrade the nation's infrastructure and slash U.S. emissions in half from 2005 levels by 2030.
After analyzing the temperature-related mortality impacts of carbon pollution, Bressler concludes that for every 4,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 2020, one person will die prematurely from a heat-related illness between 2020 and 2100. He notes that "4,434 metric tons is equivalent to the lifetime emissions of 3.5 average Americans, 146.2 Nigerians, and 12.8 average world people."
In a study last year on "carbon inequality," Oxfam and the Stockholm Environmental Institute found that the world's richest 1% emit more than twice as much carbon dioxide as the poorest 50% of humanity. While 63 million people were responsible for 15% of global emissions between 1990 and 2015, 3.1 billion were responsible for just 7%.
Vast global disparities in greenhouse gas emissions are undeniable and a reflection of massive levels of inequality between wealthy and impoverished countries. However, given the high levels of inequality within rich countries—and the presence of a small class of "super-emitters" as well as the U.S. military's enormous "carbon bootprint" —it would be misleading to suggest that every person in the Global North contributes equally to causing the climate crisis.
Bressler's data show that a coal-fired power plant is much deadlier than the emissions associated with an average American: "The mortality cost of carbon implies that removing (adding) a year's worth of carbon dioxide emissions from an average coal-fired power plant in the United States in 2020 saves 904 lives (causes 904 excess deaths) in expectation from 2020 to 2100."
Bressler told The Guardian that ordinary working people "shouldn't take their per-person mortality emissions too personally. Our emissions are very much a function of the technology and culture of the place that we live."
For that reason, progressives have long argued that policymakers should focus on implementing society-wide changes to reduce inequality and carbon pollution simultaneously, by creating millions of unionized jobs in the renewable energy sector and providing an abundance of low-carbon public goods rather than perpetuating high-carbon forms of individual consumption.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
UK
This multi-million dollar mining company’s carbon neutral claims don’t add up
Dalradian Gold Ltd has been working and drilling in the Sperrin mountains of County Tyrone since 2009 under prospecting licences. And in 2017, it applied for a licence to mine for gold in this area. It claims:
the project is currently moving through the planning process and as it’s 100% carbon neutral from day one, it will be the first of its kind in Europe
The Canadian gold company claims it has offset any environmental damage by planting 700 trees at schools across the north of Ireland and by supporting projects in Cambodia and Malawi. It also claims to treat the local water used in processing with great care.
However, people living in the Sperrin mountains who spoke to The Canary don’t believe Dalradian’s environmental claims. And James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland, believes Dalradian is engaging in “shameless greenwashing”.
Goldmining, by its very nature, is dirty. Global gold extraction can and has inflicted considerable damage on our planet and communities.
So as Dalradian wants to mine this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), its claims must come under scrutiny. We explore the above claims throughout this article.
The “carbon neutral” claim
Dalradian makes its “carbon neutral” claim in a 41-second promotional video. But it neglects to mention nearly ten years of work, the majority of which wasn’t “carbon neutral”. When we pressed Dalradian to clarify its “from day one” claim, it said:
Dalradian is not claiming to have been carbon neutral from 2009, but for 2019 and 2020
So that means “carbon neutral” doesn’t apply to its work up until 2019. This includes “more than 190,000 metres of drilling” and “2,000 metres of underground development with three areas of test mining”.
And if one claim in a 41 second video is unclear, what should we make of the rest of Dalradian’s claims? Furthermore, its 2019 Responsible Business Report says:
In 2019 we amended the planning application to remove cyanide from the process and reduce our use of fossil fuels. We listened and our project is better as a result.
But the initial inclusion of cyanide is bewildering. The dangers of cyanide in the extraction process are as well known as the polluting reputation of the extractive industry. So let’s continue to look.
The environmental claims
Dalradian says it offset “all carbon emissions by supporting a water purification programme in rural Cambodia“. This means “Dalradian is now recognised as a Carbon Neutral plus organisation”. We’ll explore that project later.
But more locally, it claims its impact on the Sperrins’ environment will be minimal. And it claims it takes a “modern approach” to waste disposal and treats “water with great care”. However, on 5 November 2019, local woman Fidelma O’Kane successfully took a judicial review against the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) for permission granted to Dalradian.
The agency allowed Dalradian to discharge nine heavy metals into the Owenkillew river. So without O’Kane’s actions, these heavy metals would have carried on being discharged into the river. It was left to the local community to take legal action to protect their water.
But where are these trees?
Additionally, Dalradian claims that it compensates for any environmental damage at the site:
Dalradian has partnered with Carbon Footprint and donated 700 trees to schools across Northern Ireland where the trees have been planted by pupils
On two separate occasions, The Canary asked Dalradian if and where these 700 trees had been planted. And on both occasions Dalradian simply confirmed they’d all been planted. It would not disclose any locations for where trees had been planted, nor did it name the schools. While the planting of trees is welcome, the value of these 700 trees doesn’t seem worth the cost. Especially as the Woodland Trust has already given away “hundreds of thousands of trees to schools and communities” across the UK.
Before the post-Brexit Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), the Woodland Trust in the north of Ireland had ordered 22k trees for schools and communities. And as this trust is deeply invested in woodlands across the north, that work will surely continue.
Additionally, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) already has a forestry funding scheme in place. The scheme “aims to plant 18 million trees or 9,000 hectares of new woodland over the next 10 years”.
The Canary asked if Dalradian worked with private enterprises on these schemes. It responded:
All forestry grant scheme funding is administered by DAERA. Schemes are part funded from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development through the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme 2014 -2020 and from National funds.
Furthermore, the Education Authority Northern Ireland (EANI) told The Canary it’s:
a key partner in the Belfast City Council ‘One Million Trees’ programme which targets planting one million trees in the Belfast region by 2035. Currently we have 4 sites programmed within the first phase. There are no other tree planting programmes at present within the Education Authority.
The EANI said that while “on occasion schools have individually worked with private enterprises to plant trees”:
Individual requests by schools for tree planting are referred to the Education Authority Facilities Management and Asset Management Sections. The location for planting the trees must be checked for future development proposals and to ensure there are no underground services in the area.
Orr told The Canary:
So [Dalradian] can’t hide behind this myth of planting a few trees here and there… That is not a practice that we could ever support and would ever support. It’s tokenistic, it’s misleading and… environmentalists will never fall for their dirty tricks.
Moreover, according to Greenpeace:
A newly-planted tree can take as many as 20 years to capture the amount of CO2 that a carbon-offset scheme promises.
Misinformation about the trees?
So with all of this considered, 700 trees would be a tiny drop in a very large ocean. And that’s assuming they exist at all. The Canary asked the EANI if any school in the north had ever submitted a request for tree planting where Dalradian provided the trees or engaged in any tree-planting programme. The EANI said it “is unaware of any such request” and it “is unaware of any such tree planting programme”.
But most worryingly, The Canary learned that the name of a County Tyrone primary school was added to the Carbon Footprint website indicating it had received trees from Dalradian. However, the school contacted Dalradian to say it hadn’t received any trees and that its name should be removed from the site. The school’s name was subsequently removed.
The Canary (again) contacted Dalradian about the whereabouts of these trees and asked for comment on this school. A spokesperson said:
It is our understanding that the trees planted at [name of primary school deleted] were planted as part of a separate project unrelated to Dalradian.
We also asked Carbon Footprint about the whereabouts of the 700 trees, and a spokesperson said:
I can confirm that all the trees have been planted in Northern Ireland. Our process for carbon offsetting is independently audited by the Quality Assurance Standard (QAS).
But the actual location of the trees remains a mystery.
The water purification project in Cambodia
Moreover, Dalradian says it supports a water purification programme in rural Cambodia. When The Canary asked Dalradian what it means by support of this precise project in Cambodia, it said:
Dalradian financially contribute, as is the norm with off-setting projects.
Hydrologic, “a commercial arm of the international not-for-profit IDE“, produces a device that purifies water. It then sells this device to local people, because, according to Canadian Michael Roberts, director of IDE and Hydrologic:
you can’t donate people out of poverty. … and many NGOs and businesses as well are looking at households at, what’s called the base of the pyramid, as a real viable market.
Is Dalradian’s picture a bit too rosy?
The very presence of a mine means the release of carbon and greenhouse gases (GHGs). And even if offset in the way Dalradian describes, it’s still carbon and GHGs that would not have been released had Dalradian not decided to prospect there.
When The Canary put this to Dalradian, it responded:
Climate change and climate actions are both global issues and are being addressed by governments, companies and many other organisations and groups, as well as individuals, making their own choices and changes.
Dalradian has actively sought to reduce its GHG emissions in Tyrone through a Carbon Management Plan. We have taken delivery of our first electric vehicle (replacing a diesel vehicle), upgraded our office heating and lighting system to reduce heating oil / electricity use and switched to 100% renewable electricity supply. Following feedback during the planning process Dalradian also made a number of enhancements to the project which will reduce GHG emissions by 25% through choices such as using alternative power from renewable sources.
Dalradian also recommended contacting Carbon Footprint for further comment. We did this and a spokesperson said:
Dalradian has compensated its carbon emissions supporting projects in Cambodia and Malawi and by local tree planting in N Ireland. These projects are overseen by Carbon Footprint and are audited and certified to internationally accredited standards by the Quality Assurance Standard (QAS). Dalradian has also undertaken a carbon management plan to proactively reduce its carbon emissions in County Tyrone.
Carbon offsetting relates to greenhouse gas emissions (measured in tonnes CO2, equivalent) only. The effect of removal or avoidance of CO2 is the same across the planet – i.e. 1 tonne removed in Malawi is the same as 1 tonne removed in Omagh in terms of global warming and global efforts to reach net zero carbon by 2050.
Opposition will continue
As extensively reported by The Canary, Dalradian’s relationship with many in the Sperrins community is poor. Of the roughly 42,000 public submissions in response to Dalradian’s 2017 goldmining application, at the time of writing over 37,600 of these are objections.
Additionally, Orr described Dalradian’s “carbon neutral” claims as “absolute rubbish”. And he said:
extractive industries are some of the most damaging industries in the world, if not the most damaging industries environmentally, socially, economically. But particularly environmentally. The impacts on water quality, landscapes, biodiversity are all negative.
He believes Dalradian is a “predatory company who will ravage the Sperrins and leave a wasteland behind”. A view similar to that of the local people who spoke to The Canary.
The global extractive industry has played a major role in damaging our environment. So skepticism is an absolute necessity regarding all mining projects. This article puts Dalradian’s claims under the spotlight. Claims we must continuously scrutinise as long as it or any other company wishes to mine this or any other area of natural beauty.
Featured image via Pexels – Felix Mittermeier & Pixabay – DariuszSankowski & Pixabay – PublicDomainPictures
This multi-million dollar mining company’s carbon neutral claims don’t add up
Dalradian Gold Ltd has been working and drilling in the Sperrin mountains of County Tyrone since 2009 under prospecting licences. And in 2017, it applied for a licence to mine for gold in this area. It claims:
the project is currently moving through the planning process and as it’s 100% carbon neutral from day one, it will be the first of its kind in Europe
The Canadian gold company claims it has offset any environmental damage by planting 700 trees at schools across the north of Ireland and by supporting projects in Cambodia and Malawi. It also claims to treat the local water used in processing with great care.
However, people living in the Sperrin mountains who spoke to The Canary don’t believe Dalradian’s environmental claims. And James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland, believes Dalradian is engaging in “shameless greenwashing”.
Goldmining, by its very nature, is dirty. Global gold extraction can and has inflicted considerable damage on our planet and communities.
So as Dalradian wants to mine this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), its claims must come under scrutiny. We explore the above claims throughout this article.
The “carbon neutral” claim
Dalradian makes its “carbon neutral” claim in a 41-second promotional video. But it neglects to mention nearly ten years of work, the majority of which wasn’t “carbon neutral”. When we pressed Dalradian to clarify its “from day one” claim, it said:
Dalradian is not claiming to have been carbon neutral from 2009, but for 2019 and 2020
So that means “carbon neutral” doesn’t apply to its work up until 2019. This includes “more than 190,000 metres of drilling” and “2,000 metres of underground development with three areas of test mining”.
And if one claim in a 41 second video is unclear, what should we make of the rest of Dalradian’s claims? Furthermore, its 2019 Responsible Business Report says:
In 2019 we amended the planning application to remove cyanide from the process and reduce our use of fossil fuels. We listened and our project is better as a result.
But the initial inclusion of cyanide is bewildering. The dangers of cyanide in the extraction process are as well known as the polluting reputation of the extractive industry. So let’s continue to look.
The environmental claims
Dalradian says it offset “all carbon emissions by supporting a water purification programme in rural Cambodia“. This means “Dalradian is now recognised as a Carbon Neutral plus organisation”. We’ll explore that project later.
But more locally, it claims its impact on the Sperrins’ environment will be minimal. And it claims it takes a “modern approach” to waste disposal and treats “water with great care”. However, on 5 November 2019, local woman Fidelma O’Kane successfully took a judicial review against the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) for permission granted to Dalradian.
The agency allowed Dalradian to discharge nine heavy metals into the Owenkillew river. So without O’Kane’s actions, these heavy metals would have carried on being discharged into the river. It was left to the local community to take legal action to protect their water.
But where are these trees?
Additionally, Dalradian claims that it compensates for any environmental damage at the site:
Dalradian has partnered with Carbon Footprint and donated 700 trees to schools across Northern Ireland where the trees have been planted by pupils
On two separate occasions, The Canary asked Dalradian if and where these 700 trees had been planted. And on both occasions Dalradian simply confirmed they’d all been planted. It would not disclose any locations for where trees had been planted, nor did it name the schools. While the planting of trees is welcome, the value of these 700 trees doesn’t seem worth the cost. Especially as the Woodland Trust has already given away “hundreds of thousands of trees to schools and communities” across the UK.
Before the post-Brexit Northern Ireland Protocol (NIP), the Woodland Trust in the north of Ireland had ordered 22k trees for schools and communities. And as this trust is deeply invested in woodlands across the north, that work will surely continue.
Additionally, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) already has a forestry funding scheme in place. The scheme “aims to plant 18 million trees or 9,000 hectares of new woodland over the next 10 years”.
The Canary asked if Dalradian worked with private enterprises on these schemes. It responded:
All forestry grant scheme funding is administered by DAERA. Schemes are part funded from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development through the Northern Ireland Rural Development Programme 2014 -2020 and from National funds.
Furthermore, the Education Authority Northern Ireland (EANI) told The Canary it’s:
a key partner in the Belfast City Council ‘One Million Trees’ programme which targets planting one million trees in the Belfast region by 2035. Currently we have 4 sites programmed within the first phase. There are no other tree planting programmes at present within the Education Authority.
The EANI said that while “on occasion schools have individually worked with private enterprises to plant trees”:
Individual requests by schools for tree planting are referred to the Education Authority Facilities Management and Asset Management Sections. The location for planting the trees must be checked for future development proposals and to ensure there are no underground services in the area.
Orr told The Canary:
So [Dalradian] can’t hide behind this myth of planting a few trees here and there… That is not a practice that we could ever support and would ever support. It’s tokenistic, it’s misleading and… environmentalists will never fall for their dirty tricks.
Moreover, according to Greenpeace:
A newly-planted tree can take as many as 20 years to capture the amount of CO2 that a carbon-offset scheme promises.
Misinformation about the trees?
So with all of this considered, 700 trees would be a tiny drop in a very large ocean. And that’s assuming they exist at all. The Canary asked the EANI if any school in the north had ever submitted a request for tree planting where Dalradian provided the trees or engaged in any tree-planting programme. The EANI said it “is unaware of any such request” and it “is unaware of any such tree planting programme”.
But most worryingly, The Canary learned that the name of a County Tyrone primary school was added to the Carbon Footprint website indicating it had received trees from Dalradian. However, the school contacted Dalradian to say it hadn’t received any trees and that its name should be removed from the site. The school’s name was subsequently removed.
The Canary (again) contacted Dalradian about the whereabouts of these trees and asked for comment on this school. A spokesperson said:
It is our understanding that the trees planted at [name of primary school deleted] were planted as part of a separate project unrelated to Dalradian.
We also asked Carbon Footprint about the whereabouts of the 700 trees, and a spokesperson said:
I can confirm that all the trees have been planted in Northern Ireland. Our process for carbon offsetting is independently audited by the Quality Assurance Standard (QAS).
But the actual location of the trees remains a mystery.
The water purification project in Cambodia
Moreover, Dalradian says it supports a water purification programme in rural Cambodia. When The Canary asked Dalradian what it means by support of this precise project in Cambodia, it said:
Dalradian financially contribute, as is the norm with off-setting projects.
Hydrologic, “a commercial arm of the international not-for-profit IDE“, produces a device that purifies water. It then sells this device to local people, because, according to Canadian Michael Roberts, director of IDE and Hydrologic:
you can’t donate people out of poverty. … and many NGOs and businesses as well are looking at households at, what’s called the base of the pyramid, as a real viable market.
Is Dalradian’s picture a bit too rosy?
The very presence of a mine means the release of carbon and greenhouse gases (GHGs). And even if offset in the way Dalradian describes, it’s still carbon and GHGs that would not have been released had Dalradian not decided to prospect there.
When The Canary put this to Dalradian, it responded:
Climate change and climate actions are both global issues and are being addressed by governments, companies and many other organisations and groups, as well as individuals, making their own choices and changes.
Dalradian has actively sought to reduce its GHG emissions in Tyrone through a Carbon Management Plan. We have taken delivery of our first electric vehicle (replacing a diesel vehicle), upgraded our office heating and lighting system to reduce heating oil / electricity use and switched to 100% renewable electricity supply. Following feedback during the planning process Dalradian also made a number of enhancements to the project which will reduce GHG emissions by 25% through choices such as using alternative power from renewable sources.
Dalradian also recommended contacting Carbon Footprint for further comment. We did this and a spokesperson said:
Dalradian has compensated its carbon emissions supporting projects in Cambodia and Malawi and by local tree planting in N Ireland. These projects are overseen by Carbon Footprint and are audited and certified to internationally accredited standards by the Quality Assurance Standard (QAS). Dalradian has also undertaken a carbon management plan to proactively reduce its carbon emissions in County Tyrone.
Carbon offsetting relates to greenhouse gas emissions (measured in tonnes CO2, equivalent) only. The effect of removal or avoidance of CO2 is the same across the planet – i.e. 1 tonne removed in Malawi is the same as 1 tonne removed in Omagh in terms of global warming and global efforts to reach net zero carbon by 2050.
Opposition will continue
As extensively reported by The Canary, Dalradian’s relationship with many in the Sperrins community is poor. Of the roughly 42,000 public submissions in response to Dalradian’s 2017 goldmining application, at the time of writing over 37,600 of these are objections.
Additionally, Orr described Dalradian’s “carbon neutral” claims as “absolute rubbish”. And he said:
extractive industries are some of the most damaging industries in the world, if not the most damaging industries environmentally, socially, economically. But particularly environmentally. The impacts on water quality, landscapes, biodiversity are all negative.
He believes Dalradian is a “predatory company who will ravage the Sperrins and leave a wasteland behind”. A view similar to that of the local people who spoke to The Canary.
The global extractive industry has played a major role in damaging our environment. So skepticism is an absolute necessity regarding all mining projects. This article puts Dalradian’s claims under the spotlight. Claims we must continuously scrutinise as long as it or any other company wishes to mine this or any other area of natural beauty.
Featured image via Pexels – Felix Mittermeier & Pixabay – DariuszSankowski & Pixabay – PublicDomainPictures
UK
Priti Patel wants jail sentences for people exposing government wrongdoing
https://www.thecanary.co/
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has condemned legislation proposed by home secretary Priti Patel. Her plan could see journalists, whistleblowers, and political activists jailed for several years. Should Patel have her way, it would affect every media outlet in the UK, seriously curbing press freedom.
However, her proposal may prove technically unworkable.
The proposal
Patel’s proposal, Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity), is partly in response to the Law Commission document Protection of Official Data.
BBC journalist John Simpson tweeted that the proposed legislation would basically criminalise journalists
Priti Patel’s Home Office wants to make it a crime for journalists to embarrass the govt by publishing leaked official documents. The maximum penalty would be 14 years in prison. This would put British journalists on a par with foreign spies.
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) July 21, 2021
An NUJ statement on Patel’s plan agrees:
Existing legislation distinguishes provisions and penalties between those who leak or whistleblow, those who receive leaked information, and foreign spies. The government proposes to eliminate or blur these distinctions.
WikiLeaks factor
In 2017, the Open Rights Group (ORG) argued that the catalyst behind this proposed legislation was WikiLeaks‘ publication of leaked documents, as well the uploading of NSA leaked documents by Edward Snowden.
More broadly, in an article in the Guardian it’s claimed the proposed legislation would:
have the effect of deterring sources, editors and reporters, making them potentially subject to uncontrolled official bans not approved by a court, and punished much more severely if they do not comply. …
the new laws would, if passed, ensnare journalists and sources whose job is reporting “unauthorised disclosures” that are in the public interest.
Early warnings
In a 2017 article in the Register, Duncan Campbell pointed out that if the proposal becomes law:
Sentences would apply even if – like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning – the leaker was not British, or in Britain, or was intent on acting in the public interest.
In July 2020, The Canary also warned of the proposal, quoting a News Media Association comment on how the proposed legislation would:
extend and then entrench official secrecy. It would be conducive to official cover up. It would deter, prevent and punish investigation and disclosure of wrongdoing and matters of legitimate public interest… [and have a] chilling effect on investigative journalism… [It would also] make it easier for the Government to prosecute anyone involved in obtaining, gathering and disclosing information, even if no damage were caused, and irrespective of the public interest… The regime could lead to increased use of state surveillance powers against the media under the guise of suspected media involvement in offences, posing a threat to confidential sources and whistle-blowers.
Campbell poignantly adds that:
If the proposed law had been in force in 2013, the Cabinet Office could have thrown [Guardian editor Alan] Rusbridger in prison simply for handling copies of documents Edward Snowden passed to his reporters.
“Onward disclosure”
Writing for Declassified UK, investigative journalist Richard Norton-Taylor states how Patel’s proposals make it clear that:
the government wants to claim a journalist responsible for an “onward disclosure” — a publication in a newspaper or website, for example — would be as liable and on a par in criminal law with a primary source, such as a whistleblower in a government agency.
By “onward disclosure” Patel simply means publishing.
Worryingly, Norton-Taylor adds:
Leakers and journalists could be charged with disclosing information that was merely “capable” of being damaging. They could be sent to jail on a hypothesis.
The Home Office makes clear it wants to prevent sensitive information from being disclosed in court. One way of doing this would be to lower the burden of proof prosecutors would need to secure a conviction. A jury would not need to know evidence of how damaging a disclosure of information was. Mere claims by government lawyers would be enough to convict.
Implications
Patel’s proposed legislation is the sort that’s more associated with authoritarian regimes. And it’s a sign of just how fearful the Tory government is of being exposed for wrongdoing. It would mean no more leaks published in UK media. And not just in the mainstream press, but also by independent media such as The Canary. UK secure drop facilities, which provide anonymity to whistleblowers, would become redundant.
As previously commented by The Canary, the proposed legislation would basically see:
the end of press freedom in the UK. The government can hide whatever it likes, transparency will be meaningless and whistleblowing likely to become a thing of the past. And anyone who flouts the law and gets caught could face years in prison, just as the WikiLeaks founder is currently facing the prospect of decades‘ imprisonment in the US for publishing leaks, such as war crimes.
Unworkable
However, Patel’s proposal also reveals a degree of ignorance of how publishing works globally. For example, ORG commented how:
The proposals to expand the offences to non British nationals acting outside the UK, as long as there is a “sufficient link” are difficult to establish and even harder to enforce.
So let’s take a scenario.
A UK citizen leaks documents that appear to prove the British government has committed wrongdoings. The whistleblower uploads the documents anonymously to a secure drop facility held by a media outlet in a country other than the UK. The documents are subsequently published by that outlet on its website. The outlet also shares links to the documents via its Twitter account and its followers retweet the tweet. Thus, the cat is well and truly out of the bag, and there’s nothing the UK government can do about it.
Of course, this method is not perfect as not everyone is on social media and able to see the documents. But it would still make these documents far more accessible.
Meanwhile, there are guides available on how journalists can protect themselves from such draconian legislation as that proposed by Patel. Here is one, commissioned by the Centre for Investigative Journalism.
Featured image via YouTube
Priti Patel wants jail sentences for people exposing government wrongdoing
https://www.thecanary.co/
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has condemned legislation proposed by home secretary Priti Patel. Her plan could see journalists, whistleblowers, and political activists jailed for several years. Should Patel have her way, it would affect every media outlet in the UK, seriously curbing press freedom.
However, her proposal may prove technically unworkable.
The proposal
Patel’s proposal, Legislation to Counter State Threats (Hostile State Activity), is partly in response to the Law Commission document Protection of Official Data.
BBC journalist John Simpson tweeted that the proposed legislation would basically criminalise journalists
Priti Patel’s Home Office wants to make it a crime for journalists to embarrass the govt by publishing leaked official documents. The maximum penalty would be 14 years in prison. This would put British journalists on a par with foreign spies.
— John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) July 21, 2021
An NUJ statement on Patel’s plan agrees:
Existing legislation distinguishes provisions and penalties between those who leak or whistleblow, those who receive leaked information, and foreign spies. The government proposes to eliminate or blur these distinctions.
WikiLeaks factor
In 2017, the Open Rights Group (ORG) argued that the catalyst behind this proposed legislation was WikiLeaks‘ publication of leaked documents, as well the uploading of NSA leaked documents by Edward Snowden.
More broadly, in an article in the Guardian it’s claimed the proposed legislation would:
have the effect of deterring sources, editors and reporters, making them potentially subject to uncontrolled official bans not approved by a court, and punished much more severely if they do not comply. …
the new laws would, if passed, ensnare journalists and sources whose job is reporting “unauthorised disclosures” that are in the public interest.
Early warnings
In a 2017 article in the Register, Duncan Campbell pointed out that if the proposal becomes law:
Sentences would apply even if – like Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning – the leaker was not British, or in Britain, or was intent on acting in the public interest.
In July 2020, The Canary also warned of the proposal, quoting a News Media Association comment on how the proposed legislation would:
extend and then entrench official secrecy. It would be conducive to official cover up. It would deter, prevent and punish investigation and disclosure of wrongdoing and matters of legitimate public interest… [and have a] chilling effect on investigative journalism… [It would also] make it easier for the Government to prosecute anyone involved in obtaining, gathering and disclosing information, even if no damage were caused, and irrespective of the public interest… The regime could lead to increased use of state surveillance powers against the media under the guise of suspected media involvement in offences, posing a threat to confidential sources and whistle-blowers.
Campbell poignantly adds that:
If the proposed law had been in force in 2013, the Cabinet Office could have thrown [Guardian editor Alan] Rusbridger in prison simply for handling copies of documents Edward Snowden passed to his reporters.
“Onward disclosure”
Writing for Declassified UK, investigative journalist Richard Norton-Taylor states how Patel’s proposals make it clear that:
the government wants to claim a journalist responsible for an “onward disclosure” — a publication in a newspaper or website, for example — would be as liable and on a par in criminal law with a primary source, such as a whistleblower in a government agency.
By “onward disclosure” Patel simply means publishing.
Worryingly, Norton-Taylor adds:
Leakers and journalists could be charged with disclosing information that was merely “capable” of being damaging. They could be sent to jail on a hypothesis.
The Home Office makes clear it wants to prevent sensitive information from being disclosed in court. One way of doing this would be to lower the burden of proof prosecutors would need to secure a conviction. A jury would not need to know evidence of how damaging a disclosure of information was. Mere claims by government lawyers would be enough to convict.
Implications
Patel’s proposed legislation is the sort that’s more associated with authoritarian regimes. And it’s a sign of just how fearful the Tory government is of being exposed for wrongdoing. It would mean no more leaks published in UK media. And not just in the mainstream press, but also by independent media such as The Canary. UK secure drop facilities, which provide anonymity to whistleblowers, would become redundant.
As previously commented by The Canary, the proposed legislation would basically see:
the end of press freedom in the UK. The government can hide whatever it likes, transparency will be meaningless and whistleblowing likely to become a thing of the past. And anyone who flouts the law and gets caught could face years in prison, just as the WikiLeaks founder is currently facing the prospect of decades‘ imprisonment in the US for publishing leaks, such as war crimes.
Unworkable
However, Patel’s proposal also reveals a degree of ignorance of how publishing works globally. For example, ORG commented how:
The proposals to expand the offences to non British nationals acting outside the UK, as long as there is a “sufficient link” are difficult to establish and even harder to enforce.
So let’s take a scenario.
A UK citizen leaks documents that appear to prove the British government has committed wrongdoings. The whistleblower uploads the documents anonymously to a secure drop facility held by a media outlet in a country other than the UK. The documents are subsequently published by that outlet on its website. The outlet also shares links to the documents via its Twitter account and its followers retweet the tweet. Thus, the cat is well and truly out of the bag, and there’s nothing the UK government can do about it.
Of course, this method is not perfect as not everyone is on social media and able to see the documents. But it would still make these documents far more accessible.
Meanwhile, there are guides available on how journalists can protect themselves from such draconian legislation as that proposed by Patel. Here is one, commissioned by the Centre for Investigative Journalism.
Featured image via YouTube
While Team GB celebrates its medal haul, Japanese police assault protester
https://www.thecanary.co/
The Olympics are currently underway in Japan, and politicians and the mainstream media are busy celebrating Team GB’s gold medals.
However, there is precious little coverage of the protests being held against the Tokyo Olympics.
Japan’s anti-Olympics movement has been called ‘anti-Japan’ by some on the right, and has been criticised by Japan’s right-wing ex-prime minister Shinzo Abe. But why are people really opposing the Olympics?
Social cleansing
As usual, the Olympic roadshow has led to gentrification and social cleansing. Homeless people have been evicted from the area around the Olympic stadium. Japanese campaigners tweeted:
Making people homeless because of a ‘shortage’ of hotels
Wherever the Olympics go, gentrification goes too. Last year, hundreds protested in Tokyo’s Shinjuku district over evictions from state supported housing to make way for infrastructure for the games (the 2020 games were eventually postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic).
In the US – due to host the games in 2028 – people are already struggling against evictions in Los Angeles, which are being planned to make up for a supposed ‘hotel shortage’ ahead of the LA Olympics.
“pure class hostility”
One US opponent of the LA Olympics visited Tokyo last year and wrote about the effects of the construction ahead of the Olympics in Tokyo:
we see a familiar site: a hostile [planner], being used to discourage houseless people from sleeping here.
They concluded that the gentrification caused by the Olympics was “pure class hostility”:
This is pure class hostility and a tactic we’ve seen deployed throughout Los Angeles, from Koreatown to Venice.
Police violence
Anti-Olympics protests have been met with police violence. One female protester was wrestled to the ground. One commentator tweeted:
The games are like a microcosm of global capitalism – where people are evicted to make way for expensive hotels for those attending the games, and dissent is not tolerated. Anti-Olympics protesters have reportedly been prevented from marching on a public road:
Repression of dissent is present both outside and inside the Olympic stadium. The International Olympics Committee has only just relaxed a rule placing a ban on protests by Olympic athletes. However, political gestures from the podium – like the famous Black power salutes at the Mexico Olympics in 1968 – are still banned.
“They evicted homeless people and poor people”
The Canary spoke to one woman who has been participating in the protests in Yokohama to ask why she was demonstrating. She explained:
There are many reasons but for me the first reason is gentrification. They evicted homeless people and poor people.
But the majority of [Olympic] protesters in Japan, they are worried about Covid. I’m also worried about that too.
‘Save lives, not the Olympics’
Many people are worried that the games will lead to a spike in coronavirus (Covid-19) cases. Fears appear to be coming true, as cases in Tokyo have risen by 149% during the first week of the games. Anti-Olympic campaigners tweeted:
Speaking about the increase in cases, public health expert professor Kenji Shibuya said that while the rise in cases wasn’t just down to the Olympics, it “definitely it is one of the factors.” Shibuya further stated:
With that figure today, people will see the reality again and I think people should be getting more serious about what to do.
Alternatives
So, is there an alternative to the inequality and oppression caused by the Olympic Games? Campaign group No Olympics LA discusses resistance to the games and the history of radical alternatives:
Resistance to the Olympics is almost as old as the Games themselves, and the Left features prominently in this history. The Olympics have been exploiting bodies and communities for over a hundred years, and opposition to the Olympics, taking various forms, has been a near constant.
A lot can be learnt from the radical alternative Olympics organised in the first half of the twentieth century. According to No Olympics LA:
Leftist alternatives to the Olympics proliferated in the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1910s the Worker Sports Movement was launched by the Socialist Workers’ Sport International in Lausanne, also headquarters of the IOC itself. The first Workers Sports Olympiad was held in 1925 in Frankfurt; the second was in Vienna in 1931. This alternative vision treated sport as actual amateurism, instead of the profit, cut-throat competition, and nationalism that define the Olympics. Communists in Chicago and Barcelona launched their own alternatives as well. But like the Olympics themselves, progress of the alternative vision was interrupted by the World Wars
The rise of these alternatives to the games also occurred in the context of the era of state socialism, which proved to be just as dominating and oppressive as capitalist states could be. Many of the alternative workers’ sporting movements struggled with the Soviet Union’s Sport International – or SportIntern – which tried to dominate workers’ movements for an alternative to the Olympics.
Wherever the Olympic games go, they bring with them damaging corporate takeovers of cities which benefit the rich while displacing the poor. Public dissent against the games is stamped out by police violence. If we are going to successfully resist the Olympic roadshow, we need to work transnationally – both to resist the oppression caused by the games and to create truly grassroots alternatives.
An 80-second video of the North American heatwave is a horrifying glimpse of our near future
Record-shattering heatwaves have hit the northern hemisphere over recent weeks. Now, a newly-released video has brought the impact of that baking heat into sharp and distressing focus. It paints a horrifying picture of the world’s near future.
Unliveable temperatures
The clip shows salmon swimming in a river in Washington State covered in lesions and fungus. The non-profit organisation Columbia Riverkeeper, which released the footage, says the salmon were ‘dying from the hot water’ and that their injuries are a result of heat-stress.
The organisation’s executive director, Brett VandenHeuvel, said that the salmon had been swimming upstream in the Columbia River when they veered off to the Little White Salmon River, where the footage was recorded on 16 July. VandenHeuvel described the fishes’ change of course as an attempt to “escape a burning building”.
On 27 July, the group said that the river temperature is currently over 21C (71F). That temperature is above the legal limit of 20C (68F) for the river set in the Clean Water Act, a threshold that scientists have put in place to “protect salmon from unsafe temperatures”.
A marine biologist from the University of British Columbia, Christopher Harley, has also warned that the heatwave could have killed over one billion marine animals on the Pacific coast in Canada.
“They’re suffocating”
Columbia Riverkeeper asserted that the climate crisis is partly responsible for the salmons’ horrific predicament. But it also said river dams that “create unnaturally hot water due to huge stagnant reservoirs” are to blame.
Record-shattering heatwaves have hit the northern hemisphere over recent weeks. Now, a newly-released video has brought the impact of that baking heat into sharp and distressing focus. It paints a horrifying picture of the world’s near future.
Unliveable temperatures
The clip shows salmon swimming in a river in Washington State covered in lesions and fungus. The non-profit organisation Columbia Riverkeeper, which released the footage, says the salmon were ‘dying from the hot water’ and that their injuries are a result of heat-stress.
The organisation’s executive director, Brett VandenHeuvel, said that the salmon had been swimming upstream in the Columbia River when they veered off to the Little White Salmon River, where the footage was recorded on 16 July. VandenHeuvel described the fishes’ change of course as an attempt to “escape a burning building”.
On 27 July, the group said that the river temperature is currently over 21C (71F). That temperature is above the legal limit of 20C (68F) for the river set in the Clean Water Act, a threshold that scientists have put in place to “protect salmon from unsafe temperatures”.
A marine biologist from the University of British Columbia, Christopher Harley, has also warned that the heatwave could have killed over one billion marine animals on the Pacific coast in Canada.
“They’re suffocating”
Columbia Riverkeeper asserted that the climate crisis is partly responsible for the salmons’ horrific predicament. But it also said river dams that “create unnaturally hot water due to huge stagnant reservoirs” are to blame.
Ultra-intrusive spyware targeting journalists and activists has UK links
Produced by Israeli company NSO, the ultra-intrusive Pegasus spyware targets journalists, dissidents, and human rights advocates. There’s now evidence that UK servers are implicated in the transmission of the spyware.
Spyware condemned by Snowden
The Pegasus Project is investigating the spyware. The project began when more than 50,000 phone numbers “believed to be… targets of NSO Group’s phone hacking software” were leaked to Amnesty International.
The project includes 80 journalists from “Forbidden Stories, The Washington Post, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit, the Guardian, Daraj, Direkt36, Le Soir, Knack, Radio France, the Wire, Proceso, Aristegui Noticias, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Haaretz and PBS Frontline”.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warns that the spyware could target millions:
If you don’t do anything to stop the sale of this technology, it’s not just going to be 50,000 targets. It’s going to be 50 million targets, and it’s going to happen much more quickly than any of us expect.
Targets
The Pegasus Project found that:
of over 1,000 numbers whose owners were identified, at least 188 were journalists. Many others were human rights activists, diplomats, politicians, and government officials. At least 10 heads of state were on the list.
Indeed, the Washington Post reports that:
Among the journalists whose numbers appear on the list, which dates to 2016, are reporters working overseas for several leading news organizations, including a small number from CNN, the Associated Press, Voice of America, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Le Monde in France, the Financial Times in London and Al Jazeera in Qatar
How Pegasus infects phones
The spyware is implanted into a phone via a malicious clickable link. Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) explains how:
Once implanted on a user’s phone, the system can collect a stunning range of information, including photos, emails, contacts, and data transmitted over other apps, like Facebook and WhatsApp. It can even record live audio and video.
Former US intelligence cyber engineer Timothy Summers further explains that once it’s been implanted into a device Pegasus:
hooks into most messaging systems including Gmail, Facebook, WhatsApp, FaceTime, Viber, WeChat, Telegram, Apple’s built-in messaging and email apps, and others. With a line-up like this, one could spy on almost the entire world population.
Other means of intrusion
As well as gaining access to all the data on a target’s phone, Pegasus also:
monitors the keystrokes on an infected device – all written communications and web searches, even passwords – and returns them to the client, while also providing access [to] the phone’s microphone and camera, turning it into a mobile spying device that the target unwittingly carries with them.
Further, for Pegasus to grab data it requires “only an unanswered phone call or a message to embed itself onto a device”.
OCCRP explains that Pegasus takes advantage of these ‘zero-click exploits’ (or zero-click attacks), which:
rely on bugs in popular apps like iMessage, WhatsApp, and FaceTime, which all receive and sort data, sometimes from unknown sources.
Once a vulnerability is found, Pegasus can infiltrate a device using the protocol of the app. The user does not have to click on a link, read a message, or answer a call — they may not even see a missed call or message.
Claudio Guarnieri, from Amnesty International’s Security Lab, said “These zero-click exploits constitute the majority of cases we’ve seen since 2019”.
UK implicated
Meanwhile, Amnesty International published its peer reviewed forensic report on Pegasus on 18 July 2021. It states that:
Pegasus infrastructure primarily consists of servers hosted at datacentres located in European countries. The countries hosting the most infection domain DNS servers included Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, and the United States (US). [Emphasis added]
Amnesty adds that there are 79 servers in the UK that are involved in the transmission of the spyware. According to a Citizen Lab investigation, ‘Operation Blackbird’ is responsible for targets in a number of countries, including the UK, with Middle East connections. It also identified British Telecom as being part of the ‘Operation Kingdom’ infection, which also targets the Middle East..
Another UK link
Around two-thirds of the shares of NSO’s holding company are owned by Novalpina Capital, based in the UK and Luxembourg. According to journalist Ian Cobain, NSO has retained Cherie Blair to “act as an external advisor on ethics”.
Altogether, Citizen Lab found:
suspected NSO Pegasus infections… we identified in 45 countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, the UAE, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zambia.
Toolkit
A toolkit is now available to “technologists and investigators” to detect if a device has been compromised. The Verge has produced a guide on how to use it. Also, CNET has published a number of suggestions for improving security on smartphones, as well as improvements for browser settings.
Meanwhile, an NSO spokesperson told the Verge that the allegations made in the Amnesty report were “outrageous and far from reality”. It published a more detailed rebuttal here.
Featured image via Unsplash/ Justin Main
Produced by Israeli company NSO, the ultra-intrusive Pegasus spyware targets journalists, dissidents, and human rights advocates. There’s now evidence that UK servers are implicated in the transmission of the spyware.
Spyware condemned by Snowden
The Pegasus Project is investigating the spyware. The project began when more than 50,000 phone numbers “believed to be… targets of NSO Group’s phone hacking software” were leaked to Amnesty International.
The project includes 80 journalists from “Forbidden Stories, The Washington Post, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Zeit, the Guardian, Daraj, Direkt36, Le Soir, Knack, Radio France, the Wire, Proceso, Aristegui Noticias, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Haaretz and PBS Frontline”.
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warns that the spyware could target millions:
If you don’t do anything to stop the sale of this technology, it’s not just going to be 50,000 targets. It’s going to be 50 million targets, and it’s going to happen much more quickly than any of us expect.
Targets
The Pegasus Project found that:
of over 1,000 numbers whose owners were identified, at least 188 were journalists. Many others were human rights activists, diplomats, politicians, and government officials. At least 10 heads of state were on the list.
Indeed, the Washington Post reports that:
Among the journalists whose numbers appear on the list, which dates to 2016, are reporters working overseas for several leading news organizations, including a small number from CNN, the Associated Press, Voice of America, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Le Monde in France, the Financial Times in London and Al Jazeera in Qatar
How Pegasus infects phones
The spyware is implanted into a phone via a malicious clickable link. Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) explains how:
Once implanted on a user’s phone, the system can collect a stunning range of information, including photos, emails, contacts, and data transmitted over other apps, like Facebook and WhatsApp. It can even record live audio and video.
Former US intelligence cyber engineer Timothy Summers further explains that once it’s been implanted into a device Pegasus:
hooks into most messaging systems including Gmail, Facebook, WhatsApp, FaceTime, Viber, WeChat, Telegram, Apple’s built-in messaging and email apps, and others. With a line-up like this, one could spy on almost the entire world population.
Other means of intrusion
As well as gaining access to all the data on a target’s phone, Pegasus also:
monitors the keystrokes on an infected device – all written communications and web searches, even passwords – and returns them to the client, while also providing access [to] the phone’s microphone and camera, turning it into a mobile spying device that the target unwittingly carries with them.
Further, for Pegasus to grab data it requires “only an unanswered phone call or a message to embed itself onto a device”.
OCCRP explains that Pegasus takes advantage of these ‘zero-click exploits’ (or zero-click attacks), which:
rely on bugs in popular apps like iMessage, WhatsApp, and FaceTime, which all receive and sort data, sometimes from unknown sources.
Once a vulnerability is found, Pegasus can infiltrate a device using the protocol of the app. The user does not have to click on a link, read a message, or answer a call — they may not even see a missed call or message.
Claudio Guarnieri, from Amnesty International’s Security Lab, said “These zero-click exploits constitute the majority of cases we’ve seen since 2019”.
UK implicated
Meanwhile, Amnesty International published its peer reviewed forensic report on Pegasus on 18 July 2021. It states that:
Pegasus infrastructure primarily consists of servers hosted at datacentres located in European countries. The countries hosting the most infection domain DNS servers included Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France, and the United States (US). [Emphasis added]
Amnesty adds that there are 79 servers in the UK that are involved in the transmission of the spyware. According to a Citizen Lab investigation, ‘Operation Blackbird’ is responsible for targets in a number of countries, including the UK, with Middle East connections. It also identified British Telecom as being part of the ‘Operation Kingdom’ infection, which also targets the Middle East..
Another UK link
Around two-thirds of the shares of NSO’s holding company are owned by Novalpina Capital, based in the UK and Luxembourg. According to journalist Ian Cobain, NSO has retained Cherie Blair to “act as an external advisor on ethics”.
Altogether, Citizen Lab found:
suspected NSO Pegasus infections… we identified in 45 countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, the UAE, Uganda, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zambia.
Toolkit
A toolkit is now available to “technologists and investigators” to detect if a device has been compromised. The Verge has produced a guide on how to use it. Also, CNET has published a number of suggestions for improving security on smartphones, as well as improvements for browser settings.
Meanwhile, an NSO spokesperson told the Verge that the allegations made in the Amnesty report were “outrageous and far from reality”. It published a more detailed rebuttal here.
Featured image via Unsplash/ Justin Main
Vermont Gun Importer Sued After Its Rifle
Was Used in Mass Shooting
POSTED BY DEREK BROUWER ON FRI, JUL 30, 2021
SEVEN DAYS, VERMONT
AP PHOTO / JEREMY HOGAN
A Century International Arms booth at a National Rifle Association convention in IndianapolisVictims of a 2019 mass shooting are suing the Vermont arms dealer that made the rifle a gunman used to murder attendees of a California garlic festival.
A dozen survivors last week added Century International Arms as a defendant in their pending civil lawsuit against the nonprofit that ran the annual Gilroy Garlic Festival, the City of Gilroy, Calif., and a private security contractor.
They say the gunmaker's business practices have funneled “uniquely lethal” semiautomatic rifles to criminals and “helped cause the mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival” that left three people dead and 17 wounded.
The shooter, who died at the scene, wielded a WASR-10, a relatively inexpensive variant of the AK-47 that is manufactured in Romania. Century Arms, which is headquartered in Florida and has a manufacturing plant in Georgia, Vt., imports the guns and distributes them in the United States after modifying them to comply with state and federal laws. Century Arms has been previously described in court papers as the exclusive U.S. distributor of the Romanian arms.
Their products have been the weapon of choice for numerous mass shooters and have turned up in the arsenals of international drug cartels, Seven Days has previously reported.
RELATED
Century Armed: Vermont Importer's Guns Used in Mass Shooting
The man accused of killing 23 people at an El Paso, Texas, Walmart in 2019 is also alleged to have purchased a WASR-10 online, according to federal charging documents. The indictment does not specify what website he used or who manufactured it.
The 19-year-old Gilroy shooter purchased his WASR-10 at a Nevada gun shop. The model was illegal to possess in California, though Century Arms also makes a “California compliant” version.
The survivors’ complaint accuses Century Arms of having “intentionally flooded” nearby states with the WASR-10s that were illegal to possess in California but could easily be transported there. The mass shooting, they allege, was a “foreseeable” and “probable” consequence of Century Arms’ failure to “adopt reasonable safeguards to prevent the diversion of firearms to dangerous parties.”
The plaintiffs also take aim at Century Arms core business model, which involves importing rifles, modifying or replacing certain parts, and selling them to U.S. retailers.
The complaint contends that Century Arms is circumventing federal firearms importation bans by replacing some gun components with U.S.-made parts. Moreover, the WASR-10 is effectively an illegal machine gun, they contend, because owners can easily modify it to become fully automatic.
“Whether or not the Rifle used in the Attack was, in fact, modified to fire in a fully automatic fashion, its ready susceptibility to such modification rendered it a ‘machinegun’ as sold, prohibiting its sale to the general public,” the complaint alleges.
The complaint accuses Century Arms of negligence, product liability and creating a public nuisance.
Neither Century Arms nor the plaintiffs' attorneys immediately responded to requests for comment.
Typically, gunmakers have sought to have such claims against them dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields them from liability for crimes committed using their guns.
Several recent court decisions, however, have cracked open the door for victims to pursue certain kinds of claims. Families impacted by the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut are suing Remington over its marketing practices. In July, a California judge allowed negligence claims against Smith & Wesson to proceed in a case stemming from another 2019 mass shooting outside San Diego.
Earlier this year, President Joe Biden called on Congress to rescind the immunity law.
Century Arms, which employed more than 100 people in Vermont in recent years, has enjoyed support from the state’s elected leaders, even winning a carve-out in landmark state gun legislation that banned possession of high-capacity magazines.
Read the amended complaint below:
The 19-year-old Gilroy shooter purchased his WASR-10 at a Nevada gun shop. The model was illegal to possess in California, though Century Arms also makes a “California compliant” version.
The survivors’ complaint accuses Century Arms of having “intentionally flooded” nearby states with the WASR-10s that were illegal to possess in California but could easily be transported there. The mass shooting, they allege, was a “foreseeable” and “probable” consequence of Century Arms’ failure to “adopt reasonable safeguards to prevent the diversion of firearms to dangerous parties.”
The plaintiffs also take aim at Century Arms core business model, which involves importing rifles, modifying or replacing certain parts, and selling them to U.S. retailers.
The complaint contends that Century Arms is circumventing federal firearms importation bans by replacing some gun components with U.S.-made parts. Moreover, the WASR-10 is effectively an illegal machine gun, they contend, because owners can easily modify it to become fully automatic.
“Whether or not the Rifle used in the Attack was, in fact, modified to fire in a fully automatic fashion, its ready susceptibility to such modification rendered it a ‘machinegun’ as sold, prohibiting its sale to the general public,” the complaint alleges.
The complaint accuses Century Arms of negligence, product liability and creating a public nuisance.
Neither Century Arms nor the plaintiffs' attorneys immediately responded to requests for comment.
Typically, gunmakers have sought to have such claims against them dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields them from liability for crimes committed using their guns.
Several recent court decisions, however, have cracked open the door for victims to pursue certain kinds of claims. Families impacted by the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut are suing Remington over its marketing practices. In July, a California judge allowed negligence claims against Smith & Wesson to proceed in a case stemming from another 2019 mass shooting outside San Diego.
Earlier this year, President Joe Biden called on Congress to rescind the immunity law.
Century Arms, which employed more than 100 people in Vermont in recent years, has enjoyed support from the state’s elected leaders, even winning a carve-out in landmark state gun legislation that banned possession of high-capacity magazines.
Read the amended complaint below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)