Shark washes ashore in Massachusetts, and ‘something was not right,’ biologists say


Photo from John Chisholm, New England Aquarium

Brendan Rascius
Thu, January 12, 2023 

An emaciated shark washed ashore in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, amid an uptick in strandings in the area, a biologist said.

John Chisholm, a biologist at the New England Aquarium, was alerted on Jan. 10 to a porbeagle shark floundering in the shallow waters of Sagamore Beach, he wrote in a tweet.

Upon Chisholm’s arrival, the sickly creature was moved into deeper water, but died soon after and washed ashore at low tide, he said.

“When we finally recovered it we could see it was very very thin, another indication something was not right,” Chisholm told McClatchy News.

Michelle Passerotti, a doctor with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), performed a necropsy on the shark, revealing a “withered and unhealthy” liver and an internal parasite, Chisholm said. Samples were then taken to help determine the cause of death.

This is the fourth porbeagle stranding in the area reported this winter, which is “kind of unusual,” Passerotti told the Boston Herald. It’s unclear what has caused these deaths.

Porbeagles are a species of highly mobile mackerel shark commonly found in the colder waters across the globe.

“Many types of marine animals strand in this area,” Chisholm said. “The reasons vary, some are sick or injured, this time of year some are cold shocked and sometimes it’s just bad luck.”

Dolphins are particularly known to strand in the Cape Cod area, according to NOAA. Over 100 dolphins became stranded in there during the winter of 2012.

Because the cape is hook-shaped it can make navigating back to the open sea difficult for marine creatures, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

London Mayor Khan Warns of ‘Immense’ Brexit Damage to City



Emily Ashton and Julian Harris
Wed, January 11, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- London Mayor Sadiq Khan will warn of the “immense damage” Brexit is doing to the capital’s City financial district, and accuse the government of ignoring the wider impacts on Britain.

In a keynote speech to City leaders on Thursday evening, Khan will say it’s wrong to “pretend” that the UK’s exit from the European Union isn’t causing harm, according to a statement from his office.

“The reality is that the City of London is being hit hard by the loss of trade and talent to our competitors because of Brexit,” he will say. “London cannot afford to fall behind any of our international competitors.”

Khan’s comments follow polling showing many of those who voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum are having second thoughts. A YouGov survey last week found that a quarter of those Leave voters who regret their decision blame a general sense that things have got worse since Brexit. YouGov polling in November found that the wider public now think Britain was wrong to leave the EU, by 56% to 32%.

Khan, who campaigned for Remain and has long been vocal about the negative consequences of leaving the EU, will say he “simply can’t keep quiet about the immense damage Brexit is doing,” according to a draft of his speech briefed by his office.

“Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems,” he will say. “Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history or the consequences wished away.”

Brexit has reduced Britain’s GDP by 5.5%, cut investment by 11% and slashed goods and services trade by 7%, Khan said. Britons are also paying an extra £6 billion ($7.3 billion) to eat because of Brexit, he said, equivalent to £210 added to the average household supermarket bill over a two-year period.

Khan’s words could also be seen as a veiled criticism of Labour leader Keir Starmer who has dismissed calls to rejoin the EU’s single market, and embraced the language of Brexit with the promise of a “Take Back Control Bill” to hand more powers to communities.

Sadiq Khan calls for debate on rejoining single market and says ‘Brexit isn’t working’

Dominic Penna
Thu, January 12, 2023

Sadiq Khan - Tristan Fewings/Getty Images Europe

Sadiq Khan on Thursday called for a debate on Britain rejoining the single market and customs union as he warned that “Brexit isn’t working”.

Mr Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, went against the policy of the national party to advocate a return to closer economic ties with the European Union.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader has ruled out rejoining the single market if his party wins the next election, and last week appropriated a Vote Leave campaign slogan by promising to unveil a “Take Back Control Bill”.

In a speech to business leaders at Mansion House, Mr Khan said: “I simply can’t keep quiet about the immense damage Brexit is doing.

“Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems. Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history or the consequences wished away.”

Mr Khan suggested Britain’s economic difficulties were not “beyond repair” and could be eased by “a shift from this extreme, hard Brexit”, saying: “We need greater alignment with our European neighbours.”

He added: “That includes having a pragmatic debate about the benefits of being a part of the customs union and the single market.”

Detrimental effects when we can least afford it’

The Mayor acknowledged that “no one wants to see a return to the division and deadlock” of the years between the British public voting to leave the EU and Brexit finally happening on Jan 31, 2020, but stressed that Brexit had had detrimental effects “at a time when we can least afford it”.

Sir Keir last year pledged to “make Brexit work” without reopening negotiations on the UK’s trade deal.

Instead, Labour has said it would negotiate a new security pact with Brussels and implement measures that it says would ease tensions created by checks required by the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Asked about Mr Khan’s comments by reporters, Rishi Sunak’s official spokesman said: “Our position has not changed. The British people set out their view back in 2016, and the Government is busy enacting, particularly focusing on the benefits of Brexit with the Rule Bill among other things.”

Last week, polling for Opinium showed that Conservative voters are losing faith in the benefits of Brexit, with many now believing that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Bannon refuses to talk to his own lawyers in charity fraud case


Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo


Danielle Muoio Dunn
Thu, January 12, 2023 

NEW YORK — The state criminal trial against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon over his alleged involvement in charity fraud has been delayed by his refusal to speak to his team of attorneys.

Bannon and his Florida-based nonprofit, We Build the Wall, is charged with defrauding donors who gave money to construct a barrier along the Mexico border. In September, Attorney General Tish James said Bannon raised more than $15 million through the scheme and used the proceeds to “enrich himself and his friends.” He faces a maximum of five to 15 years in prison if convicted.

During a Thursday appearance in Manhattan Supreme Court, Bannon’s attorneys said they no longer communicate directly with their client due to “irreconcilable differences” over how to approach the case. Bannon has reached out to at least seven law firms in the past several weeks to find new representation, according to his current counsel.

“There has been a direct breakdown in communication,” said David Schoen, one of Bannon’s three outgoing lawyers who appeared in court Thursday.

Bannon, who has pleaded not guilty, entered the lower Manhattan courtroom Thursday voicing support for protesters in Brazil who falsely claim the results of the presidential election were rigged.

“Those are freedom fighters down there,” Bannon said.

Inside the courtroom, prosecutors complained that Bannon’s refusal to engage with his legal team has already caused procedural delays, but said they wouldn’t fight the request for new representation. State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan gave Bannon until Feb. 28 to find new attorneys.

A similar set of federal charges were brought against Bannon, 68, and three other people in the Southern District of New York in August 2020. He was arrested while onboard a luxury yacht off the coast of Connecticut and later pleaded not guilty, but was dropped from the case after receiving a pardon from then-President Donald Trump. Presidential pardons do not apply to state charges.

Steve Bannon Delays Trial by Ghosting His Own Lawyers

Jose Pagliery
Thu, January 12, 2023 

Photo by Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Lawyers revealed in court on Thursday that far-right media figure Steve Bannon has, for months now, ghosted his legal team—a tactic that has managed to slow down the New York case against him for his role in a scammy nationalist nonprofit that falsely promised to build a U.S.-Mexico wall.

On Thursday, even the state judge overseeing the case called Bannon out on the bald-faced delay tactic. But Justice Juan Merchan relented and still gave Bannon seven weeks to find new attorneys.

Bannon now has until Feb. 28 to find new lawyers to replace the ones he now scorns—like David Schoen, whose spectacular failure in federal court last year led Bannon to a conviction for contempt of Congress in another case.


In court in New York City on Thursday, the judge sparred with Schoen, who tried to help his client by hitting the brakes on the prosecution while arguing that Bannon doesn’t even have to provide a good reason for cutting him off.

Steve Bannon Cheers on Brazilian ‘Freedom Fighters’ Trying to Recreate Jan. 6

“There is a direct breakdown in communications, so Mr. Bannon and his lawyers don't communicate about this case directly,” Schoen revealed.

But Merchan saw through that defense strategy, citing legal precedent that makes clear a person can pick their own lawyer but not use that to setback a prosecution.

“Although a defendant has the constitutionally guaranteed right to be defended by counsel of his own choosing, this right is qualified in the sense that a defendant may not employ such right as a means to delay judicial proceedings,” Merchan read from a 1980 state appellate case.“Is this being done to delay official proceedings?” Merchan asked Schoen. Bannon’s lawyer demurred.

The courtroom soon devolved into a heated match, as the cool-headed judge had no patience for Schoen’s usual theatrics and lectures. At one point, Merchan cut off Schoen mid-sentence and ordered him and other lawyers to approach the bench for a private discussion—one that clearly ended badly.

As they walked away from the judge, Merchan scoffed.

"I'm sorry you feel like you were dragged into this courthouse," the judge said sarcastically. "You and your client will be treated the same as any other defendant in this courthouse."

Steve Bannon Gets Four Months in the Slammer as Judge Shreds His Defense

Bannon, a former banker and current right-wing media personality, advised former President Donald Trump and spent half a year as his White House chief strategist. Since then, he’s been mired in legal troubles stemming from his conspiracy-driven, anti-democratic activities. The Senate Intelligence Committee wanted him investigated by the feds over what they thought was his untruthful testimony about Russian interference in the 2016 election to get Trump into power. The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted him in July for his refusal to testify before the House Jan. 6 Committee investigating his role in fomenting the attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021 by Trump-loyal insurrectionists.

Bannon briefly faced federal charges for lining his own pockets by scamming MAGA diehards into funding a doomed GoFundMe project to build a wall between the United States and Mexico to keep out migrants. But Trump pardoned his friend and made the case go away.

The New York County District Attorney’s Office has been selectively reviving cases that conveniently disappeared during the Trump administration, and in September, the office announced a grand jury indictment against Bannon for that same case. This time, however, the case uses state charges against Bannon for duping New Yorkers into funding the wall. Bannon is accused of lying about the $15 million collected for “We Build The Wall,” and he was criminally charged with money laundering, scheme to defraud, and conspiracy.

On Thursday, prosecutors and defense lawyers argued over evidence in the case. Justin S. Weddle, who represents the “We Build the Wall” nonprofit, complained about how the DA’s office had turned over too much information, drowning them in documents that couldn’t possibly be reviewed in time for a trial.

Bannon’s lawyers, Schoen of Alabama and John W. Mitchell of New York, used it as an opportunity to try and detach themselves from the case. But Merchan wouldn’t let them, refusing to let any person charged with a crime in his courtroom remain “without counsel.”

Bannon Found Guilty of Obstructing Jan. 6 Probe

Mitchell pleaded to be let go, saying that the way Bannon will only talk to him through a third person “is indeed the most awkward situation,” stressing that “we're not providing effective assistance of counsel.”

But Merchan wouldn’t have it, forcing them to stick around for now and setting a strict deadline for Bannon to find new lawyers.

Dan Passeser, an assistant district attorney prosecuting the case, warned that the right-wing media personality was undermining the law enforcement effort by “seeking to hit pause indefinitely” with his lawyer swapping games.

“There will be delay. The extent of delay we'll have to wait and see,” the judge acknowledged.

In recent weeks, Merchan has proved to be less and less tolerant of the utter incompetence and obstruction of justice that has become commonplace in the era of Trump politics. During the Trump Organization’s tax fraud trial last month, he ripped into corporate defense lawyers for wasting time and unsealed documents showing how the company slowed down the investigation by lying. And on Tuesday, while sentencing Trump Organization finance executive Allen Weisselberg, Merchan berated him over the greedy way he cheated taxes and faked business records.

Steve Bannon has ghosted his 'We Build The Wall' defense lawyers for months in what prosecutors call a delay tactic

Jacob Shamsian, Laura Italiano
Thu, January 12, 2023 

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon enters the restroom as he leaves the New York State Supreme Court after a hearing in New York City, U.S. January 12, 2023.

REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

Steve Bannon was in Manhattan court Thursday for a hearing in his border wall charity scam case.

His lawyers told the judge that Bannon has refused to talk to them for months.

Bannon now has a deadline and an ultimatum: Choose new lawyers in 6 weeks or keep your current ones.

Right-wing agitator Stephen Bannon has been ghosting his defense lawyers in his "We Build The Wall" charity scam case for months, those lawyers said in a court appearance in Manhattan state court Thursday.

Prosecutors and the judge presiding over the case complained in court that Bannon's ongoing refusal to speak directly to his previously-chosen legal team risks delaying the case, which has sputtered along in the months since his September arraignment on charges of money laundering, conspiracy, and scheme to defraud.

David Schoen, one of Bannon's current lawyers, asked the judge to let him and another lawyer, John Mitchell, stop representing Bannon immediately.

The judge instead gave a typically rumpled-looking Bannon a deadline and an ultimatum: Either chose new lawyers before his next court date on February 28, or return to court with his current ones.

If Bannon persists in not getting a new legal defense team one may be appointed for him by the judge.

Bannon, who served as a 2016 campaign official and top White House advisor to Donald Trump, is facing six charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney's office, including money laundering and conspiracy.

Prosecutors allege he helped orchestrate a scheme through a nonprofit that claimed to be raising private funding to build a wall on the US-Mexico border.

The nonprofit raised $15 million from thousands of donors across the country with the false promise of building the wall as envisioned by former President Donald Trump, prosecutors said in a September indictment. In reality, prosecutors said, Bannon and others laundered funds through third-party entities to line the pockets of people running the organization.

'A direct breakdown in communications'

Bannon has pleaded not guilty to the charges. He walked into the courtroom in downtown Manhattan Thursday wearing his typical getup of a waxed olive jacket layered over a black button-down shirt, which was layered over a black polo shirt, along with tuxedo pants.

At the court conference, Schoen told Judge Juan Merchan that Bannon was no longer speaking with him or Mitchell. Both asked without success to be allowed to withdraw from the case.

"There has been a direct breakdown in communications," Schoen said, calling their differences over defense strategy "irreconcilable."

Since September, Schoen said, Bannon has only communicated with him and Mitchell through a third attorney, Adam Katz. Katz didn't show up to the Thursday hearing.

Despite their stated communication breakdown, Schoen and Bannon whispered to and smiled at each other while seated at the defense table only moments later, as a lawyer representing the wall-building fundraiser discussed discovery issues with the judge.

After the hearing, Schoen told Insider that he and Mitchell disagreed with Bannon about what defense to make, and how to prepare for the case.

"It's cordial — we're very friendly," Schoen said. "We just disagree about the case."

Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon points as he leaves New York Supreme Court after a hearing in New York City, U.S., January 12, 2023

REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

Prosecutors didn't oppose Schoen and Mitchell's attempts to withdraw from the case, but opposed delaying the case's schedule — a point the judge ultimately agreed with.

"The law gives the court great discretion to move a case along in the public interest," Merchan said.

Merchan said the Manhattan District Attorney's office should "set aside" discovery evidence for whichever lawyers Bannon hired. He also allowed letters that were previously submitted to the court by Bannon's current lawyers, and which lay out their disagreements with Bannon, to remain under seal.

In August 2020, federal prosecutors in Manhattan brought a similar set of fraud charges against Bannon and three other people who they said had misused funds from the nonprofit to enrich themselves. But then-President Trump pardoned Bannon shortly before he left office.

Trump didn't pardon Bannon's three codefendants in the federal case, who were referred to as unindicted coconspirators in the Manhattan district attorney's indictment. Two pleaded guilty to their role in the scam, and the third was found guilty at trial.

Bannon was found guilty in July of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas issued by the panel investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. A Washington, DC, federal judge ordered him to serve four months in prison, but Bannon has staved off the sentence as he appeals the verdict.

On his way into the courthouse Thursday, Bannon was met by a small group of protesters demanding he be jailed for his role in the Capitol attack. As he left, he was heckled by a lone protester.



If Bannon's conviction in DC is upheld, it could weigh against him if he's also found guilty in the border-wall case, as the judge would be able to consider his criminal history.

The judge overseeing the case, Merchan, recently oversaw a trial in which the Trump Organization was found guilty of tax fraud. He's scheduled to sentence the company on Friday.

BECAUSE OF COURSE HE DID

Trump discussed striking North Korea with nuclear weapon, blaming another country: book


Julia Mueller
Thu, January 12, 2023

During his tenure in the White House, former President Trump floated the idea of striking North Korea with a nuclear weapon and blaming the attack on another country, according to the new afterword of a book from New York Times journalist Michael Schmidt.

Then-White House chief of staff John Kelly was reportedly concerned by both Trump’s provocative Twitter messages about the country and his private talks, according to excerpts of Schmidt’s “Donald Trump v. the United States” shared by NBC News.

“What scared Kelly even more than the tweets was the fact that behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Trump continued to talk as if he wanted to go to war. He cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility,” Schmidt writes.

According to the book, Kelly attempted to dissuade Trump from the idea, saying the U.S. would likely be found out if it went through with such a plan and underscoring the consequences and casualties likely in any conflict with North Korea.

But Trump seemed dogged about the idea of an attack, Schmidt reports, and further raised “the possibility of launching a preemptive military attack against North Korea.”

Trump during his presidency both threatened and praised North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, saying at one point that the pair “fell in love,” even as the two countries had tensions over nuclear weapons.

“North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.’ Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!” Trump tweeted back in 2018.

Schmidt’s book, first published in 2020, is set to be released next week in paperback with the new afterword included.

 The Hill.

Trump discussed using a nuclear weapon 

on North Korea in 2017 and blaming it on someone else, book says

Rebecca Shabad

Thu, January 12, 2023 

WASHINGTON — Behind closed doors in 2017, President Donald Trump discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and suggested he could blame a U.S. strike against the communist regime on another country, according to a new section of a book that details key events of his administration.

Trump's alleged comments, reported for the first time in a new afterword to a book by New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt, came as tensions between the U.S. and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un escalated, alarming then-White House chief of staff John Kelly.

The new section of "Donald Trump v. the United States," obtained by NBC News ahead of its publication in paperback Tuesday, offers an extensive examination of Kelly’s life and tenure as Trump's chief of staff from July 2017 to January 2019. Kelly previously was Trump's secretary of homeland security. For the account, Schmidt cites in part dozens of interviews on background with former Trump administration officials and others who worked with Kelly.

Eight days after Kelly arrived at the White House as chief of staff, Trump warned that North Korea would be "met with fire and fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before." When Trump delivered his first speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2017, he threatened to "totally destroy North Korea" if Kim, whom he referred to as "Rocket Man," continued his military threats.

Later that month, Trump continued to goad North Korea through his tweets. But Kelly was more concerned about what Trump was saying privately, Schmidt reports.

"What scared Kelly even more than the tweets was the fact that behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Trump continued to talk as if he wanted to go to war. He cavalierly discussed the idea of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea, saying that if he took such an action, the administration could blame someone else for it to absolve itself of responsibility," according to the new section of the book.

Kelly tried to use reason to explain to Trump why that would not work, Schmidt continues.

"It’d be tough to not have the finger pointed at us," Kelly told the president, according to the afterword.

Kelly brought the military’s top leaders to the White House to brief Trump about how war between the U.S. and North Korea could easily break out, as well as the enormous consequences of such a conflict. But the argument about how many people could be killed had "no impact on Trump," Schmidt writes.

Kelly then tried to point out that there would be economic repercussions, but the argument held Trump’s attention for only so long, according to the afterword.

Then, Trump "would turn back to the possibility of war, including at one point raising to Kelly the possibility of launching a preemptive military attack against North Korea," Schmidt said.

Kelly warned that Trump would need congressional approval for a pre-emptive strike, which "baffled and annoyed" Trump, according to the afterword.

Trump tweeted in early January 2018: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"

Schmidt also writes that it was well-known among senior U.S. officials for several decades that North Korea sought to spy on U.S. decision-makers. So White House aides were alarmed "that Trump would repeatedly talk on unclassified phones, with friends and confidants outside the government, about how he wanted to use military force against North Korea."

Schmidt writes that there is no indication North Korea had a source in the White House, but he said it "was well within the realm of American intelligence assessment" that it could have been listening to Trump’s calls.

"Kelly would have to remind Trump that he could not share classified information with his friends," Schmidt writes.

According to the new section, Kelly came up with a plan he believes ultimately prompted Trump to dial back the rhetoric in spring 2018: appealing directly to Trump’s "narcissism."

Kelly convinced the president he could prove he was the "greatest salesman in the world" by trying to strike a diplomatic relationship, Schmidt writes, thereby preventing a nuclear conflict that Kelly and other top military leaders saw as a more immediate threat than most realized at the time.

The situation with North Korea consumed Kelly almost immediately upon his taking the job at the White House, which he had not actually committed to do before Trump tweeted that the post was his, according to the new section.

“Holy s--- — oh, I gotta call Karen,” Kelly said, referring to his wife, according to the afterword.

"Three days later, on Monday morning, Kelly met with his aides in a large conference room at a Department of Homeland Security office building a few blocks from the White House. Kelly was solemn. 'This is a great job,' he said, referring to the cabinet position he was leaving. 'That’s not a great job. But the president has asked me to do it.'"

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

How India Became the Most Important Country in the Climate Fight

Justin Worland/Jharkhand, India

 TIME
Thu, January 12, 2023

Jharia coalfield in Dhanbad, in the state of Jharkhand. Mountaintop removal is a form of surface mining where the tops of mountains are dynamited and removed to access coal seams. 

The drive from Ranchi to Hazaribagh in the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand is only 65 miles, but it takes nearly three hours. We swerve to avoid schoolchildren chatting with friends and meandering down the highway, honk at cows to get out of the way, and accelerate past pickups reconfigured as makeshift transport vehicles overflowing with workers. Men in sandals push bicycles overloaded with bags of coal down the highway, while on the back roads close to Hazaribagh, women carry buckets of the stuff on their heads.

Coal is what brought me to Jharkhand, one of India’s poorest and most polluted states. The pedestrian colliers, illegal miners trying to make ends meet, are just the start. All along the route to our destination, the Topa Open Coal Mine, a caravan of large, colorful trucks filled to the brim with coal barrel toward us in the opposite lane. When we finally reach the mine, I see the source of it all: an explosion has blasted through a wall of rock, opening access to new tranches of coal to feed the country’s fast-growing power and industrial needs. says JK John, the senior mining supervisor on site employed by a subsidiary of the state-owned Coal India Ltd.: “Here, coal is in demand.”


Two flights and more than 900 miles away, the northwestern state of Rajasthan is a world apart. Along a smoothly paved highway from the Jaisalmer airport, wind turbines dot the landscape as far as the eye can see. Farther from the town’s center, we approach a field of solar panels, comprising a 300-MW power plant opened in 2021 by the Indian company ReNew Power, providing electricity for the growing population of the state of Maharashtra, home to Mumbai. Even as the region expands its renewable-energy industry, the atmosphere remains clean and pleasant enough to support a thriving tourist trade.

Jharkhand and Rajasthan, so different in appearance, are being shaped by the same fundamental force: India is growing so rapidly that its energy demand is effectively insatiable. But the two states present starkly different answers to that demand. Historically, fossil fuels from places like Jharkhand powered industrialization. But today, with climate concerns rising, many experts are calling for India to ditch coal as soon as possible and embrace the green-energy model so prevalent in Rajasthan.

Much rides on which approach dominates India’s energy future. In the three decades since reducing emissions became a discussion point on the global stage, analysts have portrayed the U.S., China, and Europe as the most critical targets for cutting pollution. But as the curve finally begins to bend in those places, it’s become clear that India will soon be the most important country in the climate change effort.

Manual lift operator inside the control room in one of the last remaining underground mines.

In December, I spent 10 days in India, visiting coal communities, touring renewable-energy sites, and talking with leaders in the country’s political and financial hubs to understand India’s approach to the energy transition. The picture that emerged is of a government following an approach uncharted for a country of its scale: pursue green technologies in the midst of industrialization while leaving the fate of coal to the market. “India, as a responsible global citizen, is willing to make the bet that it can satisfy the aspiration for higher living standards, while pursuing a quite different energy strategy from any large country before,” says Suman Bery, who leads NITI Aayog, the Indian government’s economic policy-making agency. India, Bery says, will pursue clean energy while seeking a “balance between energy access and affordability, energy security, and environmental considerations.”

Where that balance is struck could tip the climate scales worldwide. India contributes 7% of the emissions that cause global warming today, a percentage that will expand alongside its economy. This growth will help determine whether—and by how far—the world blows past the goal of keeping global temperatures from rising more than the Paris Agreement target of 1.5°C. Equally important, India’s approach is being watched elsewhere. If it can use low-carbon development to bring prosperity to its 1.4 billion people, others will follow. Failure could lead to a retrenchment into fossil fuels across the Global South.

What the Global North does matters too. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates India needs $1.4 trillion in additional investment in coming decades to align its energy system with global climate targets; that will very likely require reforms at international lenders like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to facilitate the flow of money. The best outcome, observers say, is one where India gets the help it needs to make the best choice for everyone. “India has to do it for itself,” says Rachel Kyte, the dean of the Fletcher School of international affairs at Tufts University. “And India needs to do it for the world.”

In a bitter irony, coal-rich Jharkhand cannot provide reliable electricity even to hospitals, schools, and other essential service providers. India’s second poorest state may be an extreme example, but such problems pervade every corner of the country and are the crux of its energy and climate challenge. It is, fundamentally, a developing nation, and its leaders do not want to write off any fuel source while energy demand continues its meteoric rise. As the country’s population swells to as high as a projected 1.8 billion over the next 40 years, and its economy grows at an even faster rate, the country will need to add a power system equivalent in size to that of the entire European Union, according to the IEA.

Historically, development at that scale happened one way: fossil fuels built a country’s industrial base, and then leaders pivoted to a lower-carbon, service-oriented model. China, one of history’s most successful examples of rapid modernization, built its industrial capacity by relentlessly adding coal-fired power plants and now boasts the second largest economy in the world, run primarily on coal. With that base established, the country has recently begun its full-fledged expansion of renewable energy.

To earn a living, many local residents collect and sell coal from the Jharia coalfield in Dhanbad.

India, with its abundant coal resources, could simply do the same. While research shows that a rapid expansion of renewable energy could provide the country with reliable electricity given adequate investment, no other country has tried it at India’s scale. Attempting a renewable revolution comes with some inevitable risks, like technical challenges and vulnerability to foreign supply chains. Meanwhile, coal is tried and tested.

Above all, leaders in India insist that they have the right to power up using coal. In the lingo of the climate world, every country has its own population-based “fair share” of emissions it can produce before the world hits unsafe levels of global warming. In this formulation, the U.S. and European countries have already far exceeded their limits; India, on the other hand, has contributed only 4% of global emissions since 1850, despite being home to 18% of the world’s population, according to a 2019 U.N. report.

Whatever the reasoning, no one I spoke with in India, from academics to renewable-energy executives, would endorse a swift transition away from coal. “India’s not married to coal,” says Rahul Tongia, a senior fellow at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress in New Delhi. “It’s just that’s what India’s got.” Instead, government officials are working to promote renewable energy without actively working to shut down coal.

These large scale tractors are commonly used in the mining areas to dig through the coal seams.

At the center of this approach sits Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi, whose support for solar power extends back to his time as the top official in the state of Gujarat in the 2010s, has set bold renewable-energy targets, saying at COP26 in 2021 that the country would install 500 gigawatts of renewable-energy capacity by 2030. That’s equivalent to 15 times California’s current renewable capability.

To get there, the Modi government has merged its renewable-energy and clean-technology objectives with its policy of liberalizing the economy and boosting the private sector. Bery, of NITI Aayog, describes the government’s approach as market-based: creating a context for clean technologies to “edge out coal in the market” rather than relying on government mandates. India, he tells me in his New Delhi office, should be “backing all these other technologies, so that it’s a pure commercial choice, rather than a regulatory choice to phase out coal.”

Solar panels installed by Koku Solar Pvt. Ltd line the rooftops of residential buildings in Mumbai, allowing them to run using green energy.

Industry insiders say this approach is working. The government-backed Solar Energy Corp. of India, for example, all but eliminated the risk that states would renege on their agreements—a significant worry for the banks that finance such projects—by serving as an intermediary between private-sector developers and states. If states don’t pay, the agency can essentially force them to do so—an innovation that has played a “fundamental” role in allowing the industry to grow, says Sumant Sinha, who has led ReNew Power since 2011.

Using policy to drive private-sector investment is the norm in places like the U.S., but it’s new for India. For decades, electricity production and distribution in India was controlled by state-owned enterprises, from state-owned coal mines to state-owned power plants to the state-owned grid. With the new approach, the private sector deploys clean-energy technologies, and the government facilitates.

This is a fundamental, ideological change in Indian governance. The preamble to India’s constitution declares it a “socialist” state. But the investment in renewable energy that has led capacity to double since Modi took office has come almost entirely from private companies—and it isn’t slowing down. “The most natural thing for India to meet this burgeoning electricity requirement is to meet it through renewable energy, because it’s the cheapest, most commercially sound thing to do,” says Sinha. The IEA projects that solar power will make up around 30% of India’s electricity generation by 2040, matching coal’s share. This private-sector vitality was on full display in Rajasthan, where I saw massive wind and solar farms that belong to the country’s biggest private players, including the mega-corporations Tata and Adani.

In August 2022, the Mumbai airport switched over to 100% green sources for energy usage.

But the focus on markets also reflects hard politics. Driving around Jharkhand, a state of 33 million people, it’s impossible to miss how entrenched the coal industry has become. Livelihoods depend on it, from educated supervisors running the show to indigent locals scrounging for scraps of coal. On the outskirts of the Topa mine, I saw an entire village abandoned to make way for miners to open a new coal seam.

Displacing such a colossus, policymakers say, cannot be done with a regulation here and there. “The minute you say ‘no coal’ there will be political implications. There will be riots,” says Amitabh Kant, who is leading India’s G-20 conference this year. “But if coal becomes commercially nonviable, that will be acceptable because the market will do it.”

It’s a bold bet. Even with a true transition from coal likely decades away, many local officials and activists across India have begun to call for dedicated programs to ensure a “just transition” that protects those affected by a move away from coal.

A smooth transition matters not only for India but also for the rest of the world—it is a test case for how to implement an energy shift in developing countries while supporting their economic growth.

India’s leaders are keenly aware of the global stakes. Wherever I traveled there, I saw signs celebrating India hosting this year’s G-20, the annual forum for the world’s largest economies, at which the host is keen to make climate a central topic. India will tout its efforts to spur behavioral change among consumers, and its nascent use of hydrogen as an energy-storage medium. The meetings, Kant says, could lead countries to come to agreement on how to reform institutions like the IMF and World Bank so they can help developing countries decarbonize. The energy transition globally will cost untold trillions of dollars, and most countries now agree that these international financial institutions need to create instruments to make investing in places like India less risky for private financiers.

Birds swoop through smog in Delhi on a December morning with air quality in the “very unhealthy” category.

To actually deliver on such an agenda, though, India must first convince the rest of the world that its model for low-carbon development can work. Modi and others have already begun a campaign to show the rest of the world how serious it is—and to point out Western hypocrisy. At COP27, the annual U.N. climate conference held in November in Egypt, India lobbied for countries to agree to phase out “all fossil fuels” rather than just coal, an implicit challenge to the U.S. and other Western countries that are rich in oil. “Why should only coal be phased out?” Kant asks me rhetorically. And Modi’s LiFE campaign, which focuses on the role behavioral change can play in cutting emissions, stems from a recognition that India’s per capita emissions are just 40% of the global average.

India’s energy future remains India’s “choice.” But for all of the country’s insistence on sovereignty, by marrying its energy policy to its economic liberalization it has chosen a path of interdependence. In leaving the speed of its green transition to the whims of the market, India has accepted a dependence on price signals, investment choices, and economic trends far beyond the control of New Delhi or Mumbai. “The political signals, the policy evolution, or even the international commitments are also contingent on how quickly the market participants are able to respond,” says Arunabha Ghosh, CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, an Indian environmental NGO.

Which means our future on the planet, once again, depends on a collective choice. Political leaders across the Global North and South can reform the institutions that govern the global economy, ensuring that the market decisively favors clean energy over fossil fuels. Or, we can all bid farewell to global climate targets and gird ourselves for the far more costly dangers that come next.

 —With reporting by Solcyre Burga and Leslie Dickstein/New York

PHOTOS  Sarker Protick for TIME

13 YEARS LATER HAITI REMAINS IN RUINS

After 2010 earthquake, Haiti, global community failed to build back stronger | Guest Opinion

David Vanderpool
Wed, January 11, 2023 

As we mark the 13th anniversary of the 7.0 earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on Jan, 12, 2010, many people still blame that catastrophic tragedy for the economic woes and violence plaguing Haitians today.

However, neither the earthquake, nor the lack of full recovery are solely at the root of its current ills.

Haiti has long dealt with corrupt political leadership and a lack of foresight in building the country’s infrastructure, but it was on an upward trajectory before 2010. While the devastating death toll — more than 200,000 people died — and healthcare needs rightly took precedent in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, it was what came next that really prevented Haiti from making any sort of recovery.

Much has been reported about the billions of relief dollars that never made it into the hands of needy Haitians or the non-governmental organizations — NGOs — working on the ground to aid in recovery. Most of what was used properly went toward immediate, short-term needs, rather than being invested into rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. This is where the real failure lies in Haiti’s current conditions.

The earthquake was a jumping-off point to determine Haiti’s future. It could have been a time of advancements in development, but instead, marks the point since which it has seen nothing but decline. Yes, there was world involvement in aiding Haiti, but those involved were not doing the correct things for development and infrastructure while there.

We must find a different approach to development than just throwing money at a crisis. Otherwise, when the next crisis comes — and Haiti has seen more than its fair share — the country and its people will be no better off.

Development is hard work and takes a long time. We have failed Haiti in not convincing its leadership of its value. If you compare Haiti to Chile, for example, you can see the difference such an investment early on would have made. Santiago was struck by an even-stronger earthquake than Haiti’s that same year, but there was significantly less loss of life because so many of its buildings had been constructed to U.S. earthquake standards — a mark of wise leadership making long-term decisions to invest in development and infrastructure. Chile has continued to experience earthquakes regularly, but is able to grow and thrive because of the resiliency development brings.

Yes, Haiti has a difficult history of corrupt political leadership, but we in the international community must own up to our own failures in helping Haiti to recover from the 2010 earthquake. While we were focused on emergency needs after this devastating natural disaster, we should have also been working with Haitian leadership — which, at the time, was strong — in encouraging investment in infrastructure.

In addition, we should not have allowed international peacekeeping forces to have been withdrawn when Haitians were unable to protect themselves. The resulting chaos, terrorism and starvation are a result of errors among the international community, including the United States, one of Haiti’s closest neighbors.

We must do more to help Haiti restore the progress made before the earthquake, but, more than that, to make up for our failures that fueled its ongoing decline.

The earthquake 13 years ago was a precipitous event, but it in no way shoulders all the blame for the Haiti of today.

David Vanderpool M.D., is a surgeon who leads the international nonprofit, LiveBeyond. He has lived and worked in Haiti since 2010 providing clean water, nutritional support and healthcare to the poor of Thomazeau, Haiti. LiveBeyond’s hospital offers surgical, maternal delivery and general medical services. Its school provides educational opportunities to the neediest children and a demonstration farm offers agricultural education to local farmers to improve crop production.

Haiti, rudderless with no elected leaders, needs our help — and also to help itself 

| Opinion

DIEU NALIO CHERY/AP

the Miami Herald Editorial Board
Wed, January 11, 2023 

Alarmed and clear-eyed Americans have said that they are fighting to preserve the foundation of our democracy. In fact, across most of the country, save Florida, they voted that sentiment in November’s general election.

Sure, last week’s near-brawl over the election of a Republican speaker of the House showed another crack in the illusion that our democracy is a well-oiled machine. But, there still are guardrails, a structure and institutions to protect the U.S. Constitution.

Imagine if those guardrails didn’t hold, as many feared on Jan. 6 2021?

What few barriers, what little structure to which Haiti clung have disappeared. Starting Monday, the terms of Haiti’s final 10 elected senators expired. Because of Haiti’s failure to hold timely legislative elections in October 2019, the last tier of the 30-seat Senate is resigning, leaving the nation without a Parliament.

Bereft of officials

The nation, with a population of 12 million, has not a single elected official. There is Prime Minister Ariel Henry, but he was named by President Jovenel Moïse, who was assassinated in July 2021.

According to an article by Miami Herald Caribbean Correspondent Jacqueline Charles: “Now, for the first time since the adoption of the 1987 Constitution . . . there are few constitutional entities in existence beyond the struggling, ill-equipped Haiti National Police, a reconstituted army and the court of auditors and administrative disputes, whose members’ 10-year mandates are also nearing expiration.

“There is no functioning electoral commission; no functioning Supreme Court, no constitutional court. There is not a single elected official in the entire country of nearly 12 million people — not a council member, not a mayor and certainly not a president.”

This is new-level dystopia, even for Haiti. And we in South Florida should care, for the state of the nation and, especially, for the people surviving under such desperate conditions. This latest deterioration of law and order and structure should further inform our understanding of and empathy for the waves of Haitian migrants seeking entry and asylum here. What impacts Haiti eventually affects South Florida.

Haiti, effectively, has completed it slide into becoming failed state, with both Haitian leaders and the international community watching it happen.
Who will help?

“The worst it’s ever been,” Georges Fauriol, a Haiti specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., told Charles.

After all, according to the United Nations, violent gangs rule the nation, in charge of roughly two-thirds of the capital, Port-au-Prince.

For a country that has withstood, barely, military takeovers, rigged elections, a cholera epidemic spawned by U.N. peacekeepers, an unlikely earthquake — 13 years ago Thursday — in which 220,000 people died and the murders of judges, journalists and, last year, a president, the situation has never been this bleak, experts say.

It’s almost impossible to grasp the enormousness of Haiti’s challenge.

Prime Minister Henry announced a start of an electoral process in a speech on Jan. 1 to commemorate Haiti’s 219th anniversary of independence from France. How likely elections will come to pass is anyone’s guess.

Haiti needs a hero and a miracle. More urgently, it needs other countries’ help boosting its beleaguered national police. Still, international help can’t fix this without the guidance of Haitians, from politicians to civil-society groups to, yes, gang leaders, who should take the lead in rescuing their country.

Harris navigates double standard in unscripted moments as VP



Amie Parnes
Thu, January 12, 2023

Before Vice President Harris swore in Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) last week, she offered a rare glimpse of levity.

“Hello, Madame Vice President!” Bennet said in his classic baritone voice as he walked into the Old Senate Chamber.

“Hello, Senator Bennet!” Harris replied, echoing Bennet’s pitch to a T.

The moment went viral on Twitter, with some commenters on the social media platform asking to see more of those lighter, organic moments from Harris.

Since taking office two years ago, Harris — the nation’s first female vice president — has largely stuck to the script, and taken care to avoid missteps or “hot mic” moments that might undermine President Biden and the administration.

Harris has been careful — some allies say “too careful” — about giving the public a window into her more personal side since becoming vice president.

It’s been an intentional move to ensure that the role is taken seriously.

“She has never wanted to go off message in any way,” one ally said, highlighting Harris’s position not only as the first female vice president but the first Black and South Asian to hold that office. “She knows what the significance of her role means to so many people. She was very aware of that coming in.”

Allies of the vice president also point out that as a woman, Harris faces the same double standard as other high-profile female politicians, including former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, that can force one to think twice between offering a joking or playful tone.

Strategists and political observers — both male and female — acknowledge that it’s more difficult for women — from politicians to chief executives and other public figures — to show their more personal side without being scrutinized or mocked. While Biden, for example, can brush off moments like when he described the passage of the Affordable Care Act as a “big f—— deal” on camera, it can be difficult for women to do the same.

Ahead of the 2020 election, Clinton herself warned Harris and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) about the double standard that she said is “alive and well” and “endemic to our political system, to business, to the media, to every part of society.”

“Just be prepared … to have the most horrible things said about you,” Clinton said at a book event in 2017, Politico reported at the time. “There’s a particular level of vitriol, from both the right and the left, directed at women. Make no mistake about that.”

Katherine Jellison, a professor at Ohio University who focuses on gender in politics, suggested that Harris faces challenges that are different than those the men who previously served in her role didn’t see.

“She has to show that she’s up to the job at a time when people want their leaders to show more of their human side, but for a woman politician it is a tightrope,” Jellison said. “She needs to come across as a decisive leader and show a personal side but not be too personable and stereotypically maternal or sisterly, because that might chip away at her credibility as a political leader.”

Amanda Hunter, the executive director of the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that seeks to increase women’s representation in politics, said Harris is “challenging stereotypes every day by simply doing the job.”

“Men can tell, but women have to show,” she added.

Like Biden, Harris’s approval ratings in polls remain underwater, with more people disapproving of her job as vice president than approving. Some Harris fans wonder if she should make more changes and let the public see more glimpses of the real Harris to try to improve those numbers.

Those who know her say Harris is funny. And she’s relatable.

She loves to cook and likes to throw in an f-bomb when talking to friends and family. When she’s not wearing a suit, she dons her Chuck Taylors. She loves surprising associates — and even reporters — on birthdays and for the birth of children.

“She needs to embrace it,” one Democratic strategist said. “She needs to take some risks.”

In the past year, Harris has sought to highlight more of her personal side.

In October, she made her first, and only, foray as vice president into the comedy talk show circuit, when she appeared on NBC’s “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”

In her interview, she talked about how family group text chats are “no longer a thing” because of security protocols. The messages she does send and receive are also emoji-less. “High-class problems,” she quipped.

In April, she did an interview with The Ringer on her love for Wordle, The New York Times’s five-letter word puzzle, where she revealed that she starts with the same word, NOTES, every day.

Harris allies say these examples show she’s breaking through.

“A better 360-degree view of the vice president is emerging,” one ally said.

“She travels a lot, she does a lot of social media, little by little this stuff is breaking through,” the ally continued, highlighting the vice president’s role and voice in abortion, immigration and voting rights. “You’re starting to see those returns tally up. It shows that different sides of her are breaking through.”

Democratic strategist Christy Setzer pointed to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as an example of a woman who has successfully threaded the needle, allowing the public to see her lighter side, particularly with her mastery of social media.

“In general, women can be funny, quirky, even sexy, and be politicians, but it’s so much more likely to be misinterpreted and not given the benefit of the doubt,” Setzer said.

“The obvious answer for most women? Taking few chances, sticking to the script,” she added. “It’s really a difficult tightrope to walk, and the downsides of getting it wrong are large.”

Nayyera Haq, a communications strategist and Obama administration veteran, said one of the big advantages of the disaggregation of media “is an ability to engage directly with a rising generation of voters.”

She pointed to the Instagram video Harris did in 2020 when she taught Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) how to make a proper tuna melt sandwich and the impromptu video she did in less than a minute when she explained to The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart how to brine a turkey.

“I would love to know what she nerds out on,” Haq said. “People want a leader to be someone they can find a connection to.”

 The Hill.

How California could save up its rain to ease future droughts — instead of watching epic atmospheric river rainfall drain into the Pacific

Andrew Fisher, 

Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz
Thu, January 12, 2023

Heavy rain from a series of atmospheric rivers flooded large parts of California from late December 2022 into early January 2023. 

Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

California has seen so much rain over the past few weeks that farm fields are inundated and normally dry creeks and drainage ditches have become torrents of water racing toward the ocean. Yet, most of the state remains in drought.

All that runoff in the middle of a drought begs the question — why can’t more rainwater be collected and stored for the long, dry spring and summer when it’s needed?

As a hydrogeologist at the University of California at Santa Cruz, I’m interested in what can be done to collect runoff from storms like this on a large scale. There are two primary sources of large-scale water storage that could help make a dent in the drought: holding that water behind dams and putting it in the ground.

Why isn’t California capturing more runoff now?

When California gets storms like the atmospheric rivers that hit in December 2022 and January 2023, water managers around the state probably shake their heads and ask why they can’t hold on to more of that water. The reality is, it’s a complicated issue.

California has big dams and reservoirs that can store large volumes of water, but they tend to be in the mountains. And once they’re near capacity, water has to be released to be ready for the next storm. Unless there’s another reservoir downstream, a lot of that water is going out to the ocean.

In more populated areas, one of the reasons storm water runoff isn’t automatically collected for use on a large scale is because the first runoff from roads is often contaminated. Flooding can also cause septic system overflows. So, that water would have to be treated.

You might say, well, the captured water doesn’t have to be drinking water, we could just use it on golf courses. But then you would need a place to store the water, and you would need a way to distribute it, with separate pipes and pumps, because you can’t put it in the same pipes as drinking water.

Putting water in the ground

There’s another option, and that’s to put it in the ground, where it could help to replenish groundwater supplies.

Managed recharge has been used for decades in many areas to actively replenish groundwater supplies. But the techniques have been gaining more attention lately as wells run dry amid the long-running drought. Local agencies have proposed more than 340 recharge projects in California, and the state estimates those could recharge an additional 500,000 acre-feet of water a year on average if all were built.

One method being discussed by the state Department of Water Resources and others is Flood-MAR, or flood-managed aquifer recharge. During big flows in rivers, water managers could potentially divert some of that flow onto large parts of the landscape and inundate thousands of acres to recharge the aquifers below. The concept is to flood the land in winter and then farm in summer.

Flood-managed aquifer recharge methods. California Department of Water Resources

Flood-MAR is promising, provided we can find people who are willing to inundate their land and can secure water rights. In addition, not every part of the landscape is prepared to take that water.

You could inundate 1,000 acres on a ranch, and a lot of it might stay flooded for days or weeks. Depending on how quickly that water soaks in, some crops will be OK, but other crops could be harmed. There are also concerns about creating habitat that encourages pests or risks food safety.

Another challenge is that most of the big river flows are in the northern part of the state, and many of the areas experiencing the worst groundwater deficits are in central and southern California. To get that excess water to the places that need it requires transport and distribution, which can be complex and expensive.

Encouraging landowners to get involved

In the Pajaro Valley, an important agricultural region at the edge of Monterey Bay, regional colleagues and I are trying a different type of groundwater recharge project where there is a lot of runoff from hill slopes during big storms.

The idea is to siphon off some of that runoff and divert it to infiltration basins, occupying a few acres, where the water can pool and percolate into the ground. That might be on agricultural land or open space with the right soil conditions. We look for coarse soils that make it easier for water to percolate through gaps between grains. But much of the landscape is covered or underlain by finer soils that don’t allow rapid infiltration, so careful site selection is important.

One program in the Pajaro Valley encourages landowners to participate in recharge projects by giving them a rebate on the fee they pay for water use through a “recharge net metering” mechanism.


We did a cost-benefit analysis of this approach and found that even when you add in all the capital costs for construction and hauling away some soil, the costs are competitive with finding alternative supplies of water, and it is cheaper than desalination or water recycling.

Is the rain enough to end the drought?

It’s going to take many methods and several wet years to make up for the region’s long period of low rainfall. One storm certainly doesn’t do it, and even one wet year doesn’t do it.

For basins that are dependent on groundwater, the recharge process takes years. If this is the last rainstorm of this season, a month from now we could be in trouble again.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. The Conversation is trustworthy news from experts, by an independent nonprofit. 

It was written by: Andrew Fisher, University of California, Santa Cruz.

Read more:

California’s water supplies are in trouble as climate change worsens natural dry spells, especially in the Sierra Nevada


Desalinating seawater sounds easy, but there are cheaper and more sustainable ways to meet people’s water needs


Farmers are depleting the Ogallala Aquifer because the government pays them to do it

Funding: U.S. National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Santa Clara Valley Water District, U.S. Geologic Survey Affiliation: Research Network with the Public Policy Institute of California

Crisis-hit Ghana increases public servant salaries by 30%


People walk on the street around Kwame Nkrumah circle in Accra

Thu, January 12, 2023 

ACCRA (Reuters) - Ghana's government and trade unions on Thursday agreed to increase all public servants' salaries by 30% for 2023, they said in a joint statement, as the country struggles to reduce debt and tackle rampant inflation.

The West African gold, oil and cocoa producer is battling its worst economic crisis in a generation.

The local cedi dropped heavily against the dollar last year as government spending cuts and central bank interest rate hikes failed to tame inflation, which rose to a new high of 54% last month.

Trade unions representing public service employees started negotiating salary rises with the government in November, a few months after hardship spurred street protests that pushed the government to seek help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The two parties on Thursday settled on a 30% increase to base pay across board, effective from Jan. 1, 2023.

Ghana's government announced sweeping spending cuts in March, including a lowering of ministers' salaries, to reduce the deficit, contain inflation and slow the cedi's slide.

But it also increased a cost of living allowance for public workers by 15% in July, citing the impact of "global challenges" on citizens.

Ghana secured a staff-level agreement with the IMF for a $3 billion, three-year support package in December, but needs to restructure its debt to access the funds.

The government launched a domestic debt exchange programme last month and later said it would default on nearly all of its $28.4 billion of external debts.

It asked to restructure its bilateral debt under the G20 common framework platform this week.

(Reporting by Christian Akorlie; Writing by Sofia Christensen; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Comic book follows Brittney Griner from college hoops to Russian jail


: U.S. basketball player Griner back in Russian court on drugs charges

Thu, January 12, 2023
By Alicia Powell

(Reuters) - From college hoops to a Russian jail cell, the life of basketball star Brittney Griner is being told in a new comic book from TidalWave Comics.

Griner is part of the publisher’s Female Force series that celebrates women with inspirational stories.

Griner was arrested on Feb. 17 at an airport outside Moscow for carrying vape cartridges containing hashish oil in her luggage. She was subsequently convicted of drug smuggling and later transferred to one of Russia’s most notorious penal colonies before being released in a prison swap in December.

Griner, a two-time Olympic gold medalist and eight-time Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) All-Star, said she plans to return to her WNBA team.

Writer Michael Frizell said they began working on the comic book before Griner’s arrest and had a focus on “her growth as an athlete and person.” Adding that he “found Brittney's story fascinating despite not knowing much about the WNBA.”

Frizell hopes readers understand “the person behind the headlines.”

The comic book will be released Jan. 18 in print and digital form.