RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
They've Managed the Forest Forever. It's Why They're Key to the Climate Change Fight Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52299"><span class="small">Julia Rosen, The Lost Angeles Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 24 November 2019 09:22

Rosen writes: "The first time Mandy Gull visited Canada's Broadback Forest, she was struck by the displays of delicate lichen. By the dense, ancient trees. By the moss-covered floor, which rose and fell like a rumpled green blanket."

Berta Cáceres, an environmental activist and indigenous leader, was murdered in 2016 after protesting dam development in Honduras. (photo: Eduardo Verdugo/AP)
Berta Cáceres, an environmental activist and indigenous leader, was murdered in 2016 after protesting dam development in Honduras. (photo: Eduardo Verdugo/AP)


They've Managed the Forest Forever. It's Why They're Key to the Climate Change Fight

By Julia Rosen, The Lost Angeles Times

24 November 19

 

he first time Mandy Gull visited Canada’s Broadback Forest, she was struck by the displays of delicate lichen. By the dense, ancient trees. By the moss-covered floor, which rose and fell like a rumpled green blanket.

“There’s an energy in that kind of forest that I don’t think you find just anywhere,” said Gull, a member of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi in Quebec and the deputy grand chief of the Cree Nation. “You have to go there and see it and feel it.”

Tucked into the south shore of Hudson Bay, the Broadback is home to old-growth spruce and three herds of endangered woodland caribou. It holds great significance for the Waswanipi Cree, which is why they are trying to save it from the clear-cutting that has already disturbed 90% of their traditional hunting grounds, including the trapline used by Gull’s family for generations.

“We’re so proud of our culture and so proud of our territory,” she said. “We have to fight for the things that are at risk.”

More than 600 indigenous communities live in Canada’s boreal forest, one of the last great swaths of intact wilderness on Earth. But every year, a million acres fall to logging to make timber and tissue products, including toilet paper sold in the U.S., according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. That’s seven hockey rinks’ worth of forest every minute.

Canada’s First Nations, with help from groups such as the NRDC and Greenpeace, want to stanch the losses and protect the lands their ancestors have depended upon for centuries — or longer.

Similar efforts around the globe will be critical to meeting the world’s climate goals, experts say.

Forests hold — and continually absorb — huge amounts of carbon, which would otherwise warm the planet in the form of carbon dioxide or methane. And a growing body of scientific evidence shows that indigenous peoples and other collective communities tend to do a better job of keeping forests and their carbon stores intact.

“Indigenous peoples generally have this worldview of relating in harmony with nature,” said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, and a member of the Igorot people of the Philippines. “That’s the main source of their own survival as well as identities.”

More often than not, indigenous peoples use the land in ways that keep trees standing — for instance, by harvesting fruits and nuts rather than timber. Techniques such as controlled burning, smart grazing practices and paying close attention to natural processes have helped people steward their land over the ages.

As a result, communally managed lands hold about 300 billion tons of carbon — about half the amount humans have pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Canada’s boreal forest and the soil beneath it contain about 12% of the world’s land-based carbon, said Jennifer Skene, an environmental law fellow at the NRDC.

“It’s our tremendous ally in the fight against climate change,” she said. “That carbon has to stay locked up there if we are going to avoid the worst impacts.”

But indigenous peoples and the forests they inhabit face increasing threats. In Canada, the danger comes from logging (although the government points out that the trees will eventually grow back) as well as fires and fossil fuel development. In Brazil, it’s a push for more cattle pasture. In Indonesia, it’s growing demand for palm oil.

In all, the planet is losing an area of forest the size of the United Kingdom every year, according to a recent assessment by a coalition of environmental groups. And new pressures arise all the time. Recent studies have found that drug cartels are driving new patterns of deforestation throughout Central America. They displace indigenous and rural people who live along their trafficking routes, and they fund destructive activities, such as clearing land for agriculture, to launder money.

Indigenous people often have limited options for warding off encroachment. Though communities use and manage almost half of the world’s land area, they have ownership over just a tenth of it, said Alain Frechette, a researcher at the nonprofit Rights and Resources Initiative.

Sometimes outsiders gain a toehold in subtle ways. For instance, they have married into communities and then taken control, said Anne Larson, who studies land rights at the Center for International Forestry Research.

Other times, land grabbers launch an all-out assault. In July, dozens of armed gold miners stormed a Waiãpi village in the Brazilian Amazon, killing an elder and forcing everyone else to flee.

The human rights group Global Witness estimated that, around the world, 164 indigenous activists and other environmental defenders were slain last year trying to protect their land.

In many cases, the threats to indigenous land are state-sanctioned. Governments frequently issue permits to companies to mine or log in indigenous territories. “They still see it as idle land that’s not being used that could be productive,” Larson said.

But research shows that granting indigenous groups formal rights to their lands is one of the most effective ways to support communities and conserve the forest.

For example, one study tracked what happened in the Peruvian Amazon after indigenous groups received official titles to their land. Using satellite imagery to estimate forest loss, researchers found that deforestation rates plummeted by 75% during the next two years. Another wide-ranging analysis showed that secure land rights were significantly correlated with forest preservation — or even gain — in Latin America and Africa.

Rights aren’t a silver bullet, but they do give people assurance that they can reap the benefits of sustainable forest management without having to turn to extractive industries for short-term profits, Larson said. In California, the Yurok tribe has made money from its forest preservation efforts by selling carbon credits through the state’s cap-and-trade program.

Rights also grant communities legal standing to rebuff intruders — as long as rights are respected and enforced by the government.

“The title is one thing, but knowing the title will be upheld … that piece has to also be there,” said Maggie Holland, a geographer at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Over the last 15 years, the area formally owned by indigenous and local communities around the world has increased by half a million square miles, Frechette said. (That’s an area nearly twice the size of Texas.) He estimates that simply implementing existing laws in four countries — Indonesia, India, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo — would more than double that.

The last few years have seen a groundswell of international support for indigenous rights, not only on humanitarian grounds but also for the good of the global environment. Over the summer, a high-profile report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change highlighted the need to empower indigenous peoples to meet international climate goals.

Even the pope recently advocated for protecting indigenous peoples in the Amazon and their forests, warning of “the greed of new forms of colonialism” and drawing fire from some quarters of the Catholic community that see indigenous cultures as pagan.

But Gull said she has yet to see global leaders truly embrace indigenous perspectives. She noted the lack of indigenous voices at the recent U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York, which she attended.

“If governments really want to make a serious change, they have to buckle down and they have to listen to what indigenous people are saying,” she said. “Stop saying it on their behalf and ask them what they think.”

Companies and consumers also need to consider the role of trade in driving deforestation and, by extension, climate change, Tauli-Corpuz said. After all, it’s the demand for products such as palm oil, beef and toilet paper that makes cutting down trees profitable in the first place.

“Many of the products that they consume come from forests where indigenous peoples’ rights are violated, and which are not sustainably managed and controlled,” she said.

Gull does see some signs of progress in Canada, where it was once illegal for indigenous people to sue the government over land claims.

Part of the Broadback is already safe from logging, and the Cree are negotiating with the government of Quebec to turn most of the watershed into a conservation area that they would help manage.

“It’s a very good discussion going on, it’s very positive,” said Michel Ares, the assistant manager of the Waswanipi forestry department and a member of the Cree’s negotiation team.

By the end of next year, the Canadian federal government hopes to establish 27 such Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas across the country as part of its effort to protect 17% of its landmass under the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity.

Eli Enns, a political scientist and president of a nonprofit conservation group in British Columbia called the Iisaak Olam Foundation, said indigenous peoples can use these areas to do more than simply save a slice of nature. They can provide a glimpse of how humans can live more lightly on the land.

“Today, the tribal park is an olive branch to the dominant industrial violator,” said Enns, a member of the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation. “We can do things differently here.”

Enns points to Meares Island off the coast of Vancouver Island. Thirty-five years ago, his forebears blocked logging crews from entering to harvest old-growth spruce trees and declared the entire island a park.

Now it supports numerous indigenous communities that rely on renewable hydropower and geothermal energy. It also provides water and natural attractions for the nearby tourist destination of Tofino.

“We can create a positive alternative,” Enns said. “Maybe no one is going to become a billionaire out of this, but everyone is going to get their needs met. And we can live and have abundance and just enjoy the beauty of the world.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Lighten Up, People, It's Thanksgiving for God's Sake Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=47905"><span class="small">Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website</span></a>   
Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:23

Keillor writes: "It worries me that I'm using GPS to guide me around Minneapolis, a city I've known since I was a boy on a bicycle, and also that I text my wife from the next room, and when I get up in the morning Siri sometimes asks me, "What's the matter?"

Garrison Keillor on Grand Avenue in St. Paul, near his bookstore Common Good Books in 2014. (photo: Jean Pieri/Pioneer Press)
Garrison Keillor on Grand Avenue in St. Paul, near his bookstore Common Good Books in 2014. (photo: Jean Pieri/Pioneer Press)


Lighten Up, People, It's Thanksgiving for God's Sake

By Garrison Keillor, Garrison Keillor's Website

23 November 19

 

t worries me that I’m using GPS to guide me around Minneapolis, a city I’ve known since I was a boy on a bicycle, and also that I text my wife from the next room, and when I get up in the morning Siri sometimes asks me, “What’s the matter? You seem a little down. Would you like to hear the Brandenburg Concerto No. 3?” And I say, Leave me alone, I just want to think, and she and I wind up having a conversation about delayed gratification.

Too much technology in my life. I used to go to Al’s Breakfast Nook and now I go on Facebook. Thanks to social media, my handwriting has become illegible. It took me half an hour to decipher a note I left on the kitchen counter that said, “Why am I here? What’s the purpose of it all? Who needs me?”

But Thanksgiving is on the way so let’s talk about something more cheerful such as profound gratitude. I’m from Minnesota and grew up in a culture of cheerfulness. Now I’m old and have much to complain about and am grateful for memory loss. My mother did not encourage complaint — “Other people have it worse than you,” she said, referring to children in China. She also said, “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Which eliminated journalism as a career and politics, music criticism and any form of fiction except children’s books.

My parents came of age during the Depression, when everyone they knew was hard pressed and scraping to get by, and you did not complain because everyone else was in the same boat. Mother darned socks and mended jeans. They bought day-old bread as a matter of course and shopped around for the cheapest gasoline and slaughtered their own chickens. Dad cut our hair. He bought cans of vegetables for half price whose labels had come off and you didn’t know if it was carrots or beets. They did this cheerfully. I found it embarrassing and I rebel against them by getting haircuts from barbers and paying exorbitant prices for produce raised in Guatemala. I buy fresh bread. But I try to emulate their cheerfulness.

We live in the Age of Extreme Sensitivity. People have been fired for looking cross-eyed at someone. People have been offended by books they never read and demanded they be dropped from libraries. You get on a bus and you remind yourself not to smile; someone might take it the wrong way. Disparaging terms such as “birdbrain,” “nincompoop,” “sourpuss,” or “klutz” are now considered elitist and can get you into hot water.

Lighten up, people.

Cheerfulness is a choice, like what color shirt to wear. Happiness is something else. Joy is a theological idea. Bliss is brief, about five seconds for the male, fifteen for the female. Euphoria is a drug: they give it to you for a wisdom tooth extraction or a colonoscopy. But cheerfulness is a habit. You do it as a favor to other people. You hang on to it despite heartbreaking news — the college boy who left the party drunk and passed out on a freezing cold night and died, 19, a nice kid who did one dumb thing and ffffft he’s gone. Management changes at work and the good boss is replaced by a numbskull and suddenly life is intolerable. An old friend goes over to the dark side and thinks that God has ordained You Know Who as Emperor of America and will brook no dissent.

Ignore these troubles and embrace the great American virtue of cheerfulness. Don’t be held hostage by the past. Look ahead and improve the day. When you feel sour, wash your hands and brush your teeth and you’ll feel a fraction better and from that fraction you can go on to exuberance and exhilaration.

I once bought a king-size mattress from a furniture warehouse and tied it to the roof of my car with twine and it blew off as I drove home on the freeway and I ran to rescue it and a big rig blew past me blasting his horn and I almost bought the farm at age 45. I’ve done other idiotic things but feeling the Doppler effect of twenty tons going 65 fifteen feet away made it memorable.

When I think back to that day, it cheers me right up. I’m here. Survival is the key to cheerfulness. God bless you this week and your beautiful family too. Be nice to each other.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
We Read All 3,907 Pages of Ukraine Testimony So You Don't Have To Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50058"><span class="small">Margaret Taylor, Lawfare Blog</span></a>   
Saturday, 23 November 2019 14:22

Taylor writes: "Public impeachment hearings by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence began on Nov. 13 with testimony from Charge d'Affaires to Ukraine William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, and have continued over the following weeks."

Fiona Hill and David Holmes. (photo: MCV)
Fiona Hill and David Holmes. (photo: MCV)


We Read All 3,907 Pages of Ukraine Testimony So You Don't Have To

By Margaret Taylor, Lawfare

23 November 19

 

ublic impeachment hearings by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence began on Nov. 13 with testimony from Charge d’Affaires to Ukraine William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, and have continued over the following weeks. These witnesses and others have already been deposed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence behind closed doors. 

To make these voluminous pages more digestible, Lawfare contributors have summarized each of the released 15 deposition transcripts. The summaries are available below and include links to the relevant deposition transcripts:

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Cancellation of Colin Kaepernick Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52290"><span class="small">Ta-Nehisi Coates, The New York Times</span></a>   
Saturday, 23 November 2019 13:23

Coates writes: "We are being told of the evils of 'cancel culture,' a new scourge that enforces purity, banishes dissent and squelches sober and reasoned debate."

Ta-Nehisi Coates. (photo: Gabriella Demczuk/NYT)
Ta-Nehisi Coates. (photo: Gabriella Demczuk/NYT)


The Cancellation of Colin Kaepernick

By Ta-Nehisi Coates, The New York Times

23 November 19


“Cancel culture” has always existed — for the powerful, at least. Now, social media has democratized it.

e are being told of the evils of “cancel culture,” a new scourge that enforces purity, banishes dissent and squelches sober and reasoned debate. But cancel culture is not new. A brief accounting of the illustrious and venerable ranks of blocked and dragged Americans encompasses Sarah Good, Elijah Lovejoy, Ida B. Wells, Dalton Trumbo, Paul Robeson and the Dixie Chicks. What was the Compromise of 1877, which ended Reconstruction, but the cancellation of the black South? What were the detention camps during World War II but the racist muting of Japanese-Americans and their basic rights?

Thus any sober assessment of this history must conclude that the present objections to cancel culture are not so much concerned with the weapon, as the kind of people who now seek to wield it.

Until recently, cancellation flowed exclusively downward, from the powerful to the powerless. But now, in this era of fallen gatekeepers, where anyone with a Twitter handle or Facebook account can be a publisher, banishment has been ostensibly democratized. This development has occasioned much consternation. Scarcely a day goes by without America’s college students being reproached for rejecting poorly rendered sushi or spurning the defenders of statutory rape.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
If John Bolton Keeps Refusing to Testify, Congress Should Arrest Him Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=52287"><span class="small">Daniel S. Alter, TIME</span></a>   
Saturday, 23 November 2019 09:27

Alter writes: "For several weeks, the House of Representatives and the President have been playing a destructive game of chicken."

John Bolton. (photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)
John Bolton. (photo: Jose Luis Magana/AP)


If John Bolton Keeps Refusing to Testify, Congress Should Arrest Him

By Daniel S. Alter, TIME

23 November 19

 

or several weeks, the House of Representatives and the President have been playing a destructive game of chicken. In support of the impeachment inquiry underway by the Democratic House majority, the House Committees on Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight have issued subpoenas for documents and testimony from State, Defense and Energy Department officials as well as White House staff. Those subpoenas seek information regarding the Administration’s now-abandoned demand that the Ukrainian government investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter for corruption before it would receive nearly $400 million in U.S. military aid.

President Trump is defiant. Proclaiming that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, the president has flatly directed the House-subpoena recipients to ignore them. With disdain for the sole constitutional safeguard against a President’s “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Trump has essentially told House investigators to pound sand.

The President and his supporters have vociferously condemned the House inquiry for yielding too little firsthand information about the Ukraine affair. Yet, what we know so far from the witness testimony to date is that the people with the most firsthand knowledge – including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary Rick Perry, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman, and Rudolph Giuilani – have, at the President’s instruction, refused to tell us what they know.

Under the Constitution, Congress is not impotent in the face of brute obstruction.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that each chamber of Congress can hold a person in contempt for flouting a legislative subpoena, and – as Justice Brandeis explained in Jurney v. MacCracken – each chamber may also coerce obedience “by means of arrest.” In other words, the House Sergeant at Arms may take people into physical custody until they provide information withheld from Congress.

Over 90 years ago, the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty took note that “mere requests” for information “often are unavailing,” and that information voluntarily provided to Congress “is not always accurate or complete.” The Court thus agreed with Congress that various “means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed” — that is, that “the power to inquire – with process to enforce it – is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” In fact, because coercive custody was a familiar legislative practice that pre-dated the Constitution, the Court concluded that it was an inherent congressional power granted by Article I.

That inherent power has not evaporated over the last century.

That Congress can imprison a person who defies a legislative subpoena does not mean, however, that it should do so at every opportunity. Quite to the contrary – especially in cases involving highly partisan disputes, where discretion and sound judgment are the measure of good governance. Jailing someone for contempt is a drastic action and is sure to fuel political strife. Usually, the most responsible way for Congress to enforce a subpoena is to undertake civil proceedings in federal court. That can be a long process, though, and time is of the essence when the occupant of the Oval Office may have betrayed the country.

Adding to the complexity of considerations, imagine if a congressional-subpoena recipient were presently employed by the executive branch. It would create a potentially incendiary spectacle for the House Sergeant at Arms to execute an arrest warrant at the White House or some executive agency, or to seize an executive officer at home. Good stuff for on-screen political thrillers, but wildly inconsistent with the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine that peacefully keeps our three branches of government from interfering with each other’s operations.

Moreover, an active member of the executive branch might have a more solid argument that Congress’s demand for information was constitutionally barred by executive privilege than would someone retired from service. Presidents are entitled to seek confidential guidance from their advisors, and those discussions are presumptively shielded from judicial and legislative inquiries – although that presumption is vulnerable to overriding principles of justice and fair play.

But what if there were a critical witness, say a very senior official, who is no longer an officer of the executive branch? What if that person had a spokesman announce that he or she has firsthand knowledge of “many relevant meetings and conversations” regarding the impeachment inquiry “that have not yet been discussed”? And what if that person insisted that he or she would not testify before Congress unless and until a federal court ruled that a House subpoena was enforceable? What should the House of Representatives do in those circumstances?

Well, according to his own attorney’s statement, Ambassador John Bolton – President Trump’s former National Security Advisor – is that witness. Indeed, witness after witness at the House impeachment hearings has confirmed the centrality of Bolton’s role in all of this. Given Mr. Bolton’s senior rank, political gravitas and widely reported opposition to Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, his testimony could condemn or vindicate the President. Either way, he is a source of invaluable evidence in a matter of the highest national importance. In no circumstances, therefore, must the House give Bolton the prerogative to put conditions on his compliance with a subpoena.

No, the House should stand firm, subpoena Mr. Bolton, and – if he refuses to comply – exercise its constitutional authority to detain him until he agrees to testify.

If ever there were a valid basis for Congress to punish contempt by imprisonment, it’s a private citizen’s refusal to give evidence that is crucial to presidential impeachment proceedings. There are few congressional actions that are as grave and requiring of a more thorough investigation. The House Intelligence Committee has so far declined to subpoena Mr. Bolton, with an official claiming that it has “no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months.” But that reservation was clearly founded on the committee’s assumption that its subpoena would be tested in court through civil enforcement proceedings. Considering its power to arrest Mr. Bolton, however, perhaps the House should reevaluate that decision – thereby giving Mr. Bolton the incentive to reevaluate his.

The prospect of sitting behind bars can make a person seriously examine the legitimacy of his or her position. That’s the point of coercive custody. And Bolton just might reconsider his silence now that days of public impeachment testimony have likely shredded any remaining claims to executive privilege. Not only is he no longer in the Administration, the subject matter has already been disclosed in detail by numerous witnesses.

Bolton has claimed that he won’t testify for fear of potential legal repercussions from revealing confidential information, even though none of the hearing witnesses has yet to have this issue. In truth, he’s likely more worried about provoking the ire of the Republican Party.

But if he remains silent, it is highly unlikely that the dispute will stall in the courts. Should he be arrested, Bolton would surely have his lawyers file an emergency petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he’s being held illegally. This request for immediate release would put his legal arguments against testifying on the fast track for judicial determination. When someone’s liberty is at stake, courts generally do not postpone hearings for weeks, as they might in a civil subpoena enforcement action. So there is little chance of martyrdom.

Ambassador Bolton was the President’s National Security Advisor and is rather hawkish by reputation. He, above all, appreciates that the rules of hardball apply when the safety and security of the United States are at risk. The impeachment inquiry is closely scrutinizing whether those vital interests have been compromised. Mr. Bolton, it’s time to play ball.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 Next > End >>

Page 682 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN