UK 

Junk food advertising restrictions prevent almost 100,000 obesity cases and is expected to save the NHS £200m

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

• A restriction on junk food advertising across the Transport for London (TfL) network in 2019, has resulted in 94,867 fewer cases of obesity, 2,857 cases of diabetes prevented or delayed, and 1,915 fewer cases of cardiovascular disease

• The new research from the University of Sheffield and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) has found the policy is expected to save the NHS £218 million over the lifetime of the current population

• Reductions in obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease could be higher than reported, as the study does not take into account any decreases in childhood obesity which are expected to have occured

• Currently, one quarter of children in the UK are obese by the time they leave primary school

• Researchers are now investigating the impact of rolling the policy out nationwide 

Junk food advertising restrictions on Transport for London (TfL) networks have prevented almost 100,000 obesity cases and is expected to save the NHS over £200 million, according to new research.

The new study, from the University of Sheffield and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), revealed the TfL advertising policy restricting the advertisement of foods high in calories from sugar and fat or high in salt, has led to consumers cutting down on less healthy products.

Researchers estimate the policy, which has been in place since 2019, has directly led to 94,867 fewer cases of obesity than expected (a 4.8 per cent decrease), 2,857 fewer cases of diabetes, and 1,915 fewer cases of cardiovascular disease.

In addition to health benefits for individuals, the analysis found the current advertising policy would save the NHS £218 million over the lifetime of the current population.  

The study is published in the journal International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, and led by the University of Sheffield in collaboration with researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), who previously found the advertising policy has contributed to a 1,000 calorie decrease in energy from unhealthy purchases in consumers' weekly shopping. 

By seeing what consumers are purchasing in their weekly food shops via surveys, and comparing trends in London to a control group of households outside of London where there were no restrictions on advertising in place, academics were able to assess the effect the policy is having on people’s health and the health service.

Dr Chloe Thomas, First Author of the study from the University of Sheffield’s School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), said: “We all know how persuasive and powerful advertising can be in influencing what we buy - especially the food we eat. Our study has shown what an important tool advertising restrictions can be in order to help people lead healthier lives without costing them more money.

“We hope that demonstrating the policy's significant benefits in preventing obesity and the diseases exacerbated by obesity, will lead to it being rolled out on a national scale, something that could save lives and NHS money."

The findings reveal the policy has had the biggest health impacts on people from deprived areas in terms of preventing health conditions, therefore reducing the level of health inequality in London. Despite people on middle incomes cutting more calories, the policy has had a bigger impact on the most deprived areas as people from those areas tend to be less healthy overall.

Professor Steve Cummins, from LSHTM, said: “This work shows the potential health impacts and cost savings of the Mayor of London’s ‘Junk Food Ad Restriction’ based on our evaluation earlier this year, published in PLoS Medicine, which found that the policy reduced average household purchases of energy by 1000 calories per week. 

“With more than 80 local authorities across the UK now considering the implementation of similar policies, this study provides further evidence of the effectiveness of advertising restrictions to help support decision-makers. In light of the government’s current delay in implementing obesity prevention policies outlined in the recent 2022 Health & Care Act, this is a policy that local authorities can deliver now without the need for national regulation in an effort to tackle obesity on a national scale.”

The findings come at a time when food and diet is firmly on the minds of many families in Britain - the government recently announced its Food Strategy, which has come under heavy scrutiny for not going far enough to address concerns over food security in the UK.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “Advertising undoubtedly plays a significant role in promoting and encouraging the consumption of less healthy foods. With child obesity putting the lives of young Londoners at risk it simply isn’t right that children and families across the capital are regularly inundated with adverts for foods that do not support their health – that’s why I was clear that tough action was needed.

“This study, which builds on research from earlier this year, demonstrates yet again that the ground-breaking restrictions we introduced could not only influence behaviour and ultimately save lives but could directly save our NHS hundreds of millions of pounds.

“I am determined to continue this work to improve the health of Londoners, alleviating some of the burden on our overstretched health service and building a better London for everyone.”

Dr Penny Breeze, Lead Investigator of the study from the University of Sheffield’s School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), added: “There have been very few studies that have looked at the health and economic impact of out of home advertising restrictions. We are delighted to show that there are many benefits to the policy, and hope that the policy continues to be rolled out outside of London.”

The paper can be viewed in full here.

Ends

Notes to editors

Media contacts: For an interview with Dr Chloe Thomas please contact: Amy Huxtable, Media Relations Manager, University of Sheffield, 0114 222 9859

This work was funded by the NIHR. The NIHR School for Public Health Research aims to increase the evidence base for cost-effective public health practice. The School is a partnership between nine leading academic centres with excellence in applied public health research in England. 

National Institute for Health and Care Research

The mission of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) is to improve the health and wealth of the nation through research. We do this by:

• Funding high quality, timely research that benefits the NHS, public health and social care;

• Investing in world-class expertise, facilities and a skilled delivery workforce to translate discoveries into improved treatments and services;

• Partnering with patients, service users, carers and communities, improving the relevance, quality and impact of our research;

• Attracting, training and supporting the best researchers to tackle complex health and social care challenges;

• Collaborating with other public funders, charities and industry to help shape a cohesive and globally competitive research system;

• Funding applied global health research and training to meet the needs of the poorest people in low and middle income countries.

NIHR is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care. Its work in low and middle income countries is principally funded through UK Aid from the UK government.

The University of Sheffield

With almost 29,000 of the brightest students from over 140 countries, learning alongside over 1,200 of the best academics from across the globe, the University of Sheffield is one of the world’s leading universities.

A member of the UK’s prestigious Russell Group of leading research-led institutions, Sheffield offers world-class teaching and research excellence across a wide range of disciplines.

Unified by the power of discovery and understanding, staff and students at the university are committed to finding new ways to transform the world we live in and develop solutions to society’s biggest challenges.

Sheffield researchers use their expertise to tackle some of the biggest issues of our time together with partners ranging from SMEs to some of the world’s biggest companies, from across the South Yorkshire region, the UK and beyond.

The University of Sheffield provides an outstanding student experience for its students, with the number one Students’ Union in the UK and both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees that help its students stand out in the jobs market and develop successful careers after graduation, wherever they choose to live and work.

Sheffield has six Nobel Prize winners among former staff and students and its alumni go on to hold positions of great responsibility and influence all over the world, making significant contributions in their chosen fields.

Global research partners and clients include Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Unilever, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Siemens and Airbus, as well as many UK and overseas government agencies and charitable foundations.

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)
The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) is a world-leading centre for research, postgraduate studies and continuing education in public and global health. LSHTM has a strong international presence with over 3,500 staff and 4,000 students working in the UK and around the world, and an annual research income of £180 million.

LSHTM is one of the highest rated research institutions in the UK, and is partnered with two MRC Units in The Gambia and Uganda. We received a Queen’s Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education in 2017 in recognition of our work on Ebola, and in 2022 for our response to COVID-19. Our mission is to improve health and health equity in the UK and worldwide; working in partnership to achieve excellence in public and global health research, education and translation of knowledge into policy and practice. We are committed to delivering world class research and education in a sustainable way and are working to achieve net zero by 2030.

Follow us on social media @LSHTM

www.lshtm.ac.uk

---

JOURNAL

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

DOI

10.1186/s12966-022-01331-y 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

People

ARTICLE TITLE

The health, cost and equity impacts of restrictions on the advertisement of high fat, salt and sugar products across the transport for London network: a health economic modelling study

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

1-Aug-2022

Newts unleashed: Limb muscle regeneration needs metamorphosis and body growth

Researchers from the University of Tsukuba find that changes in the extracellular environment provided by metamorphosis and body growth enable newt muscle fibers to dedifferentiate and contribute to limb regeneration

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA

 

IMAGE: IMAGE view more 

CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF TSUKUBA

Researchers from the University of Tsukuba find that changes in the extracellular environment provided by metamorphosis and body growth enable newt muscle fibers to dedifferentiate and contribute to limb regeneration

Tsukuba, Japan—Unknown to passersby, a modest little creature with amazing abilities lives and breeds in the forests and paddy fields of Japan. Now, researchers from Japan have discovered how these amphibians' superpowers are unleashed.

In a study published this month in Scientific Reports, researchers from the University of Tsukuba have revealed that during limb regeneration in newts, two developmental processes—metamorphosis and body growth—are needed to provide the right conditions for muscle cells to be redeployed within the limb stump.

Newts, which are a semiaquatic type of salamander, are like most other amphibians in that they undergo metamorphosis. But unlike their relatives, newts are capable of repeated limb regeneration—even in the adult stage after they have undergone metamorphosis. In some newt species, individuals that have already metamorphosed regenerate muscle via dedifferentiation or reprogramming of muscle fibers in the limb stump, and mobilization of these fibers, to create muscle in the regenerating limb.

"Unlike cell differentiation, where cells become more specialized, cell dedifferentiation is a process via which they become less specialized," says senior author of the study, Professor Chikafumi Chiba. "Prior to our study, it was unknown whether metamorphosis or body growth was the key developmental process for muscle dedifferentiation."

The researchers investigated muscle cell dedifferentiation in the Japanese Fire-bellied Newt, Cynops pyrrhogaster, by tracking muscle fibers during limb regeneration while body growth and metamorphosis were experimentally delayed or advanced. The results suggest that metamorphosis and body growth are both needed for muscle differentiation.

Conversely, when larval newt muscles were cultured with a physiologically active thyroid hormone, tracking of the muscle fibers showed that these fibers can dedifferentiate independently of body growth and metamorphosis. These results indicate that newt muscle fibers have an inherent capacity to dedifferentiate, but that both body growth and metamorphosis are required for the fibers to activate this secret ability.

"We suggest that the developmental changes in the extracellular environment, or niche, inhibit the activity of myogenic stem cells—cells that can differentiate into muscle fibers—and promote the latent ability of muscle fibers to dedifferentiate. This way, the stem cells are compensated for by dedifferentiation, allowing newts to regenerate limb muscles throughout their life cycle," says Professor Chiba.

The results of this study provide an important foundation for future research on extracellular environments as well as the molecular mechanisms of dedifferentiation, such as the gene regulation that underpins this phenomenon. This research will also contribute to a deeper understanding of regeneration, and possible even to potential future medical treatments such as new therapies for diseases and muscle damage.

###
This work was supported by grants from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in Japan (221S0002) and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (80272152; 18H04061) to C. C.

Original Paper

The article, "The latent dedifferentiation capacity of newt limb muscles is unleashed by a combination of metamorphosis and body growth," was published in Scientific Reports at DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-15879-z

Correspondence

Professor CHIBA Chikafumi
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba

Related Link

Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences

---

JOURNAL

Scientific Reports

DOI

10.1038/s41598-022-15879-z 

ARTICLE TITLE

The latent dedifferentiation capacity of newt limb muscles is unleashed by a combination of metamorphosis and body growth

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

1-Aug-2022

Buying a net-zero carbon home

A new study shows that net zero carbon in the concrete industry will require not just changes in manufacturing standards but also changes in purchasing habits

Peer-Reviewed Publication

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

 

IMAGE: ROLE OF SUPPLY- AND DEMAND-SIDE STRATEGIES IN NET CO2 EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CEMENT AND CONCRETE CYCLE IN JAPAN, 2020–2050 view more 

CREDIT: SPRINGER NATURE

The concrete industry is just one of many looking at new manufacturing methods to reduce its carbon footprint. These efforts are essential to fulfilling the Paris Agreement, which asks each of its signees to achieve a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. However, a new study from researchers in Japan and Belgium and focusing exclusively on Japan concludes that improved manufacturing technologies will only get the industry within eighty percent of its goal. Using a dynamic material flows analysis model, the study claim that the other twenty percent will have to come from changes in how concrete is consumed and managed, putting expectations on the buyer as well as the seller.

Electric cars, fluorescent lights, water-saving shower heads, these are all examples of efforts to lower our carbon footprint. However, the energy savings are made from the supply side, with companies developing new technologies that reduce the amount of energy consumed for the same amount of use. Notably, they put little demand on the user, who can use the product no differently than before.

The same holds true for concrete, the most consumed human-made material in the world. Many studies have shown the potential for making the concrete industry more energy efficient through esoteric efforts like “clinker-to-cement ratio reduction”, “cement substitution with alternative binders”, and “carbon capture and utilization”. The problem, explains Dr. Takuma Watari, a researcher at the Japan National Institute for Environmental Studies and lead of the new study, is that supply-side efforts are not enough if nations are serious about achieving net-zero carbon emissions.

“We found that supply-side efforts can at best achieve 80% of the needed reductions. Our research has shown that for net-zero emissions, both supply-side and demand-side strategies are necessary,” he said.

That conclusion came after exhausting all options on the supply side. Watari and his colleagues realized, after examining the cement and concrete cycle in Japan from 1950 to today, that the concrete industry has already implemented effective technologies to reduce its carbon footprint to the point that it cannot be expected to solely take the responsibility.

“We must change not only how concrete is made, but also how it is used,” he said.

Extending the service life of buildings and infrastructure through new design as well as enhancing their multi-purpose use will reduce the demand for concrete. Consumers of concrete, the authors argue, need to view their consumption with more of the recycle, reuse, and reduce attitude applied to household waste.

Obvious targets, they continued, are not just homes, but infrastructure for medical care, transportation, schools and stores. Policies are needed to encourage these consumers to change their behavior. Much like how “energy efficiency” has influenced consumption, societies need to embrace “material efficiency”, which is influenced by design and use, when making their purchases.

The irony, notes Watari, is that the concrete industry, while incentivized to reduce carbon consumption on the supply side, has little motivation in changing habits on the demand side.

“Current profits are directly related to the volume sold. This gives little reason for the industry to promote efficient material use. The change needs to come from policy,” he said.

With appropriate changes to the demand side, the study states that not only will the concrete and cement cycle become more environmentally friendly and the goal of net-zero carbon by 2050 be realized, but there will be benefits for the use of scarce resources such as water as well.

“The most important finding of our study is that there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution. Everyone needs to contribute. Right now, there is too much emphasis on supply-side strategies. To realize net-zero emissions, architects, urban planners, and general consumers must contribute,” said Watari.

---

JOURNAL

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-022-31806-2 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

News article

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Efficient use of cement and concrete to reduce reliance on supply-side technologies for net-zero emissions

All of us, right now

We can confirm that the federal government is working on a regularization program - a program to give permanent resident status to undocumented people. Plans are also being made that will impact migrant workers, students, families and refugees.    Sometime this summer or fall, Prime Minister Trudeau will decide how many undocumented people will be regularized and which low-wage migrants will be granted permanent resident status.   This is a historical and unprecedented opportunity but only if we act. To win regularization for the most people, we need to show Prime Minister Trudeau that tens of thousands of people are united in calling for Status for All.

To win the largest and most inclusive regularization program that will include the most people, thousands of us must take action.   (1) We need to get at least 12,000 more petition signatures  to meet our target of 17,000 petition signatures by August 17 to call for Status for All 1.7million people. Ask THREE friends to add their name today: http://www.statusforall.ca/    (2) Gather paper petition signatures. Talk to your neighbours, get signatures on the bus, stand outside the grocery store. Download paper petitions, print and get petitions signed. Join our meeting today if you've questions on how to get petitions signed.    (3) Put up posters at your local MP office and in your neighbourhood. We need to make sure that every MP in the country knows what's we want right now.    (4) If you are part of an organization, write a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau supporting our call for rights, regularization and status for all. See our Request for Support to Labour, Environmental and Civil Society Organizations here.

Check out photos from July 17, when we marched, had meetings, and gathered petition signatures across the country

We do not take any money from government or corporations, chip in today to power our work.

Indigenous-Led Blockade Demands Biden Declare Climate Emergency, End Oil Leasing

"Native land back in native hands, we are not your sacrifice zones!"

A demonstrator is suspended from a tripod structure in front of the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. on August 1, 2022. (Photo: About Face: Veterans Against the War/Twitter)


JAKE JOHNSON

COMMON DREAMS

August 1, 2022

An Indigenous-led blockade outside the U.S. Department of Interior early Monday morning called on President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency and halt all new fossil fuel projects, a demand that came as the White House and Senate Democrats are pushing legislation that could unleash a flurry of drilling activity on public lands and waters.

"Native land back in native hands, we are not your sacrifice zones!" declared the Ikiya Collective, which helped organize the direct action.

Demonstrators painted "Climate Emergency" in large red letters in the street in front of the Interior Department and one protester was suspended from a tripod structure set up in the road.

Addressing the president directly, the collective wrote on social media, "Declare a climate emergency and stop approving all fossil fuel projects, including leases, exports, plastic plants, and pipelines."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear that new fossil fuel extraction projects and other dirty energy infrastructure projects are incompatible with global efforts to rein in carbon emissions, which are driving increasingly devastating extreme weather around the world and inflicting deep harm on Indigenous communities, poor people, and other vulnerable populations.

Nevertheless, the Biden Interior Department—headed by Deb Haaland, the first Indigenous person to lead the agency—has signaled that it is willing to approve new oil and gas drilling in federal waters off the coast of Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico despite the president's campaign vow to ban all "new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters."

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a Biden-endorsed bill that Senate Democrats are aiming to pass as soon as this week, would require oil and gas lease sales as a prerequisite for solar and wind development—a provision that Big Oil has hailed as a significant victory.

Biden is reportedly considering declaring a climate emergency, but it's unclear whether he will do so now that Senate Democrats have agreed on legislation that would make historic renewable energy investments, even as it paves the way for more drilling.

Tom BK Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network warned in a statement last week that the Democratic legislation—crafted in large part by fossil fuel industry ally Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—"exacerbates a pathway of climate and environmental injustice to Indigenous, Black, and people of color communities."

"This act is more of the same climate false solutions we have seen previously from this administration," Goldtooth added. "But it goes further with a quid pro quo guaranteeing offshore oil leases in exchange for renewable energy... The act does not provide climate nor energy security and will not cut emissions at source at the level that is needed to address this climate emergency."

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

The Fed Should Not Punish Working People for Inflation Driven by Big Oil's Greed

Interest rate hikes are a blunt and imprecise tool that won't tackle current sources of inflation, particularly our overdependence on volatile fossil fuels. The best way forward is to shift finance away from fossil fuels, and jump-start a transition to renewable energy.

A burned Valero gas station smolders during the Creek fire in an unincorporated area of Fresno County, California on September 8, 2020.

 (Photo: Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images)

AKIKSHA CHATTERJI

COMMON DREAMS

August 1, 2022

If you own a car, pay energy bills, or buy groceries, then you have probably noticed that prices are soaring. The cost of food is up 10% and the cost of a gallon of gas is up 50% from a year ago. And in May this year, median monthly rent hit a record high at $2,002. We're experiencing the highest levels of inflation in 40 years, which is taking a particularly harsh toll on low-income households.

Two important drivers of inflation are especially dangerous—fossil fuels and corporate greed.

As consumer prices rose to 8.6%, the Federal Reserve—the US central bank, and the institution tasked with maintaining price stability—decided it's time to act with the largest interest rate hikes in 28 years. And it's poised to keep raising rates aggressively in its attempt to tame inflation.

The basic idea is that raising rates will increase the cost of borrowing, making it harder for households and businesses to get credit and therefore dampening demand, which is believed will bring prices down. But this approach will fail to address the sources of current inflation that aren't related to demand—particularly our overdependence on volatile fossil fuels. Instead, forcing up interest rates could thwart the economic recovery from Covid-19, eat into workers' wages, and plunge millions into unemployment, which will hurt the poorest members of society the most.

In this time of overlapping crises—a pandemic, war, and the climate crisis—we need to understand what's really driving inflation and destabilizing our way of life so that we can develop more tailored responses that won't hurt working communities.

There is a wide range of causes for the current increase in prices. These include supply chain disruptions, exploitative pricing and profiteering by big companies, and geopolitical conflict. Amongst these, two important drivers of inflation are especially dangerous—fossil fuels and corporate greed.

America's overdependence on fossil fuels exposes ordinary people to price volatility. When Russia, a major supplier of oil and gas on the world market, invaded Ukraine, prices went soaring even higher. This is an example of how global geopolitical tensions can shock supplies and prices with potentially catastrophic economic consequences at home, forcing families to decide between putting food on the table or paying electricity bills. And because fluctuations in the cost of oil impacts everything—transportation, production, cooling, and heating—the consequences can reverberate throughout the economy and quickly strip people of their livelihoods.

As long as we depend on fossil fuels for our energy, we'll continue to be exposed to such dangers because oil and gas are volatile and unreliable commodities.

To make matters much worse, oil company CEOs have vast amounts of unchecked power, allowing them to keep prices at the pump high and rake in record profits. While people and families everywhere struggled to pay their bills and fill up their tanks, oil companies brought in over $41 billion in profits just in the first three months of 2022—profits that they're using on stock buybacks and to enrich shareholders, instead of investing productively.

Many large companies across the U.S. are capitalizing on inflation. In sectors where only a few dominate the market, these mega corporations have huge power to set high prices and not worry about losing customers.

At the same time, the fossil fuel industry and its political allies are using this moment of overlapping crises to attack the Biden administration's climate initiatives and to double down on domestic oil production. We know this is a false solution primarily because it's more profitable to export gas, which the U.S. continues to do despite skyrocketing domestic prices.

Caught in the crossfire of corporate greed and fossil fuel volatility are people, particularly low-income and communities of color. These companies don't care about our communities, and they certainly don't care about the planet. As it happens, fossil fuels are also driving climate change, which brings a whole new level of price and financial instability.

Climate disasters are destroying infrastructure, homes, jobs, and businesses, and disrupting supply chains. All this is costing billions of dollars every year and adding inflation risk—just look at crop failures from increasingly frequent and prolonged droughts. There's little hope of price or financial stability in a world that lurches from one disaster to the next, and this could result in an economic crash that could be worse than 2008.

As the supervisor of our financial system, the Fed can start by cracking down on Wall Street's reckless fossil fuel financing. It has a number of tools at its disposal, ranging from setting limits on how much greenhouse gas pollution a bank can finance to even bolder action such as requiring that banks stop financing the climate crisis, and instead align their investments with science-based emissions targets.

By aiding the switch to an economy powered by clean and abundant renewable energy, the Fed can help reduce inflation and climate risk, drastically lower energy bills, create thousands of good-paying jobs in the process, and bring long-term price and financial stability.

It's worth noting that there are limitations to what the Fed can do to manage inflation. That's why we need closer coordination between the government and the Fed to control inflation. And right now, we urgently need our policymakers to act as well. One smart move they could make is to pass a windfall profits tax. This is currently happening in the UK. The money raised from this kind of tax could also help fund investments in a green transition.

Inflation is complex and demands a deeper look beneath the surface which usually reveals that we need wide-ranging tools to effectively manage rising prices. Austerity-based measures like interest rate hikes threaten our chances of investing in a robust economic recovery to help build a stable and socially just future.

Corporate greed and fossil fuels are massive challenges that demand better responses. Getting off fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy is a long-term solution that can help us build a fair and sustainable economy on a planet that will remain habitable for generations to come. It's time our public institutions step up and lead the way there.

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

AKIKSHA CHATTERJI
Aki is an international student from India, who moved to Seattle in 2019 for higher education. She is currently getting her Masters in Social Work from the University of Washington, with a focus in administration and policy. Working with 350 Seattle on the Green New Deal campaign aligns well with Aki’s values as she believes that addressing climate change is inextricably tied to racism, economic inequality, the exploitation of vulnerable communities, and other forms of deep rooted systemic oppression.

Critics Call Pelosi's Confirmed Trip to Taiwan a 'Dangerous War Provocation'

"Taiwan is China. The U.N. says so. The U.S. and China have said so," noted one anti-imperialist author, adding that "Nancy Pelosi has gone full neocon" to violate the "One China" policy.


A U.S. delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) meets with Singaporean leaders in Singapore on August 1, 2022. (Photo: Nancy Pelosi/Facebook)

BRETT WILKINS

COMMON DREAMS

August 1, 2022

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Taiwan this week, U.S. and Taiwanese officials said Monday, despite warnings from China, the Biden administration, and anti-war campaigners.

"The chances of a military confrontation between China and the United States have spiked upward."

Although a stop on the island—which nearly the entire international community, including the United Nations and the U.S., consider part of China—is not on Pelosi's public itinerary, a senior Taiwanese official told CNN that the California Democrat is expected to stay overnight in Taiwan, where she will reportedly meet with officials including President Tsai Ing-wen.

At a Monday press conference in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said his government "has repeatedly made clear to the U.S. side our serious concern over Speaker Pelosi's potential visit to Taiwan and our firm opposition to the visit."

"Pelosi is the third highest-ranking official in the U.S. government, which means it would be highly sensitive for her to visit Taiwan no matter what," he continued, adding that such a trip constitutes "gross interference in China's internal affairs."

Zhao said the visit will also "seriously undermine China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, wantonly trample on the 'One China' principle, greatly threaten peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, severely undermine China-U.S. relations, and lead to a very serious situation and grave consequences."

"The People's Liberation Army of China will never sit idly by," he added ominously, "and we will make [a] resolute response and take strong countermeasures to uphold China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. As for what measures, if she dares to go, then let's wait and see."

In a Monday video commemorating the 95th birthday of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), China's Eastern Theater Command vowed it is "always ready to fight" and would "bury any invading enemies."

During a Monday press conference, U.S. National Security Council strategic communications coordinator John Kirby said that Pelosi would be arriving in Taiwan on a military plane, while the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other American warships operate nearby.

Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense said Monday that four Chinese warplanes flew through the island's Air Defense Identification Zone.

Last week, Hu Xijin, a columnist for Chinese government-owned Global Times, suggested shooting down the plane transporting the House speaker as a last resort to prevent it from landing in Taiwan.

While U.S. President Joe Biden has said that Pentagon officials believe Pelosi's visit "is not a good idea right now," he has been criticized for not objecting more vocally to the trip.

Chinese President Xi Jinping reportedly told Biden during a lengthy phone conversation last Thursday that "those who play with fire will eventually get burned," while the American leader asserted that Congress is an independent branch of the U.S. government whose members make their own decisions.

Anti-war voices continued to sound the alarm over a visit that numerous observers say increases the risk of a U.S.-China war.

"The PLA has repeatedly warned that their fighter jets are ready to follow, intercept, electronically interfere, force a landing, or drive Pelosi's plane back," noted author and Black Agenda Report journalist Danny Haiphong. "This is not a drill. Pelosi's trip to Taiwan is a dangerous war provocation."

Ariel Gold, executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation and former co-director of the peace group CodePink, lamented that "one would think that while already in the midst of a Cold War that could easily turn hot with nuclear Russia," it "would be prudent not to escalate within nuclear China, but unfortunately Pelosi doesn't feel this way."

RootsAction co-founder Norman Solomon wrote for Common Dreams Monday: "The arrogance of power is especially ominous and despicable when a government leader risks huge numbers of lives in order to make a provocative move on the world's geopolitical chessboard. Nancy Pelosi's plan to visit Taiwan is in that category. Thanks to her, the chances of a military confrontation between China and the United States have spiked upward."

"This is the kind of leadership," added Solomon, "that can get us all killed."

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

Nancy Pelosi Taiwan Visit Could Get Us All Killed

The consequences—far from being only economic and diplomatic—could be existential for all of humanity.

NORMAN SOLOMON

August 1, 2022

The arrogance of power is especially ominous and despicable when a government leader risks huge numbers of lives in order to make a provocative move on the world's geopolitical chessboard. Nancy Pelosi's plan to visit Taiwan is in that category. Thanks to her, the chances of a military confrontation between China and the United States have spiked upward.

Long combustible over Taiwan, the tensions between Beijing and Washington are now close to ablaze, due to Pelosi's desire to be the first House speaker to visit Taiwan in 25 years. Despite the alarms that her travel plans have set off, President Biden has responded timidly—even while much of the establishment wants to see the trip canceled.

"Well, I think that the military thinks it's not a good idea right now," Biden said about the prospective trip on July 20. "But I don't know what the status of it is."

Biden could have put his presidential foot down and ruled out Pelosi's Taiwan trip, but he didn't. Yet, as days went by, news trickled out that opposition to the trip was extensive in the upper reaches of his administration.

"National security adviser Jake Sullivan and other senior National Security Council officials oppose the trip because of the risk of escalating tension across the Taiwan Strait," Financial Times reported. And overseas, "the controversy over the trip has sparked concern among Washington's allies who are worried that it could trigger a crisis between the U.S. and China."

Underscoring that the U.S. commander in chief is anything but an innocent bystander in terms of Pelosi's trip, officials disclosed that the Pentagon intends to provide fighter jets as escorts if she goes through with the Taiwan visit. Biden's unwillingness to clearly head off such a visit reflects the insidious style of his own confrontational approach to China.

More than a year ago—under the apt New York Times headline "Biden's Taiwan Policy Is Truly, Deeply Reckless"—Peter Beinart pointed out that from the outset of his presidency Biden was "chipping away" at the longstanding U.S. "one China" policy: "Biden became the first American president since 1978 to host Taiwan's envoy at his inauguration. In April, his administration announced it was easing decades-old limitations on official U.S. contacts with the Taiwanese government. These policies are increasing the odds of a catastrophic war. The more the United States and Taiwan formally close the door on reunification, the more likely Beijing is to seek reunification by force."

Beinart added: "What's crucial is that the Taiwanese people preserve their individual freedom and the planet does not endure a third world war. The best way for the United States to pursue those goals is by maintaining America's military support for Taiwan while also maintaining the 'one China' framework that for more than four decades has helped keep the peace in one of the most dangerous places on earth."

Now, Pelosi's move toward a visit to Taiwan has amounted to further intentional erosion of the "one China" policy. Biden's mealy-mouthed response to that move was a subtler type of brinkmanship.

Many mainline commentators, while very critical of China, acknowledge the hazardous trend. "The Biden administration remains committed to being more hawkish on China than its predecessor," conservative historian Niall Ferguson wrote on Friday. He added: "Presumably, the calculation in the White House remains, as in the 2020 election, that being tough on China is a vote-winner—or, to put it differently, that doing anything the Republicans can portray as 'weak on China' is a vote-loser. Yet it is hard to believe that this calculation would hold if the result were a new international crisis, with all its potential economic consequences."

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal summed up the current precarious moment with a headline declaring that Pelosi's visit "would likely sink tentative rapprochement between U.S., China."

But the consequences—far from being only economic and diplomatic—could be existential for all of humanity. China has several hundred nuclear weapons ready to use, while the United States has several thousand. The potential for military conflict and escalation is all too real.

"We keep claiming our 'one China' policy hasn't changed, but a Pelosi visit would clearly be precedent setting and can't be construed as in keeping with 'unofficial relations,'" said Susan Thornton, a former acting assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the State Department. Thornton added: "If she goes, the prospect of a crisis goes way up as China will need to respond."

Last week, a pair of mainstream policy analysts from elite think tanks—the German Marshall Fund and the American Enterprise Institute—wrote in the New York Times: "A single spark could ignite this combustible situation into a crisis that escalates to military conflict. Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan could provide it."

But July ended with strong indications that Biden has given a green light and Pelosi still intends to go ahead with an imminent visit to Taiwan. This is the kind of leadership that can get us all killed.

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



NORMAN SOLOMON is co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org. His books include "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" (2006) and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State" (2007).

Sanders Says GOP Shouldn't Have Funded Wars If It Didn't Want to Take Care of Vets

"If you don't believe we can afford to take care of our veterans suffering from toxic burn pit exposure, then you should not have approved funding to go to war."


Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) exits the Senate Chamber following a vote on Capitol Hill on July 28, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)


JAKE JOHNSONAugust 1, 2022


Calling out Sen. Pat Toomey by name, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Republicans blocking a bill aimed at providing care to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals overseas should not have voted to fund the wars that created the health nightmare for millions of people.

"I say to Senator Toomey, if you don't believe we can afford to take care of our veterans suffering from toxic burn pit exposure, then you should not have approved funding to go to war," said Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted to authorize the U.S. war in Afghanistan but against the Iraq invasion.

"Taking care of our veterans is the cost of war—period," Sanders added. "End of discussion."

Burn pits have been used by the U.S. in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries to dispose of waste accumulated on military bases, despite warnings that such a method risked the large-scale release of toxic fumes, exposing both American troops and civilians living nearby. The Pentagon estimates that some 3.5 million U.S. troops have suffered health issues stemming from exposure to toxic chemicals spewing from burn pits.

"In some locations, the fires were massive operations," the Military Times notes. "At Joint Base Balad—one of the largest military bases in Iraq—the burn pit covered nearly 10 acres, with the resulting smoke passing over the entire base as winds shifted... Numerous studies and reports have suggested links between the poor air quality and rare cancers found in increasing numbers among post-9/11 veterans."

Toomey, a retiring Pennsylvania Republican, has led the GOP's opposition to the Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022, claiming the bill contains "a budgetary gimmick" that would spark a "huge explosion in unrelated spending," and that the spending would be mandatory instead of discretionary. Supporters of the bill have rejected Toomey's attack, calling it a manufactured excuse to justify tanking the measure.

Toomey is attempting to force the inclusion of an amendment that the Department of Veterans Affairs warns would force the federal government to "ration care for veterans."

Liberal comedian Jon Stewart, a vocal advocate for the legislation, said at a press conference on Capitol Hill last week that Republicans "support the war machine," not U.S. troops or veterans.

"They haven't met a war they won't sign up for," said Stewart, "and they haven't met a veteran they won't screw over."

Related Content

'These Motherf*ckers': Jon Stewart Goes Off on GOP Turning Back on Sick Veterans
Kenny Stancil

The Honoring Our PACT Act passed the Senate easily in June, with just 14 Republicans—including Toomey—voting no, but administrative tweaks to the legislation made another vote necessary. Dozens of Republicans have since changed their position on the bill, leading Democrats to accuse them of retaliating over renewed efforts to pass a party-line reconciliation bill.

"Republicans are mad that Democrats are on the verge of passing climate change legislation and have decided to take out their anger on vulnerable veterans," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) argued in a floor speech last week. "News emerged that there is an agreement that makes it likely that a climate change bill is going to proceed on the Senate floor, and magically 30 votes flip."

The veterans' healthcare legislation would, of course, do nothing for Iraqis, Afghans, and others exposed to toxic chemicals due to the United States' violent invasions and occupations of their home countries.

As In These Times journalist Sarah Lazare noted in March, when President Joe Biden used his State of the Union address to pledge assistance to veterans suffering from chemical exposure, "the Iraqi and Afghan people who live near these burn pits—who raise children, go to work, and give birth within breathing distance of their air pollution—were nowhere to be seen."

"The president did not mention Iraqi and Afghan people, whose exposure is far more prolonged, and whose resultant widespread health problems, including increased rates of birth defects, are well-documented (at least in Iraq)," wrote Lazare. "The omission reflects the chauvinism of U.S. discourse about the wars, in which the lives of those who suffer U.S. occupation and environmental poisoning simply do not register."

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

ROSCOM Space chief: No ISS pullout before Russia has own space station in orbit
Updated 31-Jul-2022
CGTN

A view of the International Space Station. /NASA

The head of Russia's space agency said Friday that the country has not set a date for pulling out of the International Space Station (ISS) program, noting that Russia would only do so after it puts its own space station in orbit.

Yuri Borisov, who was appointed this month to lead the Roscosmos state space corporation, told President Vladimir Putin this week that a decision was made for Russia to leave the station after 2024 and focus on building its own orbiting station.

NASA and its partners hope to continue operating the 24-year-old ISS until 2030, and the Russian announcement has thrown that plan into doubt.

Speaking on Friday, Borisov said Russia will start the process of leaving the station after 2024 but the exact timing would depend on the ISS's status.

"The termination of work on the ISS and the start of work on the Russian station undoubtedly should be synchronized," Borisov said, adding that the Russian pullout could take up to two years.

A view of the International Space Station. /NASA


Russia has started designing the new station, but space officials haven't said when it could be launched.

Borisov's predecessor Dmitry Rogozin said last month that Moscow could take part in negotiations about a possible extension of the station's operations only if the U.S. lifted its sanctions against Russian space industries.

However, Borisov insisted his agency's decision wasn't related to politics. "There are no political aspects here, and I believe there shouldn't be any," he said.

"The ISS has enriched science with knowledge about Earth and about the universe and brought us all together," Borisov said.

"Such projects should stay away from politics. I'm sorry that our joint space projects that are important for the entire humankind are getting a political tinge. It's wrong."

NASA officials said they had yet to hear directly from their Russian counterparts on the matter. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson issued a statement saying the agency was "committed to the safe operation" of the space station through 2030 and continues "to build future capabilities to assure our major presence in low-Earth orbit."

(With input from AP)

Read More:

Russia to quit International Space Station 'after 2024': official

What impact will Russia's pullout have on the International Space Station?