Herbicide resistance no longer a black box for scientists

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL, CONSUMER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

 

IMAGE: THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS' PAT TRANEL, PICTURED ALONG WITH MILLIONS OF WATERHEMP SEEDS, IS GETTING CLOSER TO DETERMINING THE GENETIC ARCHITECTURE OF HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN THE PROBLEMATIC WEED SPECIES. view more 

CREDIT: FRED ZWICKY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

URBANA, Ill. – When agricultural weeds evolve resistance to herbicides, they do it in one of two ways. In target-site resistance, a tiny mutation in the plant’s genetic code means the chemical no longer fits in the protein it’s designed to attack. In non-target-site resistance, the plant deploys a whole slew of enzymes that detoxify the chemical before it can cause harm.

Target-site resistance is easy for scientists. They know what the target protein is, which means they can look directly at the genetic code to figure out the mutation responsible. But for non-target-site resistance, it’s a guessing game. Researchers can sometimes tell what class of enzymes detoxifies the chemical, but they know next to nothing about what genes code for those enzymes. In other words, non-target-site resistance is a black box.

A University of Illinois study is the first to open that box in a new way, identifying gene regions responsible for non-target-site herbicide resistance in waterhemp.

“We used a genetic mapping approach with the reference genome for waterhemp, a species that can cause yield losses upwards of 70% in corn and is resistant to seven herbicide modes of action,” says Pat Tranel, professor and associate head in the Department of Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois and co-author on the study. “We were able to narrow it down to two regions of the genome, or about 60 genes.”

Being able to pinpoint the genes for non-target-site resistance could enable tools for early detection and herbicide management.

“We eventually want to develop an assay farmers can use to tell if the waterhemp in their field is resistant to a given chemical, either to confirm why a previous application did not work or before they spray to see if they're going to waste money,” says Brent Murphy, doctoral researcher and lead author on the study. “These genomic assays exist for target-site resistance because we know the region of the genome where those mutations are, but for non-target-site resistance, we have had no idea where to look until now.

“Now we know the genes responsible are somewhere in these two small regions of the genome. So we’ve come to an intermediary step to eventually developing an assay that growers can use to determine whether or not they should be spraying a certain chemistry.”

The researchers specifically looked for genes that allow waterhemp to evade HPPD-inhibiting herbicides such as tembotrione, a chemical commonly applied in seed corn and other production systems. 

To find the genomic regions responsible, they mated waterhemp plants that showed resistance or sensitivity to HPPD inhibitors. Then they exposed the grandchildren of those parent plants to HPPD-inhibiting herbicides to see how they fared. Because the complete waterhemp genome is now available, they were able to look for commonalities among plants that survived the HPPD-inhibitor application.

“You basically ask the question, for the resistant plants, what part of their genome do they share in common? And that gets you to what part of the genome is controlling the trait of interest. Using this approach, known as genetic mapping, we identified two regions of the genome that seemed to be associated with resistance,” Tranel says.

Murphy was able to determine which plants had each of the two regions, and which had both. This allowed him to rank the importance of the gene regions.

“A lot of times, we know a trait is controlled by two genes. But does that mean both genes are equally important, or one gene is 90% responsible, and the other gene is 10%? That's part of what we’re looking at in the genetic architecture of a trait: the number of genes, where they are, and the relative importance of these different genes,” Tranel says. “Here, we saw a nice stepwise effect. If you had one of the regions, you were kind of resistant. If you had the other one, you were kind of resistant. If you have them both? You're pretty resistant. Essentially like the resistant parent.”

While the researchers still don’t know which of the 60-ish genes are essential to HPPD-inhibitor resistance – they have follow-up studies in mind to narrow the search even farther – they know none of the genes encode p450 enzymes. These have been implicated in multiple studies as key players in non-target-site resistance.

“While a p450 enzyme might still be involved, our mapping study indicates the change causing resistance is in a gene regulating the p450, rather than in the p450 gene itself,” Tranel explains. 

HPPD-inhibitors are commonly used in seed corn and other maize production systems, but, interestingly, they hadn’t been used in the field where the researchers collected the waterhemp for the study.

“There wasn't a previous field-use history of this chemistry. So, it was really interesting to see that our population was resistant to it. How did this develop? Most of the time you expect resistance to develop as a result of some form of selection pressure. But here, we don't have an obvious one,” Murphy says.

Tranel thinks non-target-site resistance to one class of herbicides might confer cross-resistance to other classes. The population in the study was resistant to 2,4-D, a herbicide from another class that might have triggered resistance to HPPD-inhibitors.

“Why do we have this plant that’s resistant to multiple herbicides? Are there some genomic changes in common to facilitate that resistance? It's really important to understand this, as we try to give farmers advice about what can they do to mitigate non-target-site resistance, because it's still a bit of a black box,” Tranel says. “With target site resistance, we can tell them to use herbicides with different modes of action. But in non-target-site resistance, different herbicides could be metabolized by, for example, different p450s that are regulated in the same way. That's why we need to unravel this further to come up with better, more informed strategies to mitigate non-target-site resistance.”

Tranel expects that, as more weed genomes become available, genetic mapping will become a mainstay for investigating non-target-site resistance.

“Finally, we are getting the tools we need to really get to the bottom of metabolic herbicide resistance, which is the greatest threat to contemporary weed management,” he says.

The article, “Genetic architecture underlying HPPD-inhibitor resistance in a Nebraska Amaranthus tuberculatus population,” is published in Pest Management Science [DOI: 10.1002/ps.6560]. Authors include Brent Murphy, Roland Beffa, and Patrick Tranel. The work was supported by Bayer.

The Department of Crop Sciences is in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

---

JOURNAL

Pest Management Science

DOI

10.1002/ps.6560

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Randomized controlled/clinical trial

ARTICLE TITLE

Genetic architecture underlying HPPD-inhibitor resistance in a Nebraska Amaranthus tuberculatus population

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

16-Jul-2021

CAN THE SAME MASK USED AGAINST COVID-19, KEEP ME SAFE FROM THE WILDFIRE SMOKE?

Keep your house as protected from smoke as possible by keeping the windows closed and use a portable air cleaner.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

AUG 16, 2021 

As the Dixie Fire rages in California, plumes of noxious smoke have turned the air as far afield as Salt Lake City and Denver into some of the dirtiest in the world. Fires across western Canada and the Pacific Northwest last month turned the sun red as far away as New York City.

The smoky haze carries with it a range of health threats from mild eye and throat irritation to serious heart and respiratory issues that pose an especially high risk when compounded with similar symptoms caused by COVID-19. Research published last week found that weakened immune response caused by exposure to wildfire smoke last summer could be associated with thousands of additional infections and hundreds of deaths from COVID-19.

A helicopter carrying a water bucket flies past the Lytton Creek wildfire burning in the mountains near Lytton, British Columbia, on Sunday, Aug. 15, 2021. (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press via AP)

Although smoke exposure and the coronavirus pose similar risks, protecting yourself from each require different measures: Cloth masks used to slow the spread of the virus offer little protection against the small, harmful particles in wildfire smoke, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With hundreds of thousands of acres burning across the West, and fire season far from over, here’s a guide to how to keep yourself safe.
What are some of the harmful effects of wildfire smoke?

The wildfire smoke currently blanketing much of the West contains a mixture of gases and particles from burning trees and plants. The smallest of these particles — 2.5 micrometers and smaller, which are called PM 2.5 — can be inhaled into the deepest part of the lungs and can cause the greatest health risks.

When people are exposed to these fine particles repeatedly or for long periods of time, they can be at greater risk of health problems. With fires sparking more often, lasting longer and spreading farther, those risks grow.

“We’re being exposed to more wildfires than ever,” said Mary Prunicki, an expert on the health effects of air pollution at Stanford University. “When a community is exposed to wildfire smoke, there will be an increase in respiratory disorders showing up in the emergency room and people being hospitalized with asthma and COPD. It exacerbates pneumonia, acute bronchitis.”

Wildfire exposure can also heighten the risk of strokes and create complications with pregnancies.

What are the best ways to protect myself from the harmful effects of wildfire smoke?

Because of the small size of PM 2.5, most masks will not do much to protect you from its toxins. According to the CDC, N95 and KN95 respirators can provide protection from both wildfire smoke and the coronavirus. But because of the limited supply of N95 respirators, the CDC does not recommend their use outside of health care settings.

The best protection against smoke is to limit exposure.

“Don’t go by whether or not you can smell it,” said Prunicki, who also advised to limit physical activity outside. “Try not to do things that are going to cause you to breathe deeply."

Keep your house as protected from smoke as possible by keeping the windows closed and use a portable air cleaner. Create a “clean room”— a dedicated room in your house where you can keep windows and doors closed, and run fans, air conditioners and portable air cleaners — and spend as much time there as possible.
How can I check the smoke conditions in my area?

Track the AQI, or Air Quality Index, to ensure the air quality is within a healthy range before spending time outside.

The Air Quality Index, established by the Environmental Protection Agency, measures the density of five pollutants: ground-level ozone, particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

The index runs from 0 to 500. If it shows a number that’s less than 100, then air pollution is below the level known to cause adverse health effects. When the index registers more than 100, the outdoor air remains safe for many, but some people, like older adults, children and those with heart and lung disease, are at increased risk. A number above 200 is considered “very unhealthy.”

You can find the AQI in your area on the website AirNow, which is run by the EPA and also has separate fire and smoke maps.

Sophie Kasakove c.2021 The New York Times Company

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Analysis: Benchmark of Big Oil on methane emissions shows ‘significant gap’ between reality and reporting


By Terry Slavin – Editor, Reuters Professional

Tackling methane emissions, a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term, should be low-hanging fruit for oil and gas producers: something they can do cost-effectively, and with far greater climate impact than investing in renewables, or in further-out technologies such as hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.


Chevron personnel work at a fracking site near Midland, Texas, U.S. August 22, 2019. Picture taken August 22, 2019. REUTERS/Jessica Lutz

And unlike CO2, which is 90% about the end use of their products, methane sits squarely in the industry’s wheelhouse. A main component of both natural gas and oil, the odourless and colourless gas is either intentionally released or leaks during the drilling of wells; through incomplete combustion of gas; and in production, processing, trans¬portation and storage.

Because methane is shorter-lived in the atmosphere, it has taken a backseat to CO2 in the fight against climate change. But that changed in May, when the UN Environment Programme reported that cutting methane emissions by half this decade could stave off nearly 0.3° of warming by the 2040s. Its message was supported by the IEA’s Methane Tracker, which found that oil and gas operations worldwide emitted more than 70m tonnes of methane into the atmosphere last year, equal to the energy-related CO2 emissions from Europe.

“Early action on methane emissions will be critical for avoiding the worst effects of climate change,” says Dr Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA). “There is no good reason to allow these harmful leaks to continue, and there is every reason for responsible operators to ensure that they are addressed.”

Certainly the big listed oil and gas producers have made a play about efforts to reduce methane emissions, which they report to investors and regulators, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But numerous academic studies using satellites have shown that the sector’s methane emissions are substantially higher than annual greenhouse gas estimates (GHGI) by the EPA.

Research carried out for the Environmental Defense Fund in 2012-2018 found actual methane emissions were 60% higher than data reported to the EPA, while the latest study, in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, estimates that in its latest GHGI the EPA under-reports methane emissions from oil production by a factor of two.

Now a new dataset, seen by Reuters, has become the first to attribute methane emissions to individual companies and benchmark them on their performance, using global satellite data of 7km resolution as well as ultra-high-resolution satellite probes in Canada and U.S., which have accuracy of 25m or better.

It finds some significant discrepancies between expected emissions from the major oil and gas producers, based on their disclosures and policies, and how they are performing in reality, according to Geofinancial Analytics, which is collaborating with Signal Climate Analytics in a year-long project with Reuters.com assessing the climate performance of the biggest 250 global emitters.

Geofinancial Analytics’s MethaneScan® benchmark scores the oil and gas producers based on observed methane emissions in the year to this July. This first snapshot, of the top 15 producers, finds that oil super-majors Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron are the worst performers, followed by ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil and ExxonMobil.

While Suncor, TotalEnergies and Pioneer Natural Resources performed better among the group, all scored well below “best”, an indication of no methane emissions.

The benchmark also compares observed emissions with how the companies would have been expected to perform based on a combined metric of their methane intensity reports, regulatory filings, commitment to transparent reporting, and safety incidents. Again, Shell and Chevron under-performed, while scores for Equinor, EOG, ENI, Suncor and Total were relatively well aligned with company self-disclosures and expectations.

Mark Kriss, CEO of Geofinancial Analytics, said “Scientific studies are showing a very significant contribution [from oil and gas producers] and a very significant increase in that contribution in the last 10 years on this critical issue. We need to know where these point sources are coming from, not just at the regional level, but at the company and wellhead level.

“We are starting to see that some companies are managing this better than others… They are all clustering in the ‘not so good’ area, and some are hovering on poor, but none are anywhere near the ‘best’ zone.”

Geofinancial analysed 600,000 medium-resolution satellite scans of 3m wellheads in North America, Brazil, Australia and Europe, but ultra-high resolution satellite imagery is currently only available for facilities in the U.S. and Canada. Outside North America, the benchmark is built on association with elevated methane at 7km of resolution.

In the North American context, Kriss said Shell’s performance was the biggest surprise, given its commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 and its announced target to keep methane emissions intensity for operated oil and gas assets below 0.2% by 2025.

“The airborne methane in the environs of Chevron and Shell across all their on-shore wellheads in the geographies we cover were slightly higher than Exxon’s,” he said. This is particularly the case in facilities in the Gulf region, he said.

Geofinancial’s findings were shared with Shell, ConocoPhillips and Chevron, which all defended their efforts to tackle methane emissions, including their own use of high-resolution satellites, while taking issue with the benchmark’s methodology.

A ConocoPhillips spokesman said: “We believe the benchmark has limitations such as emissions in a certain area being attributed to a company based on wellhead density, and other non-well site emissions being ignored (for example, third-party pipelines). Furthermore, in areas like the Permian, where operators work in close proximity to one another, our experience has been that it is hard for satellites to accurately pinpoint the source of emissions.”

A Chevron spokesman said: “We are concerned that the underlying data and assumptions used in [Geofinancial’s] analysis may not be sufficiently robust to accurately attribute emissions to specific operators or support the generation of a company-by-company credit-style ranking for methane emissions in select basins in North America.” However, it added: “Over time, their models and analysis have the potential to improve as additional information becomes available to them.”

Shell took issue with the large number of wellheads Geofinancial had attributed to the company. “Shell currently owns and operates fewer than 2,000 onshore wellheads in all of North America”, a spokesperson said.

She added: “We are taking actions to effectively reduce our emissions and have previously announced a target to keep methane emissions intensity for operated oil and gas assets below 0.2% by 2025, which we are achieving.”

Kriss said ownership data used in the benchmark, which includes majority-owned subsidiaries, is based on corporate filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies. “There’s always a lag between publicly available data and what the company knows is true. But we need to rely on the public data, because that’s the only way we can have an objective, comprehensive view of what’s going on,” he said.

Geofinancial’s methodology doesn’t let companies off the hook in the case that they may have divested of high-polluting and aging assets, and attributes methane emissions of divested assets for five years, but at a declining rate.

Kriss said that in Shell’s case, the discrepancy may be partially accounted for by the large number of inactive wells associated with Shell’s legacy operations over decades as well as recent divestitures, which have not yet been discounted in MethaneScan’s scores.

He pointed out that all scores incorporate abandoned wells, which, though no longer on companies’ books, “can be a significant source of recurring methane emissions over long periods of time”.

An analysis of EPA data from 2019 by energy consultancy M.J. Bradley & Associates in May showed that methane leakage doesn’t go away when big oil and gas companies divest of older and dirtier assets – often to smaller players where there is far less transparency, and less incentive to tackle the issue.

The analysis found that five of the industry’s top 10 emitters of methane were little-known oil and gas producers. The biggest polluter, privately owned Hilcorp Energy, had bought up old gas wells in northern New Mexico from ExxonMobil in 2017, which that year reported its greenhouse gas emissions had fallen 20%.

It’s a trend that will only accelerate as the heat gets turned up under the industry in the wake of this week’s report from the IPCC.

Kris described the current MethaneScan® benchmark as “just the beginning of a new era of radical transparency” on methane emissions by the oil and gas sector. He said future benchmarks would be improved as Geofinancial added observations from another eight ultra-high-resolution satellites by the end of 2022.

David Lubin, chairman of Signal Climate Analytics, said that Geofinancial Analytics’ methane emissions observations are a critical component of Signal’s ongoing work with Reuters tracking the levels of transparency among the 250 largest publicly traded greenhouse gas emitters.

Later in 2021, he said, Signal will add a Transparency Ratio™ to its company-level assessments, which will compare their public disclosures with real-world requirements for transparency on emissions where they have the most impact.

“While companies are surely disclosing volumes of emissions data, and metrics, often in support of company narratives on climate action, real transparency can only be achieved when the most critical emissions for a sector are fully disclosed by the company,” Lubin said. “From the work of Geofinancial, it’s clear that for the oil and gas sector any claim of transparency must include a full accounting of methane emissions.”

<<

Opinions expressed are those of the authors. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.

Even After the IPCC Report, Senate Dems Are Voting for Fracking

Seven Democratic senators voted with the GOP to block restrictions on fracking this week. Those seven Democrats also raked in $1.7 million in donations from oil and gas donors.

Democratic senators Joe Manchin and John Hickenlooper in the Capitol before a Senate vote on May 28, 2021. (Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)


BYDAVID SIROTA  ANDREW PEREZ

JACOBIN

08.12.2021

One day after the release of a landmark scientific report on climate change, the US Senate faced its first test vote on whether scientists’ grave new warnings are being heeded. In response, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers used the moment to try to prevent America from halting a fossil fuel extraction process linked to one of the most dangerous greenhouse gas emissions — and to rampant ozone pollution choking the American West.

Fifty Republicans and seven Democrats voted Tuesday in favor of a GOP amendment designed to prohibit the executive branch from banning hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking. The measure’s supporters included Colorado’s Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, whose constituents have been warned in recent days to remain inside because of a mix of smoke from climate-intensified wildfires as well as ozone — the latter of which is driven in part by fracking emissions. New Mexico Democrats Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján also voted yes. Their state has been plagued with unhealthy air, too, with local officials telling people on Monday to stay inside as much as possible.

The other Democratic yes votes were senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, and Maine independent Angus King, whose states have all seen poor air quality at times this summer from wildfires in the west.

Five of the seven Democrats voting for the measure hail from blue states won by President Joe Biden, who declared unequivocally during the 2020 campaign: “I am not banning fracking.” Over the course of their careers, the seven Democratic lawmakers who backed the GOP amendment have raked in nearly $1.7 million from donors in the oil and gas industry, according to data from OpenSecrets.

The vote on Tuesday suggests the entire Republican Party in Congress and some Democrats are either still climate deniers who insist fossil fuels can be part of an environmentally sustainable future, or ecocidal sociopaths who are too corrupt and soulless to care what happens.

The Biden administration’s call Wednesday for OPEC members to boost oil production offered additional evidence that, for all of their rhetoric about the climate emergency, many Democratic leaders appear ready to let the world burn.

Banning a Fracking Ban

Monday’s landmark report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed to methane emissions as a key driver of the climate crisis. Emissions of methane — among the most dangerous accelerants of climate change — have exploded in concert with the expansion of fracking.

Ilissa Ocko, a climate scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, said Monday that “cutting methane emissions is the single fastest, most effective way there is to slow the rate of warming right now,” according to Gizmodo.

Despite scientists’ warnings about the links between climate change, methane emissions, and fracking, Tuesday’s budget amendment sponsored by Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), aims to “prohibit the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating rules or guidance that bans hydraulic fracturing,” according to the legislative text.

Cramer’s initiative follows Republican officials in states across the country passing legislation blocking local communities from restricting fracking. If some version of the Cramer proposal ever ended up actually becoming law, the Biden administration and future administrations could be permanently barred from banning fracking.

Cramer’s top career industry donor by far has been oil and gas, which has pumped more than $1.1 million into his election campaigns, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Cramer is also pushing separate legislation to effectively prohibit the federal government from regulating fracking — which is already exempted from clean water laws, thanks to legislation passed during the Bush administration.

A recent report from the environmental nonprofit Earthworks found that North Dakota is now awash in toxic chemicals and wastewater amid its recent fracking boom.

Because it is part of the budget process, Cramer’s amendment is not binding — it only instructs the Senate Budget Committee to allow for a fracking ban in the final budget resolution.

Since the measure passed, Senate Budget Committee chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT), will be given the power — and encouragement — to include language prohibiting a fracking ban in his $3.5 trillion budget resolution, which is meant to fund programs to address climate change.

Sanders voted against the amendment, and is the sponsor of legislation to ban fracking.

Fossil Fuel Allies in Blue States

Though symbolic, the Cramer amendment’s simplicity is clarifying. It put every senator on record about a controversial fossil fuel extraction process that has not only been linked to carbon emissions and toxic air, but also to water pollution and health problems.

Just two years ago, researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health found that Coloradans living near fracking sites are at far greater risk of cancer, and previous research linked fracking to birth defects.

Bennet’s vote for the GOP measure comes on the one-year anniversary of his op-ed promising Coloradans that he understands that “time is running out for bold action on climate change.” The senator, who made his personal fortune as a corporate raider for oil billionaire Philip Anschutz, has received $347,000 of campaign cash from the oil and gas industry. He is up for reelection in 2022.

Hickenlooper’s vote is among the first he’s cast on the issue as a senator since using his two gubernatorial terms to boost oil and gas production and become one of the most vociferous fossil fuel advocates in American politics. He earned the nickname “Frackenlooper” after he boasted to Congress that he drank fracking fluid because he’s so sure it is safe.

He won the Colorado Senate Democratic primary in 2020 after the national party endorsed him and dumped cash into the race, helping him defeat a progressive candidate whose major television ad warned that climate change would result in days in which Coloradans were told to avoid being outside.

That projection has now become reality at precisely the moment Hickenlooper voted for the amendment to prevent any president from advancing a fracking ban. Hickenlooper raised $146,000 from oil and gas donors last year.

Manchin, whose family runs a coal brokerage, has taken in $670,000 from oil and gas donors during his career. Manchin holds a key role in deciding climate policy as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, after Democratic senators made him the ranking member of the committee in late 2018.

You can subscribe to David Sirota’s investigative journalism project, the Daily Poster, here

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David Sirota is editor-at-large at Jacobin. He edits the Daily Poster newsletter and previously served as a senior adviser and speechwriter on Bernie Sanders's 2020 presidential campaign.

Andrew Perez is a writer and researcher living in Maine.

Is Biden serious about climate? His 2,000 drilling and fracking permits suggest not

Just when we must be rejecting new drilling, fracking and pipeline infrastructure, Biden isn’t just tolerating fossil fuels – he’s uplifting them

‘Biden has thus far abdicated his responsibility to usher in an era of real climate action. We may all pay an unaffordable price.’ Photograph: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters

Wenonah Hauter
Thu 12 Aug 2021


The latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints a stark and sobering picture: a global future of extreme weather events that are guaranteed to become more frequent and more intense over coming decades. The horrific flooding that has recently shocked Europe will become more common. The unrelenting fires that have engulfed the western United States and Canada will intensify and widen. And some island nations, it seems, may already be doomed to eradication by inevitable sea level rise.

The only glimmer of hope offered in the IPCC report is that immediate, aggressive action by world leaders could still prevent a future of assured climate chaos from being even worse. As devastating as a 1.5C global temperature increase will be, a 2.5C increase would be unfathomable.

Being the historical top emitter of climate-killing greenhouse gases, the United States has a clear obligation to help lead the world in rapidly reducing emissions and transitioning the planet to clean, renewable energy. Yet every indication thus far from the Biden administration suggests that this critical, urgent action won’t be coming.
Every indication thus far from the Biden administration suggests that critical, urgent action won’t be coming

In order to stand a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst, science overwhelmingly dictates that Earth must cut all greenhouse gas emissions in half in just nine years, and essentially zero them out by 2050. Like other world leaders, President Biden has publicly adopted this target. But his actions show something very different. Since Biden took office, Food & Water Watch has been diligently tracking notable comments and commitments on climate and energy issued by Biden and administration officials. The results are clear: they apparently have no intention of taking up this existential fight.

Simply put, a serious commitment to aggressively curtailing climate emissions must involve rapidly halting new fossil fuel development (while at the same time making robust investments in clean energy production and distribution, to facilitate the decommissioning of existing fossil fuel networks). Some signs from Biden the candidate last year were encouraging. His promise to ban new drilling and fracking on federal lands – an action that would be a simple, decisive first step in curtailing new fossil fuel extraction – was unequivocal: “No more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.”


UN climate report raises pressure on Biden to seize a rare moment

The administration claims to be in the midst of a formal review of its policies on land resource extraction. Yet since taking office, Biden’s interior department has approved more than 2,000 new permits for drilling and fracking on federal land. In May, it appealed a federal court order that had paused fracking in Wayne national forest. In June, it advanced a proposal for new oil and gas exploration at Dinosaur national monument – a proposal the Trump administration had actually suspended under immense pressure from activists.

There are other similar disappointments – from the shocking approval of Trump’s plan to open Alaska’s North Slope to new oil drilling to the approval of the infamous Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline. At precisely the moment when we must be forcefully rejecting new drilling, fracking and pipeline infrastructure, Biden isn’t just tolerating fossil fuels – he’s uplifting them.

Other worrying signs forecast that more disappointment is yet to come. While they have not fleshed out a definitive policy, administration officials continue to tout the expansion of liquified natural gas (LNG) production, a relic of antiquated Obama-era climate policy, when officials peddled the absurd notion that fracked gas was a clean “bridge” fuel.

Similarly, the administration consistently boosts “carbon capture” as a climate solution, despite abundant evidence that it is absurdly inefficient, cost-ineffective and ultimately unproven. Existing carbon capture projects have cost billions of dollars without removing a significant amount of emitted carbon anywhere.

Furthermore, carbon capture serves as a boon to the oil and gas industry; the US energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, recently went so far as to boast that it would facilitate an increase in fossil fuel production. So billions of dollars in new subsidies will go towards propping up a failed experiment in faulty, corporate-friendly policy.

The IPCC report is clear: nothing short of transforming society will avert catastrophe
Patrick Vallance

The Biden White House yanked much of its modest climate agenda from the bipartisan infrastructure package that just passed the Senate. Instead the White House proposes that a larger, separate spending package will include things like a national “clean energy payment program” that advocates claim will facilitate a speedy transition to renewables – apparently without any need for clear, enforceable emissions regulations. Climate activists should be skeptical; some of these proposals have even counted fracked gas power plants as a clean energy source.

It can’t be known precisely how the White House intends to proceed on each of these fronts. But this has become perfectly clear: Biden has thus far abdicated his responsibility to usher in an era of real climate action. We may all pay an unaffordable price.


Wenonah Hauter is the founder and executive director of Food & Water Watch and the author of Frackopoly: The Battle for the Future of Energy and the Environment

Singh says taxing the rich will be among top NDP policy goals for the federal election


NDP to lay out its 'commitments to Canadians' in St. John's

CBC News · Posted: Aug 11, 2021

Federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh will reveal his party's priorities Thursday ahead of a likely federal election call. (Bobby Hristova/CBC)


Jagmeet Singh is hinting at some of the NDP's campaign promises as the party prepares for a federal election expected to begin as early as this week.

Singh and the NDP are scheduled to release their plan during a Thursday news conference at 9:30 a.m. ET in St. John's. A news release describes the plan as the party's "commitment to Canadians" rather than a traditional campaign platform.

But in an interview tonight on CBC's Power & Politics, Singh said the plan to be announced tomorrow will reflect the party's goals if an election is called.

"Top of the list is a question about how we pay for the pandemic and the recovery," he told guest host Katie Simpson.

Singh said a successful recovery will require higher taxes on wealthy Canadians and large corporations that do business here.

"That's going to be our main push," he added. "Let's make the billionaires pay their fair share and invest in what people need.Singh writes to Trudeau asking him to recall Parliament and not to call an early election

While the NDP appears to be gearing up for an election, Singh also stressed that his party would rather go back to work in Ottawa than head out on the campaign trail.

"We know that there's a lot that needs to be done immediately," said Singh, who listed the conversion therapy ban, mandatory minimum sentences and the opioid crisis as issues in need of urgent attention.

"Let's continue to fight for the help that people need instead of spending time on an election which will take us away from doing the work that communities need us to do right now."

Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole also has said that Trudeau should not rush the country into a federal election during a fourth wave of the pandemic.

Canadians see NDP's Singh as a better PM than Tories' O'Toole, Leger survey suggests

Lee Berthiaume
The Canadian PressStaff
Published Wednesday, July 21, 2021 

OTTAWA -- NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh might have reason to smile only weeks before a possible election call as a new survey suggests more Canadians believe he would make a better prime minister than the Conservatives' Erin O'Toole.

While the survey by Leger and the Association for Canadian Studies had 25 per cent of respondents picking Justin Trudeau as the best prime minister, Singh wasn't far behind with 19 per cent while only 13 per cent chose O'Toole.

The survey also found a three per cent increase in support for the NDP among decided voters, who otherwise remained largely unchanged in their support for the Liberals and Tories.

Thirty-four per cent of decided voters said they supported the Liberals, while the Conservatives stood at 29 per cent and the NDP at 22 per cent.

The online survey, conducted July 16 to 18, polled 2,069 Canadians. It cannot be assigned a margin of error because internet-based polls are not considered random samples.

The survey could represent bad news for O'Toole and the Conservatives as they continue to bump against what Leger executive vice-president Christian Bourque described as a "30 per cent glass ceiling" under O'Toole's leadership.

Yet it could also signal trouble for Trudeau's chances of winning a majority Liberal government as previous election results have seen the Liberals suffer from strong support for the NDP.

Bourque nonetheless cautioned against overstating how the NDP's apparent uptick in support will play out during an election, saying that the results don't necessarily translate into additional seats for the party.

"The NDP could end up with 20 per cent of the vote and 10 seats, or 20 per cent of the vote and 30 seats," Bourque said.

"A lot will ride on Singh's skills and strategic voting. The more the CPC is a threat, the more the Liberals will eat into NDP support in Ontario, Quebec and, maybe, Manitoba."

Bourque believes the time is now for Trudeau to call an election and try to ride popular support for how the Liberals handled the COVID-19 pandemic if he wants to have any chance of winning a coveted majority government.

The survey found that 55 per cent of respondents believed Trudeau had performed well or very well in managing the pandemic, the area where he had the most such positive reviews.

"For Liberal strategists, this may not be the optimal window to drop the writ, but it likely remains the least worst for the next little while," Bourque said in an email.

"Liberals need to eat support from the NDP and Greens, but also the Bloc Quebecois. That's why running on their COVID-19 record -- and record overall -- needs to work."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 21, 2021.


NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Tuesday, June 22, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

CALGARY

Protesters against police brutality vow to continue action after arrests outside courthouse

Author of the article:

Madeline Smith

Publishing date:

Aug 13, 2021  •  

The Calgary Courts Centre was photographed on Monday, May 3, 2021. PHOTO BY GAVIN YOUNG/POSTMEDIA

Article content

Police and protesters are both alleging wrongdoing in an incident that led to two demonstrators being arrested Thursday outside the Calgary Courts Centre.

Advertisement

Article content

The protest has been ongoing outside the downtown courthouse since July 26, with a group calling for the Calgary Police Service to fire Const. Alex Dunn

Dunn was convicted of assault earlier this year for a 2017 incident where he slammed a handcuffed Black woman face-first to the ground in an arrest processing facility.

The woman, Dalia Kafi, died from a suspected drug overdose in June. Dunn was suspended without pay and handed a 30-day conditional sentence, including 15 days of house arrest.

Demonstrators have been waving signs and playing music daily at the corner of 5th Street and 6th Avenue S.W. for more than two weeks, speaking about Dunn as well as about systemic racism, police funding and accountability. But on Thursday, Alberta sheriffs from the courthouse arrested Inclusive Canada cofounder Taylor McNallie along with another protester.

Advertisement

Article con

Chad Haggerty, the defence lawyer representing both people, said Calgary police identified the second protester by a name they don’t use. Another demonstrator identified them as Jack Mori.

Video of the arrests posted online shows about a dozen sheriffs outside the courthouse. Officers take both protesters to the ground to put handcuffs on them, and at one point, two sheriffs appear to kneel on McNallie’s back and someone yells, “Stop knee-neck restraining her!”

In another, earlier video, the second protester appears in an altercation with a woman before sheriffs run toward them. The woman can later be seen standing behind sheriffs by the courthouse doors.

Advertisement

Article cont

Black Lives Matter YYC president Adora Nwofor, who posted video of the arrests, said McNallie had been filming the woman’s interactions with uniformed sheriffs, but denied that McNallie instigated a physical fight.

Asked for more context about what led to the arrests, a Justice and Solicitor General spokesperson would only say “an incident” between demonstrators and a sheriff returning from her lunch break resulted in the arrests.

According to the spokesperson, the sheriff was injured and went to hospital.

CPS described the events as an off-duty courthouse employee trying to enter the building before being “aggressively approached” by two people and “struck with a megaphone.”

Haggerty said both protesters were also hurt, but McNallie’s injuries are minor and she is in “good spirits.”

Advertisement

Article content

“She remains dedicated to confronting abuses of power and incidents where police officers are not being held accountable. She maintains that her protests are geared toward improving police accountability, transparency and oversight,” he said.

A CPS statement said police chief Mark Neufeld doesn’t have the authority to dismiss an officer for serious misconduct. Under the Police Act, those cases must go through a disciplinary hearing where the ruling, which takes time to complete, could include dismissal.

Dalia Kafi was assaulted by Calgary police Const. Alex Dunn during an arrest in 2017. Kafi was photographed outside the Calgary Courts Centre on Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. PHOTO BY AZIN GHAFFARI/POSTMEDIA

More charges

In addition to the assault charges from Thursday, McNallie has been charged with assault, harassment and mischief from alleged incidents on Aug. 5, 9 and 11.

According to CPS, a Courts Centre employee reported he was threatened, a man who had been taking pictures of the demonstration was allegedly attacked and another man entering the courthouse reported being hit in the head with a protest sign.

Advertisement

Article content

All the charges were laid late Thursday, and Haggerty said he still doesn’t have much context about them.

“I look forward to receiving disclosure and responding to the charges once a little more light is shed on the circumstances that led to them,” he said.

Advertisement

Article content

Nwofor, who returned to the protest outside the courthouse Friday, said demonstrators have endured abuse directed at them.

“We have people taking pictures of us. We have people calling us the N-word. We have people telling us to get a job, screaming ‘all lives matter,’ calling us idiots, stupid, ignorant,” she said.

“We’ve had people throw food, push people. Lots of stuff is happening to us, but they’re not doing anything.”

She said the protesters will continue calling for action, especially as people have been coming to them with their own stories of mistreatment at the hands of police in recent weeks.

“It’s not the first time I’ve been protesting. It’s not the first action that I’ve done to try to change racism in Calgary, so I will continue,” Nwofor said.

“I’m born here and I should not be living a racism dream.”

masmith@postmedia.com

Twitter: @meksmith

MANITOBA TORY ATTACK ON EDUCATION
Local organization holds parade to protest Bill 64



Devon McKendrick

Digital Editorial Producer
Published Sunday, August 15, 2021 



WINNIPEG -- A local organization used the power of music Saturday night to protest against the provincial government's proposed Bill 64.

The bill, if passed, would eliminate all school divisions and elected school boards, replacing them with a provincial authority.

The community group Protect ED MB partnered with music teachers and members of local marching bands Saturday to fight the bill.


'Everybody else needs this education': Rally held against residential schools and Bill 64

'Bill 64 is an attack on local government': Winnipeg City Council joins ranks opposing education reform bill

The organization feels the bill is regressive.

"Teachers are exhausted, and this is kind of like the worst to kind of introduce legislation like that. It just will bring chaos in our education system when teachers really need to recover and students need to recover," said Jason Pinkney, an organizer with Protect ED MB.

The group went door-to-door in the Wolseley neighbourhood performing music while handing out information on the bill.

"This bill is not necessarily in the best interest of all of us," said Stephen Oberheu, a teacher in the province. "This bill is in the best interest of a few controlled things. They want things like appointed school boards instead of elected school boards, which takes power out of the hands of communities that are supposed to be served."

The province has previously stated to CTV News that the new bill will improve education and parental input and said it is listening to Manitobans through a variety of engagement and consultations.

Waterloo protesters joins others across Canada calling for action for housing crisis


Carmen Wong

CTV News Kitchener Videographer
Published Saturday, August 14, 2021 

Protesting to address nation’s housing crisis

From CTV Kitchener’s Carmen Wong: Protesters gathered in Waterloo, and across Canada, to bring attention to the nation’s housing crisis.


WATERLOO -- Protesters at City Hall in Waterloo were joined by others across Canada on Saturday calling for action to address the nation’s housing crisis.

Tina Horn is one Waterloo Region resident calling for more affordable housing, as she says she and her four children have little room to manuever around her two-bedroom apartment in Kitchener.

“My oldest son and my step son live in the living room and I live in the dining room,” she said. “Conflicts start to arise and it’s very stressful to be the peacemaker. Any other place is like $1,600 and I can’t afford that.”


Her son Brandon decided to organize the housing crisis protest in front of city hall and demand political leaders build more homes to stop speculation and improve social housing.

“Almost everybody I know personally that I grew up with is going through this, unless they have inter-generational wealth,” he said.

About 60 protesters gathered in hopes of making their voices heard.

“My children will never be able to move out,” one protester told CTV News. “I’m expecting my five-year-old to live with me forever and my grandchildren to live with me too.”

Waterloo Mayor Dave Jaworsky says the region is working towards a permanent solution.

“We have a $250 million plan to build more affordable housing over the next 10 years, but that will require funding from federal and provincial levels,” he said. “We don’t see this coming back down, so we need to figure out a way collectively to find out how to handle this.”

Jaworsky adds that those concerned should visit Engage Waterloo Region online and provide feedback to the official regional plan.

“I emigrated from France five years ago and I’m having a hard time putting a deposit together because I spent so much of my money to come here,” another protester said.

Waterloo’s gathering was just one of many taking part in the Canadian National Housing Crisis Protest. There were also demonstrations in Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, and Vancouver.

“I work full time for above minimum wage, I have a salary and a professional job, and I can’t afford to rent in this city,” another protester told CTV News.