Monday, February 25, 2019

White House to select federal scientists to reassess government climate findings, sources say

A view of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2019.

By JULIET EILPERIN, JOSH DAWSEY and BRADY DENNIS | The Washington Post

February 24, 2019 at 5:27 pm

WASHINGTON — The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter its conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three administration officials.

The National Security Council initiative would include scientists who question the severity of climate impacts and the extent to which humans contribute to the problem, according to these individuals, who asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The group would not be subject to the same level of public disclosure as a formal advisory committee.

The move would represent the Trump administration’s most forceful effort to date to challenge the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions are helping drive global warming and that the world could face dire consequences unless countries curb their carbon output over the next few decades.

The idea of a new working group, which top administration officials discussed Friday in the White House Situation Room, represents a modified version of an earlier plan to establish a federal advisory panel on climate and national security. That plan — championed by William Happer, NSC’s senior director and a physicist who has challenged the idea that carbon dioxide could damage the planet — would have created an independent federal advisory committee.

The Federal Advisory Committee Act imposes several ground rules for such panels, including that they meet in public, are subject to public records requests and include a representative membership.
While the plan is not finalized, NSC officials said they would take steps to assemble a group of researchers within the government. The group will not be tasked with scrutinizing recent intelligence community assessments of climate change, according to officials familiar with the plan.

The National Security Council declined requests to comment on the matter.

During the Friday meeting, these officials said, deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman said Trump was upset that his administration had issued the National Climate Assessment, which must be published regularly under federal law. Kupperman added that congressional Democrats had seized upon the report, which is the product of more than a dozen agencies, to bolster their case for cutting carbon emissions as part of the Green New Deal.

Attendees at the session, which included acting interior secretary David Bernhardt and senior officials from across the government, debated how best to establish a group of researchers that could scrutinize recent federal climate reports.

Happer, who headed an advocacy group called the CO2 Coalition before joining the administration in the fall, has challenged the scientific consensus on climate change inside and outside of government.
Public records show the coalition, which describes its mission as informing policymakers and the public of the “important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy,” has received money from far-right organizations and donors with fossil fuel interests.

In 2017, according to federal tax filings obtained by the Climate Investigations Center, the group received $170,000 from the Mercer Family Foundation and more than $33,000 from the Charles Koch Institute.

One senior administration official said the president was looking for “a mixture of opinions” and disputed a massive inter-agency report in November that described intensifying climate change as a threat to the United States.

“The president wants people to be able to decide for themselves,” the aide said.

Several scientists, however, said the federal government’s recent findings on climate change had received intense scrutiny from other researchers in the field before they became public.

Christopher Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute who served on the National Academy of Sciences review panel for the scientific report that formed the basis of last year’s climate assessment, said the committee met several times “to do a careful, page by page evaluation by the entire report.”

“The whole review process is confrontational from the very get-go, but it’s based in scientific credibility, in a traceable chain of evidence through publications,” said Field, an earth system science and biology professor.

Trump officials had weighed the idea of conducting a “red team-blue team” exercise on climate change, an idea espoused by Scott Pruitt, who was then the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, during the early months of the administration. White House aides, including then-chief of staff John Kelly, blocked the idea, and at one point discussed whether to “ignore” the climate research being conducted by federal scientists.

Government researchers across a range of disciplines have identified climate change as a serious threat for the past two decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations.
In 2003, the Pentagon commissioned a report to examine how an abrupt change in climate would affect America’s defense capabilities. Its authors concluded that it “should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.”

Last year, a military-funded study warned sea level rise and other climate impacts could make more than a thousand low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean “uninhabitable” by midcentury, including an atoll where a missile defense site is located.

Just last month, the national intelligence director delivered a worldwide threat assessment that “climate hazards” including extreme weather, wildfires, droughts and acidifying oceans are worsening, “threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security.”

Judith Curry, a former Georgia Tech climate scientist whom Republicans have sought to testify on climate change because she often highlights the uncertainties that remain, said in an email that she backed the idea of an independent assessment of government climate reports as long as the participants reflected a range of perspectives and are not activists on either side of the debate.

But retired Rear Adm. David Titley, who served as oceanographer of the Navy and chief operating officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the new initiative could imperil national security by clouding “truthful assessments of the risks stemming from a changing climate.”

“I never thought I would live to see the day in the United States where our own White House is attacking the very science agencies that can help the president understand and manage the climate risks to security of today and tomorrow,” said Titley, who sits on the advisory board of the Center for Climate and Security, a nonpartisan group focused on climate-related risks. “Such attacks are un-American.”

Which countries eat the most meat?

By Hannah RitchieOxford Martin School-4 February 2019

You may have heard an increasing number of people vow to reduce their meat eating lately - or cut it out altogether.

This often forms part of a bid to become healthier, reduce their environmental impact, or consider animal welfare.

A third of Britons claim to have either stopped eating meat or reduced it, while two thirds of those in the US say they are eating less of at least one meat.

This trend is partly thanks to initiatives such as Meat-free Mondays and Veganuary. At the same time, a number of documentaries and high-profile advocates of veganism have highlighted the potential benefits of eating less meat.

But have these sentiments had any effect on the ground?

Rising incomes

What we do know is that global meat consumption has increased rapidly over the past 50 years.

Meat production today is nearly five times higher than in the early 1960s - from 70 million tonnes to more than 330 million tonnes in 2017.

A big reason for this is that there are many more people to feed.

Over that period the world population more than doubled. In the early 1960s there were around three billion of us, and today there are more than 7.6 billion.

While population is part of the story, it doesn't entirely account for why meat production increased five-fold.

Another key factor is rising incomes.

Around the world, people have become richer, with the global average income more than tripling in half a century.

When we compare consumption across different countries we see that, typically, the richer we are the more meat we eat.

There are not just more people in the world - there are more people who can afford to eat meat.

Who eats the most meat?

We see a clear link with wealth when looking at patterns of meat consumption across the world.

In 2013, the most recent year available, the US and Australia topped the tables for annual meat consumption. Alongside New Zealand and Argentina, both countries topped more than 100kg per person, the equivalent to about 50 chickens or half a cow each.

In fact, high levels of meat consumption can be seen across the West, with most countries in Western Europe consuming between 80 and 90 kilograms of meat per person.

At the other end of the spectrum, many of the world's poorest countries eat very little meat.

The average Ethiopian consumes just 7kg, Rwandans 8kg and Nigerians 9kg. This is 10 times less than the average European.

For those in low-income countries, meat is still very much a luxury.

These figures represent the amount of meat per head available for consumption, but do not account for any food wasted at home or on the shop floor. In reality, people eat slightly less meat than this, but it's still a close estimate.

Middle-income countries driving the demand for meat

It is clear that the richest countries eat a lot of meat, and those on low incomes eat little.

This has been the case for 50 years or more. So why are we collectively eating so much more meat?

This trend has been largely driven from a growing band of middle-income countries.

Rapidly growing nations like China and Brazil have seen significant economic growth in recent decades, and a large rise in meat consumption.

In Kenya, meat consumption has changed little since 1960.

By contrast, the average person in 1960s China consumed less than 5kg a year. By the late 1980s this had risen to 20kg, and in the last few decades this has more than tripled to over 60kg.

The same thing happened in Brazil, where meat consumption has almost doubled since 1990 - overtaking almost all Western countries in the process.

India is one notable exception.

While average incomes have tripled since 1990, meat consumption hasn't followed suit.

It is a misconception that the majority of India is vegetarian - two thirds of Indians do eat at least some meat, according to a nationwide survey.

Nonetheless, the amount of meat consumed in India has remained small. At less than 4kg per person, it is the lowest in the world. This is likely to be partly down to cultural factors for some in India, including not eating certain types of meat for religious reasons.

Is meat consumption falling in the West?

Many in Europe and North America say they are trying to cut down on meat, but is it working?

Not really, according to statistics.

Recent data from the United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) suggests meat consumption per head has actually increased over the last few years.

While we may think that meat is becoming less popular, US consumption in 2018 was close to its highest in decades.

It's a similar picture with meat consumption in the EU.

While Western consumption of meat is steady, or slightly increasing, the types of meat eaten are changing.

This means less red meat - beef and pork - and more poultry.

In the US, poultry now accounts for half of meat consumption, up from a quarter in the 1970s.

These types of substitution could be good news for health and the environment.

The impact of meat

In some circumstances, eating meat can be beneficial.

Moderate quantities of meat and dairy can improve people's health, particularly in lower-income countries where diets may lack variety.

But in many countries, meat consumption goes far beyond basic nutritional benefits.

In fact, it could be a health risk. Studies have linked excess red and processed meat consumption with increased risk of heart disease, stroke and certain types of cancer.

Substituting chicken for beef or bacon could be a positive step.

This swap is also better for the environment as cows, in particular, are inefficient converters of feed to meat.

Compared to chicken, beef has anywhere in the range of three to 10 times as much impact on land use, water and greenhouse gas emissions. Pork is somewhere in between the two.

A future where meat consumption is sustainable and balanced across countries would require major changes.

This would mean not only a shift in the types of meat we eat, but also how much.

Essentially, meat would have to become more of a luxury again.

What we risk as humans if we allow gene-edited babies

shutterstock_1250962702-940x580 — Gene-editing may result in unwanted side effects. Source: Shutterstock

Asian Correspondent-February 21 at 1:26 AM

A SECOND woman is said to be pregnant with a gene-edited baby in China, according to reports this year. It follows revelations last November that gene-edited twins had been born, which caused much debate.

One of the fears expressed by scientists is that gene editing may result in unwanted side effects.

But beyond the health and medical concerns, what are the philosophical issues at stake here when it comes to gene-editing babies?

Undesirable mutations introduced by gene editing to sperm, eggs or early-stage embryos could be reproduced in future generations. But future generations are unable to give their consent to the risks being taken, says Francis S Collins, the former leader of the Human Genome Project and now director of the US National Institutes of Health.

The Chinese scientist responsible for the gene-edited babies aimed to produce offspring of HIV-infected fathers who will be naturally resistant to the virus.

Eliminating disease and other harmful conditions may be a laudable aim, and most people would welcome a world in which no one has to suffer from, for example, haemophilia, muscular dystrophy or other genetically carried disorders and disabilities.

SEE ALSO: Babies and other crazy things criminals sell on Instagram

Should we, shouldn’t we

Would you want a designer baby? Source: Shutterstock

Let us assume that the health risks of gene editing are exaggerated or can be eliminated.

While designer babies may be some way off, we need to start thinking now about how far should we go in editing away undesired characteristics or adding those that are desirable.

Any prospective project to enhance the qualities of the population recalls wrongs committed by government-sponsored eugenics programs in the United States and Canada, as well as Germany in the early 20th century.

In 1939, the Australian government also passed legislation to institutionalise or sterilise those deemed deficient, but it was never put into practice.

Some philosophers argue there is nothing wrong with allowing parents to select characteristics that they want their children to have. In his 2010 book Enhancing Evolution, the UK bio-ethicist John Harris says this is ethically no more problematic than giving a child a good education.

Australian philosopher Julian Savulescu argues that parents ought to use whatever technology is available to select the children whose characteristics will enable them to live the best lives.

These philosophers fail to take seriously the social problems that genetic enhancement is likely to cause.

SEE ALSO: Asia’s most extreme population controls

Only the wealthy

Use of the technology is going to be expensive – especially when it is first introduced – and only wealthy parents will be able to afford to enhance their children.

The result may not be as bad as imagined in the 1997 science fiction film Gattaca, which portrays a society divided between the genetically privileged and those whose lack of enhancement consigns them to menial jobs.

But genetic enhancement is likely to make societies more unequal, and equality of opportunity will become more and more meaningless.

Let us imagine that all parents in a future society will be able to choose the characteristics of their children. Some philosophers worry that babies designed to meet the demands of parents will make them into consumer products.

The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas argues, in his 2014 book The Future of Human Nature, that genetic engineering will restrict the ability of individuals to make free choices.

Even if this is not so, it may drastically affect parent/child relationships by undermining a basic ethical principle: that parents should accept, love and care for whatever children they have.

What parents want

Genetic engineering is likely to heighten parental expectations. If parents don’t get the child of their choice – if the qualities they selected do not materialise or if the child fails to make use of them – their disappointment could lead to denigration or rejection.

Ethical doubts about genetic engineering motivate a view that many philosophers favour: that genetic therapy to eliminate disease and disability is ethically acceptable, given that the risks can be overcome.

What do parents want? Source: Shutterstock

But genetic enhancement is ethically problematic. The line between enhancement and therapy is difficult to draw.

Studies show people who are physically attractive are likely to earn more than those considered to have below-average looks. Does this mean “ugliness” is a disability that ought to be corrected by genetic engineering?

Or, similarly, is having a below-average IQ a disability, something that should be subject to change through gene-editing?

Gene editing and prejudice

Should parents be able to engineer the skin colour of their children to try to circumvent the social bias they might otherwise experience? Being black creates serious disadvantage in some societies.

But it is a mistake to treat social problems as if they were the fault of properties possessed by some individuals.

If people are intolerant, then catering to their prejudices will not make them more tolerant. They will find other reasons or objects for their intolerance.

If less attractive people are disadvantaged or people of low intelligence are belittled, we ought to question our standards and behaviour. If black people face social discrimination, we should fight against racism rather than seek to accommodate it.

Behind this response lies the liberal conviction that we ought to welcome human differences and respect individuals in all their variety and ways of being.

To eliminate disease and severe disabilities is a worthy objective. No person should suffer them. But to eliminate human variety is not only risky; it eliminates perspectives that enrich us.

By Janna Thompson, Professor of Philosophy, La Trobe University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creating genetically modified people is no longer a science fiction fantasy; it's a likely future scenario. Biologist Paul Knoepfler estimates that within fifteen years, scientists could use the gene editing technology CRISPR to make certain "upgrades" to human embryos -- from altering physical appearances to eliminating the risk of auto-immune diseases. In this thought-provoking talk, Knoepfler readies us for the coming designer baby revolution and its very personal, and unforeseeable, consequences.

If you would like to know more about this or similar information we could help you or your company, please contact us by sending us a message or go to our website at http://internationalux.com/

Sunday, February 24, 2019

“THE KEY PROMISES OF JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE MISSING IN THE PM WICKREMESINGHE’S MESSAGE.” – NAVI PILLAY

24/02/2019

(Ceylon Today/25.02/19) Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay came strong on the current Sri Lankan Government for trying to seek Cabinet approval for a truth and reconciliation mechanism, when its leaders accepted to address justice and accountability in post-war Sri Lanka.

‘’I am disappointed to learn that on the eve of the interactive dialogue on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’(OHCHR) report on Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council, the Government of Sri Lanka is resorting to yet another delaying tactic to escape……implementation of Resolution 30/1,” she told Ceylon Today.

On Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent call to the masses for a process of truth telling, regret and forgiveness, similar to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of South Africa, for a true reconciliation, Pillay said, “The key promises of justice and accountability are missing in the Prime Minister’s message.”

Pillay, while in Office had also been tough on Sri Lanka and continued to voice against the conduct of the local politicians’ time and again failing to work on a long-lasting reconciliation process for the people who have suffered from the bloodiest war in history.

Pillay, a famed judge and jurist of South Africa, said the Government accepted to address justice and accountability in post war Sri Lanka and appears, instead, to be retrogressing by seeking Cabinet approval for a truth and reconciliation mechanism alone.

She added that was a misrepresentation of the South African process; but in any event each TRC is unique and aimed to fit specific contexts.

The South African TRC model she added embraced the above, including truth telling, prosecutions and reparations.

“It was by no means a perfect system, but was conceived as politically expedient in the context of the events there but that context cannot be compared with the massive killings, disappearances and atrocious crimes suffered by populations in Sri Lanka.”

She reiterated that the UN has promoted TRCs in conflict and post conflict contexts as part of transitional processes. Transitional justice is concerned with how societies emerging from conflict or from repressive rule address the legacy of past violations of International Humanitarian law and human rights, ensuring accountability, justice and reconciliation. The experience of those who suffered human rights violations must be central to shaping transitional justice responses. This means respect for rights of participation, gender perspective and implementation of the rights of victims to an effective remedy, she noted.

She pointed out that Transitional Justice (TJ) rests on four pillars: the right to the truth; the right to justice; the right to reparations and the duty of states to prevent the recurrence of violations.

“The goal is to restore and protect the rights of individuals and recreate bonds of trust between citizens and state, principally through respect for the rule of law.”

Out of experiences in the world, the UN Secretary General in his report of 2004, spells out transitional justice as the full range of processes and mechanisms associated with a society’s attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation. It consists of judicial and non-judicial processes and mechanisms, including truth seeking initiatives, prosecutions, and reparations programmed, institutional reforms and amnesty provisions.

“Contrary to what the Prime Minister said, South Africans did not stop filing cases arising from the conflict. In fact, just this past month, the family of the late Ahmed Timol, who died in Police detention, officially from suicide, charged a security policeman for his murder, after evidence, (That had not been brought forth at the TRC), was disclosed at a recent judicial inquest.

Contrary to what the Prime Minister is saying, reconciliation, in overcoming divisions and building trust, cannot be understood as a call for impunity or disregard of victims’ rights, she added.

“If Sri Lanka intends to establish a TRC, then it is important that the rulers follow what President Nelson Mandela did when he set up a TRC: comprehensive national consultations, broad based participation of civil society, protection of witnesses, independence of the commissioners exclusive of any political interference, she advised the nation that is struggling to formulate a process that is very much in need,” she said

By Sulochana Ramiah Mohan /CT

Sirisena wants to withdraw from UNHRC resolution

24 February 2019

Lanka's president Maithripala Sirisena said he wishes the country could withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council resolution that it co-sponsored, in an interview to the Sunday Times.

"I would wish we can withdraw from it. Discussions are now on over this matter," he was quoted by the Colombo based paper as saying.

His comments come just days before the UNHRC's session is due to start in Geneva where the resolution is expected to feature.

“We are preparing for these sessions. We have shown some progress. Our armed forces have not committed war crimes. The worst crimes were committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE),” Sirisena added.

Tamil victims have consistently rejected the government's claims it would provide justice and accountability, and are increasingly calling for a referral to the International Criminal Court as the only means of ensuring justice.

Sri Lanka’s unanswered human rights questions

Meera Srinivasan

-FEBRUARY 23, 2019

Though the current government has overseen some initiatives to address the U.N.’s concerns, critics see the efforts as merely checking the boxes.

It is that time of the year when Sri Lanka’s war-hit north and east come under sharper focus. The 40th session of the UN Human Rights Council will commence on February 25 and go on till March 22 in Geneva.

A “core group” on Sri Lanka, comprising Canada, Germany, Macedonia, Montenegro and the U.K., is expected to present a resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. The group will continue to work in partnership with Sri Lanka, in a bid to take forward the joint resolution that Sri Lanka co-sponsored in 2015. In 2017, Sri Lanka obtained a two-year extension to implement it. The upcoming resolution essentially ensures continuing international oversight.

While the current government takes pride in setting off some significant initiatives to fulfil its commitments, its critics see them as ‘merely checking the boxes’ to please the international community.

Meanwhile, there is some buzz around the government constituting a Truth and Justice Commission — reportedly mooted by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in the Cabinet — but there is little clarity on the political consensus to establish it.

The question of accountability for the Sri Lankan state’s war-time excesses has remained a touchy issue for southern leaders, as many in their constituencies hail soldiers as war-heroes, and subjecting them to any scrutiny is a political risk. Conversely, the aversion among southern leaders to any truth-seeking mechanism puts off Tamil campaigners, desperately seeking a resolution of burning questions, be it on the truth about a missing relative or the mystery surrounding the whereabouts of a relative they saw surrender to the Army.

Time to forget the past?

When Mr. Wickremesinghe, during his recent visit to the north, said it was time to forget the past and forgive those who committed “mistakes” and move ahead towards reconciliation, it didn’t go down well with many in the north or south. All the same, his development drive is witnessing some belated, but welcome momentum.

He oversaw the $45 million-project around the Kankesanthurai harbour, supported by India, and spoke of developing it into a commercial port to help build an economic hub around it. The government yet again announced its plan to upgrade Palaly airport in Jaffna into an international airport, with direct flights to India, Australia, Japan, Europe and West Asian countries. Following his visit, Mr. Wickremesinghe instructed Minister for Transport and Civil Aviation Arjuna Ranatunga to commence development work on it.

Meanwhile, the Finance Ministry and the Central Bank are focussed on addressing the widely-prevalent household debt problem, pressuring thousands. Caused mostly by exploitative microcredit by way of expensive loans, indebtedness has emerged as a key post-war issue.

From former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s time, it was the gap between massive infrastructure development and people’s fundamental bread and butter issues that led them to predatory credit. The roads and electricity that Mr. Rajapaksa built did little to address poverty and the requirements of a community ravaged and dispossessed by a three-decade war. That, along with the present administration’s insufficient push, has left residents of the north and east in a dire economic situation. Nearly 10 years may have passed since the war ended, but there is little evidence in people’s lives showing any progress in that time.

Even matters as basic as housing for the war-displaced have seen inordinate delays. After a controversial project for prefabricated steel houses was rejected by the community, activists and the Tamil political leadership, the government is yet to initiate an alternative scheme, despite the Cabinet approving the construction of 25,000 brick houses in the northeast almost eight months ago.

The war-affected community’s basic needs have awaited attention and action for a decade. Like in India, it is election year in Sri Lanka. Politicians should not wait until they can make another poll promise.

Meera Srinivasan is The Hindu’s Colombo correspondent.