domingo, 28 de fevereiro de 2021

Trump's CPAC remarks in 180 seconds


2024 ELECTIONS

Trump teases 2024 run in CPAC remarks, as he looks to keep his grip on GOP

 

The former president renewed old grievances in his first formal speech since leaving the White House.

 


By DAVID SIDERS

02/28/2021 07:09 PM EST

Updated: 02/28/2021 09:17 PM EST

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/28/trump-cpac-2024-biden-471869

 

Donald Trump still has grievances to air — and a Republican Party eager to bask in his indignation.

 

In his first major address since leaving office, Trump on Sunday laced into his Democratic successor, Joe Biden, chided “establishment political hacks” from his own party and pressed his false claim that he won the November election, which he lost decisively.

 

And to an explosion of applause, he suggested he may run again in 2024.

 

“Who knows?” Trump said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Fla. “I may even decide to beat them for a third time.”

 

The speech served as formal notice of his continued dominance over the Republican Party — and a return to campaign form for the former president. The rapturous reception Trump received at the country's most prominent annual conservative gathering signaled the totality of the Republican base’s embrace, as well as the peril facing less Trumpian elements of the party.

 

In the annual CPAC presidential straw poll released shortly before Trump spoke, 95 percent of conference attendees said the GOP should continue to embrace Trump’s issues and policy ideas, and 68 percent of attendees said Trump should run again in 2024.

 

In a crowded field of potential presidential primary contenders, Trump ran miles ahead with 55 percent support, followed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, at 21 percent. Every other GOP politician polled registered in single digits.

 

Still, for all the current energy surrounding Trump, CPAC is also a reminder of how quickly fortunes can change. In 2016, it was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who won the CPAC straw poll, followed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — both of them ultimately vanquished by Trump. In 2013, the year after the last presidential election won by a Democrat, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was the toast of CPAC, before seeing his own presidential ambitions fade.

 

For the former president, irrelevancy would be the ultimate defeat. So on Sunday, he brushed aside yet another American political tradition — that of former presidents avoiding partisan politics for a period of months immediately after leaving office — and took direct aim at his opponents, past and present.

 

Defeated in November and twice impeached, Trump’s list of targets was long. For roughly 90 minutes, the former president chastised “top establishment Republicans,” “RINO’s” and other Republicans who have criticized him.

 

Banned from Twitter, he said Big Tech companies “should be punished with major sanctions whenever they silence conservative voices.” And in a wide-ranging critique of Biden’s first month in office, he lit into the Democratic president for his handling of everything from the coronavirus vaccine distribution to immigration, education and protections for people who are transgender.

 

“None of us even imagined just how bad they would be and how far left they would go,” Trump said, calling the Biden administration “anti-jobs, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-energy, anti-women and anti-science.”

 

“In just one short month, we have gone from ‘America First’ to ‘America Last,’” he said.

 

His own accomplishments, Trump said, were superior both in terms of government and politics. Trump credited himself with his party’s down-ballot successes in November, despite many down-ballot Republicans over-performing him in their districts.

 

He predicted the Democratic Party would suffer “withering losses” in the midterm elections and that in four years, “A Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House.”

 

He added, “And I wonder who that will be?”

 

If Trump is teasing another run in 2024, however, he is far from over his last defeat. In an extended riff on the November election, he perpetuated the false claim — rejected by elections experts and administrators and by courts across the country — that the election was stolen.

 

When he said, “This election was rigged,” the crowd chanted, “You won!”

 

Trump’s comparison of his own presidency to Biden’s belied his successor’s relatively high public approval ratings — and Trump’s poor ones. But CPAC is an accommodating crowd.

 

“We love you! We love you!” the audience chanted at one point during his speech.

 

Even before Sunday, Trump loomed over the 2022 midterm elections and — whether he runs again or not — the presidential primary in 2024. He is preparing to stand up a super PAC. On Friday, he endorsed Max Miller, a former White House aide, in his campaign to unseat Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, one of 10 House Republicans who voted for Trump’s impeachment.

 

Trump’s aides had urged him before speaking Sunday to focus his ire on Biden and the Democratic Party, while limiting mentions of his disputes with Republican lawmakers who have criticized him. Instead, he blistered by name the Republicans who supported his second impeachment, including “grandstanders” like Sens. Mitt Romney and “Little Ben Sasse” and the “warmonger” Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.

 

“Get rid of them all,” Trump said.

 

Still, Trump described the dispute within the Republican Party as a limited one: “The only division is between a handful of Washington, D.C. establishment political hacks and everybody else all over the country," he said, adding, “I think we have tremendous unity.”

 

Trump also ruled out starting a third party, calling “fake news” an idea he had once floated himself.

 

But his rhetoric about the election — and about his Republican critics — appears likely to further the civil war between traditionalist Republicans and the more populist base. While establishment-minded Republicans recoiled at Trump's sustained claims about voter fraud, CPAC devoted seven panels to “election integrity." Asked in the straw poll to name the most important issue facing the country, 62 percent of CPAC attendees named election integrity, by far their highest-ranking concern.

 

“Donald Trump remains the leader of the populist wing of the party, which he grew into a dominant force in Republican primaries, although never a majority force in the country,” said Whit Ayres, the longtime Republican pollster. “But because Trump dominates the populist wing, the folks who are members of that wing are going to continue to promote whatever he wants to promote at the time. That means they’re still hanging on to this myth that the election was stolen.”

 

Banned from Twitter and relegated from the White House, the former president reveled in the praise lavished on him at CPAC.

 

Taking the stage at CPAC, he said, “Do you miss me yet?”

 

The audience erupted, at times chanting, “USA! USA!.”

 

It was a fitting finale to an event that included a gilded statue of Trump and a roster of Republicans all promoting him. Cruz, himself a potential 2024 presidential contender, said during the conference that “Donald J. Trump ain’t going anywhere.” And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vowed, “We cannot, we will not, go back to the days of the failed Republican establishment of yesteryear.”

 

The straw poll was in line with the sentiment of the broader Republican electorate, a majority of whom say they would pick Trump over any other Republican if the 2024 primary were held today. On Sunday, Rep. Jim Jordan said he hopes Trump runs again in 2024 and, “If he does, he will win.”

 

It's unclear if Trump will launch a comeback bid. But either way, there's utility in suggesting that he might.

 

“If he wants to be relevant from a policy perspective ongoing, it was smart to tease that he may be around and may run for president again,” said Sean Walsh, a Republican strategist who worked in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses.

 

In addition, Walsh said, “having that mystery there … allows him to raise money” more effectively for his political causes than if he was a former president with no prospect of making a return.


CPAC: Hyatt Hotels says stage design resembling Nazi rune is 'abhorrent'

 


CPAC: Hyatt Hotels says stage design resembling Nazi rune is 'abhorrent'

 

A photo of the stage went viral, with thousands of Twitter users comparing its distinctive design to an odal rune

 

The stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2021 has been compared to a Norse rune used by Nazis

 

Joanna Walters in New York and agency

@Joannawalters13

Mon 1 Mar 2021 00.40 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/01/cpac-2021-stage-design-nazi-sign-odal-othala-rune-hyatt-hotels-hate-symbol-abhorrent

 

The Hyatt Hotels Corporation called symbols of hate “abhorrent” on Sunday after the design of a stage at the right-wing Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at one of its hotels drew comparisons to a Norse rune used by Nazis during the second world war

 

High-profile Republicans including former president Donald Trump were attending the four-day event in Orlando, Florida, as conflict raged between Trump allies and establishment politicians trying to distance the party from him.

 

A photo of the CPAC stage went viral on social media on Saturday, with thousands of Twitter users sharing posts comparing its distinctive design to an othala rune, also known as an odal rune, one of many ancient European symbols that Nazis adopted to “reconstruct a mythic ‘Aryan’ past”, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

 

The ceiling of the conference room featured a lighting display in the same shape as the stage, according to Reuters photographs.

 

Hyatt said all aspects of conference logistics, including the stage design, were managed by the American Conservative Union, which organized the conference.

 

The comparisons were “outrageous and slanderous”, Matt Schlapp, chair of the American Conservative Union, said on Saturday. He added the organization had a “long standing commitment to the Jewish community” and that the conference featured several Jewish speakers.

 

In its statement on Sunday, Hyatt said: “We take the concern raised about the prospect of symbols of hate being included in the stage design at CPAC 2021 very seriously as all such symbols are abhorrent and unequivocally counter to our values as a company.”

 

Some Trump supporters who launched a deadly insurrection against the US Capitol on 6 January carried Confederate flags, which many Americans see as a symbol of oppression and slavery. Extremism experts said some of the rioters were members of white nationalist groups.

 

The rune was seen at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 that saw violent fights with counter-protesters and one civil rights activist killed when a neo-fascist drove his car into the crowd.

 

Joe Biden cited that event and Trump’s assessment at the time that there were “very fine people on both sides” as a factor in his motivation for running for the Democratic nomination, winning the presidency in November 2020.

 

Trump’s presence has dominated this year’s CPAC, with his supporters parading a larger-than-life golden statue of him through the lobby of the hotel.

 

With Reuters

Should taxes rise to pay for the UK's Covid bill?

Army in Myanmar shoot dead “at least 18 peaceful protesters” - BBC News

Brazilian Covid strain found in UK raising fears over vaccine protectio...

Residents in several European express frustrations at COVID measures

Europe's closed borders push migrants to make dangerous Alpine crossing into France

Britons living in Spain faced with post-Brexit reality

Archeologists discover intact ceremonial chariot in ruins near Pompeii

Bash plays Biden campaign promise to Psaki: Why haven't we seen this?

'Sad': Rep. Adam Kinzinger blasts Sen. Josh Hawley's CPAC remarks

Brian Stelter: Fox News host nailed this media flaw at CPAC

White House Communications Director Confirms Biden’s Strong Intent On $15 Minimum Wage |

Capehart Condemns Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Transphobic Speech Against Equality Act |

GOP senator: If we continue to idolize one person, we will lose

Trump Declares His Political Journey Is ‘Far From Over’ | MSNBC

 


Trump has captured the Republican party – and that's great news for Biden

Robert Reich

The Trump party is only interested in appealing to its base. Democrats in Washington have the public square to themselves

 

Sun 28 Feb 2021 06.00 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/28/trump-republican-party-biden-democrats

 

Donald Trump formally anoints himself the head of the Republican party at today’s Conservative Political Action Conference.

 

The Grand Old Party, founded in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin, is now dead. What’s left is a dwindling number of elected officials who have stood up to Trump but are now being purged. Even Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell’s popularity has dropped 29 points among Kentucky Republicans since he broke with Trump.

 

In its place is the Trump party, whose major goal is to advance Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Its agenda is to exact vengeance on Republicans who didn’t or won’t support the lie or who voted to impeach or convict Trump for inciting the violence that the lie generated, and to keep attention focused on the former president’s grievances.

 

 

As the Trump party takes over the GOP, anti-Trump Republicans are abandoning the party in droves – thereby weakening it for general elections while simultaneously strengthening Trump’s hand inside it.

 

It is great news for Democrats and Joe Biden.

 

Democrats couldn’t hope for a more perfect foil – a defeated one-term president who never cracked 47% of the popular vote, left office with just 39% approval and is now hovering at an abysmal 34%, whom most Americans dislike or loathe, and a majority believe incited an insurrection against the United States.

 

The gift will keep giving. Courtesy of the supreme court, Trump’s tax returns will soon be raked across America like barnyard manure. Expect more of his shady business dealings to be exposed – more payoffs, cheats and cons – as well as civil and criminal prosecutions.

 

The Trump party isn’t interested in appealing to the nation as a whole, anyway. It’s interested only in appealing to Trump and the base that worships him.

 

All this is making it nearly impossible for congressional Republicans to mount a strong opposition to Biden’s ambitious plans for Covid relief followed by major investments in infrastructure and jobs. Lacking unity, leadership, strategy, clarity or a coherent message on anything other than Trump’s grievances, the Trump party is irrelevant to the large choices facing the nation. Democrats in Washington have the public square all to themselves.

 

Biden is in the enviable position of getting most of America behind his agenda – and he can do so without a single Republican vote if Senate Democrats end the filibuster.

 

Democrats have proven themselves capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But if they and Biden use this opportunity as they should, by this time next year Covid will be a tragic memory, and the nation will be in the midst of an economic recovery propelling it toward full employment and rising wages. With the GOP in disarray and rabid Trumpism turning off ever more voters, the 2022 midterm elections could swell Democratic majorities in Congress.

 

But the emergence of the Trump party is deeply worrisome for America. It is a dangerous, deluded, authoritarian and potentially violent faction that has no responsible role in a democracy.

 

Its big lie enables supporters of the former president to believe their efforts to overturn the 2020 election were necessary to protect American democracy, and that they must continue to fight a “deep state” conspiracy to thwart Trump. This is an open invitation to violence.

 

What’s good for Biden and the Democrats in the short run is frightening for America over the longer run

 

The big lie also justifies Trump Party efforts to suppress votes considered “fraudulent.” In 33 states, Trump Republican lawmakers are already pushing more than 165 bills intended to stop mail-in voting, increase voter ID requirements, make it harder to register to vote and expand purges of voter rolls.

 

Democrats in Congress are responding with their proposed For the People Act, to expand voting through automatic voter registration across the country, early voting and enlarged mail-in voting.

 

The incipient civil war pits a national Democratic party representing America’s majority against a state-based Trump Party representing a defiant and overwhelmingly white, working-class minority. It’s a recipe for a harsh clash between democracy and authoritarianism.

 

Plus, there’s the small possibility Trump could run again in 2024 and win.

 

What’s good for Biden and the Democrats in the short run is potentially disastrous for America over the longer term. One of its two major parties is centered on a big lie that threatens to blow up the nation, figuratively if not literally.

Germany tightens Covid controls at French border over variants

Switzerland: Europe's rights Court rules Muslim girls must take mixed swimming classes

Germany: Solidarity between Jews and Muslims in Halle | Focus on Europe

Réunion's 'stolen children' demand damages from France | DW News

Hungary: Orban is rebuilding Budapest with a look to the past | Focus on...

Ainda a propósito das barragens: acudam-nos que a cousa é grave!




OPINIÃO

Ainda a propósito das barragens: acudam-nos que a cousa é grave!

 

Esta “construção jurídica” é, pois, uma aparência montada para esconder um negócio real – a venda de seis barragens detidas pela EDP à Engie com o objectivo claro de aproveitar as entrelinhas da Lei para evitar o pagamento de impostos.

 

Aníbal Fernandes

28 de Fevereiro de 2021, 14:00

https://www.publico.pt/2021/02/28/opiniao/opiniao/proposito-barragens-acudamnos-cousa-grave-1952469

 

À medida que se vai desfiando este complexo novelo da venda das barragens da EDP, restam poucas dúvidas sobre o propósito que subjaz a este negócio: um planeamento fiscal abusivo para evitar o pagamento dos impostos que a Lei determina.

 

Vamos então por partes:

 

Em 1954 foi conferida à Hidro-Eléctrica do Douro a concessão de três barragens no Douro Internacional por um período de 75 anos (a HED viria a ser mais tarde englobada no Universo EDP).

 

Em 2007, pelo despacho n,º 16982/2007, foi prorrogado o prazo de concessão de todas as barragens do País concessionadas à EDP até 2042, tendo esta pago como contrapartida o montante de 759 milhões de Euros, 78 milhões dos quais respeitantes às três barragens do Douro Internacional.

 

Em 2019, a EDP anuncia que iniciou um processo de venda de seis barragens do Douro, tendo a Engie comunicado publicamente “a realização de um negócio de aquisição de um portfólio hidroeléctrico de seis barragens da EDP por um valor de 2,2 mil milhões de Euros na sequência de um leilão internacional”.

 

A EDP apresentou um requerimento ao Governo descrevendo a operação que pretendia fazer:

 

  • ·        Cindir a EDP formando uma “Nova Sociedade”;
  • ·        Transmitir para essa sociedade todos os direitos de exploração das barragens;
  • ·        De seguida a EDP venderia a outra sociedade “Águas Profundas S.A.” (empresa detida pela Engie) todo o capital da “Nova Sociedade”;
  • ·        De seguida, mediante uma operação de fusão, a “Nova Sociedade” seria absorvida pela “Águas Profundas”, após o que lhe seriam transmitidos todos os activos que detinha.

 

O que há de estranho em tudo isto? É que o contrato foi assinado a 17 de Dezembro de 2020 e a “Nova Sociedade” foi constituída no dia anterior sob a designação de “Camirengia Hidroeléctricos S.A.”. De seguida, a EDP alienou todas as participações sociais desta empresa à “Águas Profundas”, que se passou a designar “Movhera I – Hidroeléctricos do Norte S.A.” (no dia 25/01/2021 é registado o projecto de fusão por incorporação, mediante transferência global do património de que resultará a extinção da 1.ª sociedade, passando a segunda a deter a totalidade dos activos e passivos incluindo a incorporação do único trabalhador da sociedade incorporada).

 

Para que este negócio se consumasse, o Estado teria de dar o seu aval verificando nomeadamente que o potencial adquirente possuía as habilitações e a capacidade técnica e financeira exigidas ao titular originário. O que não foi feito, uma vez que a Nova Sociedade, que detinha um único trabalhador, se constitui na véspera da assinatura do contrato (17/01/2020) e a autorização da APA foi comunicada a 13 de Novembro de 2020.

 

Assim, o Estado autorizou o trespasse das barragens para uma empresa que ainda não existia.

 

Esta “construção jurídica” é, pois, uma aparência montada para esconder um negócio real – a venda de seis barragens detidas pela EDP à Engie com o objectivo claro de aproveitar as entrelinhas da Lei para evitar o pagamento de impostos.

 

Não haverá Autoridade neste País para pôr cobro a todos estes desmandos? Será preciso recorrer a Bruxelas para se anular este formato de negócio?

 

Tudo isto em benefício de uma única entidade e com avultado prejuízo do País e, em particular, da tão já massacrada Terra de Miranda.

 

E como se tudo isto já não bastasse, consta que o “Grupo de Trabalho” designado pelo sr. ministro do Ambiente como resposta às reivindicações do Movimento da Terra de Miranda estará agora a estudar se esta operação está ou não sujeita ao pagamento de impostos. Então cabe agora a um Grupo de Trabalho constituído por autarquias perorar sobre esta matéria? Mas não é a Autoridade Tributária que detém as competências para determinar o pagamento ou a isenção de impostos?

 

E não haverá Autoridade neste País para pôr cobro a todos estes desmandos?

 

Será preciso recorrer a Bruxelas para se anular este formato de negócio?

 

Cidadão mirandês


Budget: 'We've got to sustain the support for businesses', says Tory Mayor

Dozens of Hong Kong activists charged with 'subversion' | DW News

This is what guides us. | MSNBC

Keep Up With The Climate Challenge. | Chris Hayes | MSNBC

New Scottish Labour leader: 'I'm not naive about scale of the challenge'

In full: Sophy Ridge on Sunday

ousands of Argentinians take to streets to protest ‘VIP vaccinations’ scandal

Several people killed as security forces open fire on Myanmar protesters

Myanmar anti-junta protesters shot dead by police | DW News

This is a long line of despair. | Gadi Schwartz | MSNBC

McFaul: Biden Admin. 'Could Do More' To Hold Saudi Crown Prince Accountable

'Lying is no longer a sin': former French ambassador on Brexit and Boris Johnson

 



Interview

'Lying is no longer a sin': former French ambassador on Brexit and Boris Johnson

Jon Henley in Paris

Exclusive: Sylvie Bermann, who has written book in attempt to understand Brexit, says question of Britain’s identity was key

 

Sylvie Bermann photographed this week in Paris. ‘I’m sorry, but France is sovereign. Germany is sovereign. When we decide to share our sovereignty, it is to reinforce our power in the world.’ Photograph: Ed Alcock/The Guardian

 


Jon Henley

@jonhenley

Fri 26 Feb 2021 14.21 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/26/lying-is-no-longer-a-sin-sylvie-bermann-on-brexit-and-boris-johnson?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

When Sylvie Bermann arrived in August 2014 as France’s new ambassador, London was, she says, a city of “extraordinary dynamism and optimism”.

 

French cabinet ministers were queuing up to visit, one after the other, all searching for “Britain’s recipe for success. It was an an astonishing place.”

 

Now, Bermann says in an interview in her flat on Paris’s Left Bank, lined with the souvenirs of 40 years in France’s diplomatic service, “It feels like I’ve lived through a revolution. To see all that blown up, deliberately, for what? A blind belief in some mythical idea … How did it happen?”

 

To answer the question, the now-retired career diplomat, who has worked in Hong Kong, New York, Brussels and Moscow and was France’s ambassador to Beijing before she moved to Britain, has written a book that pulls no punches.

 

Goodbye Britannia, published this month in France, calls Boris Johnson an inveterate liar, describes Brexit as the triumph of emotion over reason, and suggests its roots lie in a combination of deluded British exceptionalism and rank political opportunism.

 

For a woman who fell in love with Britain on her first visit, to Brighton to learn English as a schoolgirl “sometime in the mid-1960s”, and whose best friends have lived in London for more than 30 years, Brexit is also a matter of personal sadness.

 

“When you’ve admired a country for a long time, appreciated its humour, tolerance, courtesy, openness – of course it’s sad,” she says. “It also means, now, there’s no more jelly or Stilton in Marks & Spencer’s in Marché St Germain. And that’s Brexit, too.”

 

First and foremost, though, was the shock. “No one thought it would happen, not even the Brexiters,” Bermann says. “David Cameron told me several times there was no way he could lose – he just wanted to solve his problem with his Eurosceptics.”

 

At endless embassy lunches and receptions, she says, she was assured by all that “‘the British are pragmatic; we just won’t do this’. One very senior Brexiter told us: ‘We’re not leaving, and we’ll keep annoying you. Are you sure you want us to stay?’”

 

Right up until referendum night, Bermann says, the story was the same: “I went to the party hosted by Roland Rudd, from the Stronger In campaign. George Osborne came by at about 11pm, and everyone congratulated each other. People were sure.”

 

Bermann went back to the French residence, on Kensington Palace Gardens, got a couple of hours’ sleep, then went downstairs at about 5am to watch the final results with her staff. “It was,” she says, “a bombshell. I wanted to analyse the reasons.”

 

Bermann blames a toxic mix of largely concocted fears over immigration, populist politicians willing to exploit them, and an identity crisis by which a nation that “not so long ago ruled the waves, somehow convinced itself it was in a dictatorship”.

 

The question of Britain’s identity was key, she says. “It’s very strange. On the one hand the British say, ‘We’re the best, we hold all the cards, we’ll divide and rule as we always have – and on the other: we’re a vassal state to Brussels.”

 

She spent a lot of time trying to talk to Brexiters, “and it was impossible – not to convince them, even, but simply to … discuss it with them. This really is an ideology. Brexit was a victory of passion over reality.”

 

The national narrative of a country never defeated, and uninvaded since 1066, had – according Bermann - created a “mad” and obsessive conviction among Brexit true believers that Britain had single-handedly won the second world war.

 

“Look, I did a lot to acknowledge the role of the British in the war,” she says. “I presented a lot of légions d’honneur to British veterans, and it was very moving. But at the same time, I’m sorry, the Americans and the Red Army did their bit.”

 

A lack of any real understanding of what the EU contributed to the UK did not help the remain cause, she says, nor did the fact that the campaign was so lacklustre. “Cameron said people would be better off in – but he never said how,” Bermann says.

 

It was “the demagogues and the populists”, however, who got Brexit over the line, Bermann says. “Farage managed to forge this link between the EU and immigration. [Jeremy] Corbyn played a very negative role too, he was a Brexiter at heart.

 

“There was no opposition campaign. And then of course Johnson, the determining factor. Charming, charismatic – and with no genuine reason at all to be hostile to the EU. He knew all those articles he wrote about it from Brussels were false.”

 

Bermann has few kind words for the role the prime minister, whom she met often during his time as mayor of London, played in the Brexit process. From the moment he started to campaign for Brexit, she says, his bad faith was evident.

 

“No one should be surprised he gets called a liar,” she says. “Just look at the side of that bus: a flagrant lie. But lying is no longer a sin. The views of someone with no competence are worth as much as those of an expert – as Michael Gove said.”

 

Bermann was all the more shocked by Johnson, she says, because the first time she met him, at a breakfast, he had given “a fine speech, about how Sparta, in ancient Greece, had vanished because it cut itself off, while Athens, open city, flourished”.

 

She had more time for Theresa May, whose “inflexibilities and mistakes” – including the red lines of Brexit means Brexit, leaving the EU’s single market and customs union – produced the hardest of hard departures but who “at least had an honest side”.

 

Bermann left London in 2017, but followed developments closely from her next – and final – diplomatic post in Moscow. “The deal that was finally arrived at is a deal in which Britain sacrificed everything to a mythical idea of sovereignty,” she says.

 

“I’m sorry, but France is sovereign. Germany is sovereign. When we decide to share our sovereignty, it is to reinforce our power in the world, because there are now two superpowers, the US and China. Absolute sovereignty simply does not exist.”

 

Global Britain is also a myth: “The UK has erected new barriers with its biggest partner. For the US, it’s no longer the bridge it was. With China, there are moral problems. India won’t play unless it gets visas. Who will Britain be global with?”

 

Meanwhile, Britain is now a third country, Bermann says, “which means frontiers, documents, declarations. It wanted to leave because of EU bureaucracy, but it has a mountain of new paperwork – and companies are already suffering.”

Why Grantham Says the Next Crash Will Rival 1929, 2000

GameStop to Tesla: investor Jeremy Grantham on 'crazy' markets | Charts ...

How the fashion industry is turning to forests for the fibres of the future |

Iran v America: what's behind the feud? | The Economist

Republicans push 'blue-collar comeback' – but is the party a true friend of the worker?

 



Republicans push 'blue-collar comeback' – but is the party a true friend of the worker?

 

Donald Trump Jr with his partner Kimberly Guilfoyle at CPAC on Friday. Trump attacked Biden’s reversal of his father’s immigration policies and said: ‘Guess who gets hurt? Our low-wage earners.’

 

Richard Luscombe in Miami

@richlusc

Sat 27 Feb 2021 19.32 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/27/republicans-trump-blue-collar-comeback-working-people

 

Amid the resurrection of “the big lie” about an election stolen from Donald Trump, another deceptive theme has emerged at this weekend’s rightwing gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference: Republicans as the true party of the blue-collar worker.

 

It was a concept promoted variously over CPAC’s first two days by, among others, a multimillionaire former governor who made a fortune in healthcare; the son of Donald Trump, who lives in his own exclusive Florida club; and two firebrand US senators with law degrees from Ivy League universities who oppose a universal hike in the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

 

One of them, the Texas senator Ted Cruz, earlier this month flew his family to a sunshine vacation at a five-star resort in Mexico to escape the deadly winter blast back in his home state. At CPAC he asserted his alignment with America’s working men and women.

 

“The Republican party is not the party just of the country clubs; the Republican party is the party of steel workers and construction workers, and pipeline workers and taxi cab drivers, and cops and firefighters, and waiters and waitresses, and the men and women with calluses on their hands who are working for this country,” Cruz told the nation’s biggest annual gathering of grassroots conservatives, just days after cutting short his Cancun holiday when the scandal came to light.

 

“That is our party, and these deplorables are here to stay.”

 

The CPAC positioning to try to represent the Republican party as a champion of the working class comes as Democratic president Joe Biden’s effort to raise the minimum wage faces significant congressional roadblocks, including opposition from many senior Republican figures.

 

Cruz, a Harvard-educated lawyer and the beneficiary of substantial corporate campaign donations, at least until many halted contributions in the wake of the 6 January Capitol riots, is a long-time opponent of what he has called the “bad policy” concept of a minimum wage, and has said legislation to enforce it would “kill American jobs”.

 

Josh Hawley, the Missouri senator who last month joined his fellow Trump loyalist Cruz in attempting to block the certification of Biden’s victory, was another prominent CPAC speaker espousing working-class roots while opposing the new president’s wage proposals.

 

“Where I come from in Missouri, I grew up in rural Missouri, [a] small town right in the middle of Missouri, it’s a working-class town full of good folks, working hard to make it every day,” said Hawley, a Yale law school graduate.

 

“And I can just tell you, where I grew up, we believe in citizenship because we’re proud of it. We’re proud to be Americans,” he added in an address condemning “powerful corporations” and “oligarchs” he accused of imposing a “radical left agenda” on the United States.

 

Hawley, considered a possible candidate in the race for the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination if Trump does not run again, has also suffered corporate backlash for his support of the former president’s election lies. He proposed legislation this month that would exempt small businesses from paying their employees a “burdensome” minimum wage.

 

On Saturday at CPAC, the fealty continued to Trump, who was honored at the conference venue this week by the installation of a large, gaudy statue that sparked the Twitter hashtag #goldencalf.

 

“The blue-collar comeback was the theme of our administration,” the Republican Tennessee senator Bill Hagerty said in a panel discussion on industry during which he praised “President Trump’s leadership” for job growth.

 

KT McFarland, a conservative commentator who was briefly Trump’s deputy national security adviser at the start of his administration, said she had a telephone call with the former president on Friday night in which he allegedly outlined the theme of his scheduled CPAC speech on Sunday.

 

“I think that Donald Trump is not finished with this revolution,” she said, describing how she called his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach and claiming Trump himself picked up the phone.

 

“He said: ‘I’m going to talk about the future. I’m going to talk about how we win in 2022, how we take the White House back in 2024.’”

 

Trump’s son, Donald Jr, told CPAC attendees earlier in the gathering that Biden’s relaxation of Trump-era immigration measures and reopening of camps for migrant youth would affect the very blue-collar workers Republicans are attempting to covet.

 

“Where is the outrage about an asinine immigration policy that is encouraging people to bring children unaccompanied and otherwise into a country?” he said.

 

“Guess who gets hurt? Our low-wage earners, who for the first time in modern history under Donald Trump started seeing real wage growth.”

 

Rick Scott, Florida’s junior senator and former governor, and a staunch Trump ally, cautioned Republicans that abandoning the ex-present would alienate the party’s base.

 

“We will not win the future by trying to go back to where the Republican party used to be. If we do, we will lose the working base that President Trump so animated,” said Scott, a former healthcare executive whose personal net worth has been estimated above half a billion dollars.

 

“We’re gonna lose elections across the country and ultimately we’re gonna lose our nation.”

 

Analysts say there is nothing unusual in Republicans courting the working vote, even if the choice of messenger might be questionable.

 

“From a scholarly perspective, we’re really watching what seems to be a realignment of the coalitions that are supporting each party, and particularly among working-class white individuals,” said Dr Susan MacManus, emeritus professor of political science at the University of South Florida.

 

“All you have to do is to go look at the exit poll for the presidential election and look at who are the largest supporters of Donald Trump, non-college educated, working whites, pretty much.

 

“Is there a disconnect between the wealth and education of leaders in both parties? Yes, but this is where it’s coming from.”

O PRR e as florestas: a reprise de um filme já muito gasto

 



OPINIÃO

O PRR e as florestas: a reprise de um filme já muito gasto

 

Entre a “grande reforma” de Capoulas Santos e o “programa de gestão da paisagem” de Matos Fernandes, o que define os dois ministros é uma mesma estratégia do anúncio de milhões de euros a atirar à fogueira.

 

Paulo Pimenta de Castro

28 de Fevereiro de 2021, 0:20

https://www.publico.pt/2021/02/28/opiniao/opiniao/prr-florestas-reprise-filme-ja-gasto-1952296

 

Na sequência da “grande reforma da floresta” do dr. Capoulas Santos, Portugal foi o país que maior área ardida registou na União Europeia em 2016, em 2017 e em 2018. Há aspectos da vida europeia onde somos “grandes”. Em 2019 e, até ver, em 2020, a Roménia tirou-nos do lugar cimeiro, mas estamos logo atrás. Nem vale a pena argumentar sobre as diferenças entre as superfícies territoriais ou de ocupação florestal entre o nosso país e alguns dos outros Estados-membros. A demonstração de incapacidade em gerir o nosso território torna-se assustadora.

 

Dirão, mas o problema vem muito de trás! Não advém só do governo onde esteve recentemente o dr. Capoulas Santos. É verdade! Vem de trás, até de governos onde o dr. Capoulas Santos e o dr. António Costa foram ministros, da Agricultura e da Administração Interna. No último caso, deixou marca até hoje. Marca pela negativa, entenda-se!

 

O curioso é que, na passagem da “grande reforma” do dr. Capoulas Santos para o “programa de gestão da paisagem” do eng. Matos Fernandes, não se vislumbra alteração de paradigma. Esperemos que a meteorologia nos ajude, entretanto. Com as alterações climáticas em curso a probabilidade é cada vez mais reduzida, mas parece que há quem acredita em milagres. Na verdade, o que define os dois ministros é uma mesma estratégia do anúncio de milhões de euros a atirar à fogueira.

 

Não vale a pena voltar a explicar o que define uma reforma e o tanto que precisamos dela. Existem pessoas mais qualificadas para essa explicação. Mas uma “reforma”, vista num enquadramento meramente sectorial, fora de todo um contexto de êxodo rural, de deficiência formativa, de injustiça fiscal, de mercados em concorrência imperfeita, entre outros domínios, assente num combate às consequências, é tudo o que já não temos paciência para aturar.

 

Basta observar o gráfico da área ardida em Portugal. Nada mais fácil de fazer para avaliar resultados da política florestal de Portugal. Já lá vão mais de 20 anos. Vinte anos de comprovado falhanço governamental e dos parceiros do sector silvo-industrial

 

No meu caso, a experiência em consultas públicas a “reformas” florestais vem desde o Programa de Desenvolvimento Sustentável da Floresta Portuguesa. Programa lançado pelo governo onde foi primeiro-ministro o actual secretário-geral das Nações Unidas. O plano levou à impressão de um quarto de centena de páginas no Diário da República. Na altura, a esperança era reforçada pela aprovação recente da Lei de Bases da Política Florestal. Uma esperança, conclui-se, alimentada pela inocência.

 

De então para cá basta observar o gráfico da área ardida em Portugal. Nada mais fácil de fazer para avaliar resultados da política florestal de Portugal. Já lá vão mais de 20 anos. Mais de 20 anos de contínua degradação dos ecossistemas, de perda de coberto arbóreo, de exposição crescente a pragas e a doenças, à expansão de espécies exóticas e invasoras. Vinte anos de comprovado falhanço governamental e dos parceiros do sector silvo-industrial. Vinte anos de crescente insegurança para as populações, seja pela proximidade às chamas, seja pela distância a que chega o fumo, com consequência na qualidade do ar e no agravamento de doenças cardiopulmonares, ou da contaminação das águas de abastecimento humano, pela incapacidade em conter o escorrimento das cinzas pós-incêndios.

 

No plano de recuperação e resiliência agora apresentado pelo Governo, ainda em versão preliminar, no que toca às florestas a história repete-se. Lá vêm os anúncios de disponibilidade de centenas de milhões de euros para a floresta (que o país não tem). Lá vêm os “PowerPoint” de cores agradáveis e cronogramas de boas intenções. Vêm ainda as ameaças, as ameaças a quem já é ameaçado. Ameaçado pelos mercados, sob a permissão governamental, com um longo desequilíbrio na distribuição da riqueza ao longo das cadeias produtivas. Aliás, reforça-se neste plano a tese de que o governo só é forte com os fracos. Não que o fracos sejam fracos, já que a sua fraqueza advém da incapacidade em unir vontades na defesa de interesses comuns.

 

Nota final sobre os milhões: Entre o anunciado e o que se traduz em realização física (e muito dela acaba por arder) vai um abismo. Entre o inicialmente anunciado e o realmente executado vêm as reprogramações: As reprogramações são um procedimento “de engenharia financeira”, ou melhor, um baixar da fasquia entre uma altura de salto para um atleta olímpico e o salto de uma criança de dois anos. Depois de baixar a fasquia argumenta-se que a taxa de execução dos milhões foi um sucesso. Todavia, este nem é o caso do PDR2020, onde o insucesso é impossível de mascarar.

 

Engenheiro silvicultor

Second woman accuses Cuomo of harassment




Second woman accuses Cuomo of harassment

By BILL MAHONEY 02/27/2021 07:26 PM EST

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2021/02/27/second-woman-accuses-cuomo-of-harassment-1366234

 

ALBANY, N.Y. — A second former staffer has accused New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo of sexual harassment.

 

Charlotte Bennett, who began working for the state last March, told The New York Times that the governor had repeatedly asked her intimate personal questions, which felt like “something out of a horror movie.” They included questions about her romantic life and whether Bennett, 25, “had ever been with an older man.”

 

Bennett said Cuomo never touched her. But, she told the Times, "I understood that the governor wanted to sleep with me, and felt horribly uncomfortable and scared. And was wondering how I was going to get out of it and assumed it was the end of my job.”

 

Earlier this week, another former Cuomo staffer, Lindsey Boylan, detailed allegations of harassment from Cuomo. Among other things, Boylan said Cuomo kissed her on the lips and asked her to play strip poker during a plane ride.

 

Cuomo’s office announced minutes after the story appeared that it was launching an “independent review” into the matter.

 

Former federal Judge Barbara Jones will conduct the review, according to Cuomo counsel Beth Garvey.

 

Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is first in line of succession, issued a statement on Saturday night, saying: "Everyone deserves to have their voice heard and taken seriously. I support an independent review."

 

Cuomo did not explicitly deny the specific claims Bennett made.

 

"When she came to me and opened up about being a sexual assault survivor and how it shaped her and her ongoing efforts to create an organization that empowered her voice to help other survivors, I tried to be supportive and helpful,” Cuomo said in a statement. “Ms. Bennett's initial impression was right: I was trying to be a mentor to her. I never made advances toward Ms. Bennett nor did I ever intend to act in any way that was inappropriate. The last thing I would ever have wanted was to make her feel any of the things that are being reported.

 

"This situation cannot and should not be resolved in the press; I believe the best way to get to the truth is through a full and thorough outside review and I am directing all state employees to comply with that effort. I ask all New Yorkers to await the findings of the review so that they know the facts before making any judgments. I will have no further comment until the review has concluded."


Donald Trump supporters gather for his return in Florida

sábado, 27 de fevereiro de 2021

COVID-19: Seaside village sees 142% rise in coronavirus cases

Weakest Gulf Stream in 1,000 years could bring more 'extreme' winters to UK

Arrest warrant issued in the murder of Yale student

FDA authorizes Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine

Dog thefts soar by 170% during lockdown

Chancellor Rishi Sunak says UK economy to faces ‘enormous strains’ following lockdown

Design flops: Some of history's most unusable objects go on display

Hundreds arrested in Myanmar protests as demonstrators, UN envoy defy junta

Reports Say FBI Closing In on Capitol Officer Sicknick | MSNBC

Rev. Al Sharpton's Exclusive Interview with Vice President Kamala Harris...

Former NBA star says he has experienced racism while playing

'Really frightening’: George Takei responds to rise in anti-Asian violence

Son's plea for detained UK businessman 'caught in prisoner-swap with Princess Latifa'

Is Facebook too powerful? - BBC News

Hollywood prepares for virtual 78th instalment of Golden Globes

Thousands mark sixth anniversary of slain Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov

Hundreds of inmates escape after deadly prison break in Haitian capital

House Passes Biden's $1.9 Trillion Relief Package | MSNBC

Michael Cohen: The Former President “Actually Thinks He’s Like a God. Li...

Smerconish: Could Trump's tax returns spoil his political return?

Climatologist Michael E Mann: 'Good people fall victim to doomism. I do too sometimes'

 


Interview

Climatologist Michael E Mann: 'Good people fall victim to doomism. I do too sometimes'

Jonathan Watts

American climatologist Michael E Mann.

Michael E Mann: ‘It’s no longer credible to deny climate change because people can see it playing out in real time.

The author and eminent climate scientist on the deniers’ new tactics and why positive change feels closer than it has done in 20 years

 


@jonathanwatts

Sat 27 Feb 2021 16.00 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview

 

Michael E Mann is one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. He rose to prominence in 1999 as the co-author of the “hockey-stick graph”, which showed the sharp rise in global temperatures since the industrial age. This was the clearest evidence anyone had provided of the link between human emissions and global warming. This made him a target. He and other scientists have been subject to “climategate” email hacking, personal abuse and online trolling. In his new book, The New Climate War, he argues the tide may finally be turning in a hopeful direction.

 

You are a battle-scarred veteran of many climate campaigns. What’s new about the climate war?

For more than two decades I was in the crosshairs of climate change deniers, fossil fuel industry groups and those advocating for them – conservative politicians and media outlets. This was part of a larger effort to discredit the science of climate change that is arguably the most well-funded, most organised PR campaign in history. Now we finally have reached the point where it is not credible to deny climate change because people can see it playing out in real time in front of their eyes.

 

But the “inactivists”, as I call them, haven’t given up; they have simply shifted from hard denial to a new array of tactics that I describe in the book as the new climate war.

 

Who is the enemy in the new climate war?

It is fossil fuel interests, climate change deniers, conservative media tycoons, working together with petrostate actors like Saudi Arabia and Russia. I call this the coalition of the unwilling.

 

If you had to find a single face that represents both the old and new climate war it would be Rupert Murdoch. Climate change is an issue the Murdoch press has disassembled on for years. The disinformation was obvious last year, when they blamed arsonists for the devastating Australian bushfires. This was a horrible attempt to divert attention from the real cause, which was climate change. Murdoch was taken to task by his own son because of the immorality of his practices.

 

We also have to recognise the increasing roles of petrostate actors. Saudi Arabia has played an obstructionist role. Russia has perfected cyber warfare and used it to interfere in other countries and disrupt action on climate change. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has made a credible case about Russia’s efforts to hijack the 2016 presidential election and get Trump elected. Russia wanted to end US sanctions that stood in the way of a half-trillion-dollar deal between Rosneft and ExxonMobil. It worked. Who did Trump appoint as his first secretary of state? Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil.

 

Today Russia uses cyberware – bot armies and trolls – to get climate activists to fight one another and to seed arguments on social media. Russian trolls have attempted to undermine carbon pricing in Canada and Australia, and Russian fingerprints have been detected in the yellow-vest protests in France.

 

And WikiLeaks? Your book suggests they were involved?

I’m not an expert but there has been a lot of investigative journalism about the role they played in the 2016 election. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks helped Donald Trump get elected, and in doing that they did the bidding of Putin. Their fingerprints are also all over the climategate affair 10 years ago. UK investigators have evidence of Russian involvement in that too.

 

It’s an unlikely alliance.

Yes, it’s a remarkable irony. Who would think you would see a US republican president, a Russian president and Rupert Murdoch working together as part of the coalition of the unwilling, doing everything in their power to prevent action on the defining crisis of our time: climate change.

 

What is in it for Murdoch?

The Saudi royal family has been the second-highest shareholder in News Corporation [Murdoch’s company]. And apparently Murdoch and the Saudi family are close friends, so that is a potential motive.

 

It's frustrating to see scientists being blamed. We've been fighting the most well-funded PR campaign in human history

You say the deniers are on the back foot and there are reasons to be hopeful. But we have seen false dawns in the past. Why is it different now?

Without doubt, this is the best chance in the 20 years since I have been in the climate arena. We have seen false complacency in the past. In 2007, after the IPCC shared the Nobel peace prize with Al Gore, there seemed to be this awakening in the media. that felt to many like a tipping point, though at the time I was very apprehensive. I knew the enemy wouldn’t give up and I expected a resurgence of the climate war. That’s exactly what we saw with the climategate campaign [the leaking of emails to try to tarnish scientists]. This is different. It feels different, it looks different, it smells different.

 

I am optimistic about a favourable shift in the political wind. The youth climate movement has galvanised attention and re-centred the debate on intergenerational ethics. We are seeing a tipping point in public consciousness. That bodes well. There is still a viable way forward to avoid climate catastrophe.

 

You can see from the talking points of inactivists that they are really in retreat. Republican pollsters like Frank Luntz have advised clients in the fossil fuel industry and the politicians who carry water for them that you can’t get away with denying climate change any more. It doesn’t pass the sniff test with the public. Instead they are looking at other things they can do.

 

Let’s dig into deniers’ tactics. One that you mention is deflection. What are the telltale signs?

Any time you are told a problem is your fault because you are not behaving responsibly, there is a good chance that you are being deflected from systemic solutions and policies. Blaming the individual is a tried and trusted playbook that we have seen in the past with other industries. In the 1970s, Coca Cola and the beverage industry did this very effectively to convince us we don’t need regulations on waste disposal. Because of that we now have a global plastic crisis. The same tactics are evident in the gun lobby’s motto, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, which is classic deflection. For a UK example look at BP, which gave us the world’s first individual carbon footprint calculator. Why did they do that? Because BP wanted us looking at our carbon footprint not theirs.

 

This leads to the second tactic – division. You argue people need to focus strategically on system change, but online bots are stirring up arguments over individual lifestyle choices. That said, you suggest there is too much emphasis on reducing meat, which is a relatively minor source of emissions compared with fossil fuels. Isn’t that likely to be divisive among vegetarians and vegans?

Of course lifestyle changes are necessary but they alone won’t get us where we need to be. They make us more healthy, save money and set a good example for others. But we can’t allow the forces of inaction to convince us these actions alone are the solution and that we don’t need systemic changes. If they can get us arguing with one another, and finger pointing and carbon shaming about lifestyle choices, that is extremely divisive and the community will no longer be effective in challenging vested interest and polluters.

 

I don’t eat meat. We get power from renewable energy. I have a plug-in hybrid vehicle. I do those things and encourage others to do them. but i don’t think it is helpful to shame people people who are not as far along as you. Instead, let’s help everybody to move in that direction. That is what policy and system change is about: creating incentives so even those who don’t think about their environmental footprint are still led in that direction.

 

Another new front in the new climate war is what you call “doomism”. What do you mean by that?

Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic. Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up.

 

What is so pernicious about this is that it seeks to weaponise environmental progressives who would otherwise be on the frontline demanding change. These are folk of good intentions and good will, but they become disillusioned or depressed and they fall into despair. But “too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science. Many of the prominent doomist narratives – [Jonathan] Franzen, David Wallace-Wells, the Deep Adaptation movement – can be traced back to a false notion that an Arctic methane bomb will cause runaway warming and extinguish all life on earth within 10 years. This is completely wrong. There is no science to support that.

 

Even without Arctic methane, there are plenty of solid reasons to be worried about the climate. Can’t a sense of doom also radicalise people and act as an antidote to complacency? Isn’t it a stage in understanding?

True. It is a natural emotional reaction. Good people fall victim to doomism. I do too sometimes. It can be enabling and empowering as long as you don’t get stuck there. It is up to others to help ensure that experience can be cathartic.

 

You also suggest that Greta Thunberg has sometimes been led astray.

I am very supportive of Greta. At one point in the book, I point out that even she has at times been a victim of some of this bad framing. But in terms of what she does, I am hugely supportive. Those I call out really are those who should know better. In particular, I tried to document mis-statements about the science. If the science objectively demonstrated it was too late to limit warming below catastrophic levels, that would be one thing and we scientists would be faithful to that. But science doesn’t say that.

 

Ten years ago, you and other climate scientists were accused of exaggerating the risks and now you are accused of underplaying the dangers. Sometimes it must seem that you cannot win.

It is frustrating to see scientists blamed. We also are told that we didn’t do a good enough job communicating the risks. People forget we were fighting the most well-funded, well-organised PR campaign in the history of human civilisation.

 

Another development in the “climate war” is the entry of new participants. Bill Gates is perhaps the most prominent. His new book, How to Prevent a Climate Disaster, offers a systems analyst approach to the problem, a kind of operating system upgrade for the planet. What do you make of his take?

I want to thank him for using his platform to raise awareness of the climate crisis. That said, I disagree with him quite sharply on the prescription. His view is overly technocratic and premised on an underestimate of the role that renewable energy can play in decarbonising our civilisation. If you understate that potential, you are forced to make other risky choices, such as geoengineering and carbon capture and sequestration. Investment in those unproven options would crowd out investment in better solutions.

 

Gates writes that he doesn’t know the political solution to climate change. But the politics are the problem buddy. If you don’t have a prescription of how to solve that, then you don’t have a solution and perhaps your solution might be taking us down the wrong path.

 

What are the prospects for political change with Joe Biden in the White House?

Breathtaking. Biden has surprised even the most ardent climate hawks in the boldness of his first 100 day agenda, which goes well beyond any previous president, including Obama when it comes to use of executive actions. He has incorporated climate policy into every single government agency and we have seen massive investments in renewable energy infrastructure, cuts in subsidies for fossil fuels, and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline. On the international front, the appointment of John Kerry, who helped negotiate the Paris Accord, has telegraphed to the rest of the world that the US is back and ready to lead again. That is huge and puts pressure on intransigent state actors like [Australian prime minister] Scott Morrison, who has been a friend of the fossil fuel industry in Australia. Morrison has changed his rhetoric dramatically since Biden became president. I think that creates an opportunity like no other.

 

The book provides a long list of other reasons to be hopeful – rapid take-up of renewable energy, technology advances, financial sector action and more. Even so, the US, like other countries, is still far short of the second world war-level of mobilisation that you and others say is necessary to keep global heating to 1.5C. Have the prospects for that been helped or hindered by Covid?

I see a perfect storm of climate opportunity. Terrible as the pandemic has been, this tragedy can also provide lessons, particularly on the importance of listening to the word of science when facing risks. That could be from medical scientists advising us on the need for social distancing to reduce the chances of contagion, or it could be from climate scientists recommending we cut carbon emissions to reduce the risk of climate catastrophe. There is also awareness of the deadliness of anti-science, which can be measured in hundreds of thousands of lives in the US that were unnecessarily lost because a president refused to implement policies based on what health scientists were saying. Out of this crisis can come a collective reconsideration of our priorities. How to live sustainably on a finite planet with finite space, food and water. A year from now, memories and impacts of coronavirus will still feel painful, but the crisis itself will be in the rear-view mirror thanks to vaccines. What will loom larger will be the greater crisis we face – the climate crisis.